# Talk:Tetris


### Tetris
Interested in nominating this article for FAC, especially given its importance. Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks, Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)


#### FAC PR sidebar
I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there, and remove this entry when this is closed. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Vacant0
I'll give some recommendations next week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I know that we don't usually have an infobox caption, but considering that the logo has changed over the years, you could potentially include a caption "Logo since XXXX".
There's an overuse of images in the early sections of the article. I'd suggest having one image per section (in sections where there are currently multiple images).
Besides this, I don't really have anything to add. You should address concerns from other editors and then bring this to FAC. Feel free to ping me when you get at that point and I'll gladly review the article. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Shapeyness
Hey, thought I'd add some comments, hopefully these are useful. Amazing for a vital article like Tetris to be going to FAC! Shapeyness (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"There are advanced techniques that can gain more points than a Tetris" I don't think this is quite right from my reading of the source. I think the source is saying that these techniques are more important in competitive play because they allow quicker line clears, which will interfere with your opponent. Compare to the source for the previous sentence: "Scoring a Tetris should be one of your primary goals because it results in the highest amount of points. However, if you’re playing a competitive version of the game, like Tetris 99, then your goal should be sending the most amount of garbage lines to your opponent by clearing your own lines quickly." I don't know anything about Tetris scoring though so correct me if I'm wrong about that.
"nearly everyone with an IBM computer in Moscow and similar cities had played Tetris" Could maybe do with some clarification of "similar cities" here, i.e. this is referring to other large cities within the Soviet Union but not elsewhere
where a judge ruled that Mino... Since Mino hasn't been mentioned yet, I think it would be useful to say something like "the iOS game Mino"
"over 200 variants" - I don't see that mentioned in the linked source, only 65+ different platforms. Also, do you know what "as of October 2010" is referring to (source doesn't look dated to me)?
"As a result, some publications consider Tetris the best-selling video game of all time" Maybe worth clarifying that these publications are grouping all mobile releases together to get to this conclusion
There is a little bit of repetition in the first paragraph of the cultural impact section from things mentioned in other sections, it would be nice (imo) to replace this with more examples from the "representation in a vast array of media such as architecture, art, and merchandise" if possible - this is just personal opinion though, I think it would be fine for FAC currently.
"first scientifically recognized" What makes this recognition scientific? Reads as just a personal observation atm
There are some non-MEDRS sources used for medical claims in this section (e.g. Plank 2022 in relation to PTSD and cravings) and some bits I'm not sure are psychological research at all (e.g. the Tetris effect stuff, although you could maybe use sources like these: "Replaying the Game: Hypnagogic Images in Normals and Amnesics" and "Game Transfer Phenomena: Origin, Development, and Contributions to the Video Game Research Field").
On PTSD interventions, these recent sources might be useful (although I didn't go through in detail so they might not be): "Evidence That Tetris Reduces Immediate but Not Subsequent Daily Intrusions of a Trauma Film: A Multilab Replication Study" and "A summary review of the development of using a brief imagery-competing task intervention (ICTI) for reducing intrusive memories of psychological trauma: applications in healthcare settings for both staff and patients"
Source titles should have consistent capitalisation for FAC, also some books have locations and others don't. I would suggest going through and double-checking formatting is ok for all sources, I noticed "Is That Just Some Game? No, It's a Cultural Artifact" has the author in all caps and nytimes.com instead of The New York Times. Also, I think the page references for the Ichbiah 2009 might be wrong, they don't match up with the page range in the bibliography.
I think image reviewers generally like all images to have alt texts for FAC


#### ImaginesTigers
Very much enjoyed your previous work on Fallout so happy to provide a review. This is an interesting video-game article because it's both an article about an old game and a kind of "series" article. Won't go into exhaustive detail here but I've given the article a read and have some high-level thoughts
Sourcing

There's a mixture of Sfn and <ref>s used throughout the article, which is not likely to pass muster at FAC
There's inconsistency across source fields
We have articles on Tetris: The Games People Play (Box Brown) but it isn't mentioned anywhere
Content

I've read the first few paragraphs and they're cleanly written. My feedback would be that I have access to one source (The Ultimate History of Video Games) and there's quite a lot of missing context from here. I can see that book is used 4 times across the page – are we using sources as best we can? Some examples:
Thinking Pajitnov had the authority to make a deal – Didn't he? Is this related to the Soviets not honouring contracts?
Stein granted these rights before securing them by himself (TUHOVG) – is this related to The Soviet researchers expressed interest in forming an agreement with Stein via fax, but were unaware that this fax communication could be considered a legal contract in the Western world from the article? If so, "the Soviet researchers" confuses me here because I thought it referred to Pajitnov and Brjabrin and not Stein (an executive)
There's an earlier statement that The Soviet spirit was preserved, with fields illustrating Russian parks and buildings as well as melodies anchored in Russian folklore of the time (I think for the American release), but later The earliest versions of Tetris had no music (Versions) – is this a reference to the in-development versions? Or a released version of Tetris?
Given that this is essentially a series article, I'd expect information on gameplay innovations on Tetris' core rules. For example its allowed players to freeze time, or has colour-matching mechanics, or had gravity switching. The game has been a battle royale, and 3D spherical game map, or multiplayer.
Recommend using surname for Maya Rogers instead of calling her Maya – it's a bit intimate
— ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 of Spread beyond the Soviet Union (1985–1988) states "Gilman Louie, CEO of Spectrum HoloByte, sought to exoctize the game's Soviet origins,"
I don't believe that "exoctize" is a word, while "exoticize" is, could this be changed? Therealcopper (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a back and forth between two editors on the wording of the opening of the article.
@Lazman321
@Oknazevad
I've opened this section in hopes that you two could talk to each other before the start of a potential edit war. Man-Man122 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

We had an RFC specifically about this matter just recently. I think we should honor that outcome. It reflects how the vast majority of sources describe the game. Frankly, I don't think we need to change the lead just to appease a pair of FAC reviewers. FA status doesn't matter to me nearly as much as accurately reflecting the sources. It's not a requirement, while consensus and verifiability are core policies. oknazevad (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
In light of this dispute, I have withdrawn the FAC, so that won't be a concern. To tell you my thoughts, I personally consider Tetris a game with multiple versions, and that is what most sources describe it as. On the other hand, the scope of this article encompasses games that could be part of a Tetris series but greatly alter the base Tetris gameplay, with major examples including Pajitnov's and Nintendo's Tetris sequels, Tetrisphere, Puyo Puyo Tetris, Tetris 99, and Tetris Forever. This, among other reasons, is why I voted to call Tetris a series during the RfC.
Regardless of my opinions, I care more about resolving this dispute and making this article the best it can be. Before anyone claims that the RfC resolved it, the talk page discussions at the List of best-selling video games page and the FAC nomination and resulting edit war just now have demonstrated that the dispute is still ongoing. Not to mention, the closing comment did not establish a strong consensus in either direction. Despite consensus supposed to be driven by argument quality, the closer did not assess which arguments were stronger, instead saying that opinions were mixed but the majority appeared to lean toward describing Tetris as a game. That does not sound like consensus to me. Lazman321 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
See, I wouldn't call Tetris 99 or Tetris Forever sequels. 99 has a battle Royale mode, but the single-player mode is just plain Tetris. Forever is a retrospective including multiple ports, but each is still a port of Tetris. That's always been the crux of the issue, one that's fairly unique to Tetris—they're still all the same core game, even if each version may have some distinct features to convince people to buy a game of which they likely already have a version. But that's how the sources consistently talk about it, as versions of the same core game. It's unusual, for sure. oknazevad (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
@Oknazevad The sources use the word Tetris in a variety of manners. In some usages it means a brand, in other usages it means a franchise, in other usages it means a single game, and other usages it means a set or series of games.

This encyclopedia could have a separate article for every usage, or it could have a single article for all usages.The current article chose  to encompass all the usages, which is fine. However, If the article is going to include multiple usages,  the multiple usages must be clearly explained in the lead.
In addition, the words  "version" and "variant" and "game" and "Tetris" are used in a confusing manner within the article. This has nothing to do with what the sources say... this is a simple matter  of clarity and helping readers understand the content of the article. The same word cannot be used in two contradictory manners within a single article.... or, more precisely, when it is used that way it must be qualified with some kind of adjective or qualifier to make it clear to the reader what the precise meaning is in the context. Adding that kind of clarity has nothing to do with reflecting the sources usage, it has to do with making sure the readers understand what the sources were saying, in each specific  context.
Again, this is all because the word Tetris is used by the sources in a variety of ways to mean a variety of things.  The article cannot pick a single usage (even if that is the most common usage) and pretend the other usages do not exist, especially when that confuses the readers. The article needs to be honest about that and use very clear wording to help the reader grasp the multiple usages. Noleander (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
You make a good point. I'll probably expand on this thought tomorrow (it's late in my time zone and I have work tomorrow), but perhaps "version" should be used when a particular release sticks to the core gameplay, while "variant" for those that do things like crossovers or go 3-D or such. Just a first thought. The biggest thing is that the most common way a particular release is described is as "a version of Tetris". That phrasing clearly indicates to me that the writer is describing it as a version of one thing, not part of many things, which is why the series descriptor shouldn't be the first thing in the article.
And the "media franchise" link is wholly unneeded. This isn't like the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise where there's a core set of fictional characters who appear in written works like comics, TV series, and films. The existence of a merchandise bearing logos and associated images doesn't make Coca-Cola a media franchise, and it doesn't make Tetris one either. (And no, a dramatized presentation of the history of the game and the people behind it doesn't, either, any more than any dramatic telling of a historical event does.) oknazevad (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The word "video game" or "game" can refer to a specific gameplay structure, rather than a specific individual creative work/piece of software. Articles like Minesweeper (video game) and Sokoban frame the same thing as a genre or a series respectively. None of these solutions are ideal. "Series"/"Franchise" unnecessarily excludes non-official versions of Tetris which are identifiably the same game. "Genre" suggests more variety than Tetris tends to have; Tetris is a specific implementation of a larger falling-block genre. Poker is described as a "family" of games, which might work, but is definitely not a supported phrasing here. Sources call Tetris a game, and I think that's fine. These are all identifiable games that happened to have been implemented and released in a variety of ways. When you say "Tetris", you mean the general mechanics of Tetris, which together form a game. Many sources are already framing it like that without even mentioning that they're doing it, so I think so can we. We shouldn't assume a reader would get confused by this; the framing of a "video game" as a specific published creative work is not the assumed base state. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"Series"/"Franchise" unnecessarily excludes non-official versions of Tetris which are identifiably the same game. Well, those unofficial versions are barely even mentioned in the article in the first place beyond the Tetris Company's enforcement of its IP. Lazman321 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps there's a potential compromise solution. Most sources refer to Tetris as a game, yes. However, like I mentioned above, the article encompasses games that, sure, are heavily influenced by Tetris gameplay, but implement such heavy alterations that they cannot simply be called a version of Tetris. To account for both of these points perhaps the first sentence should be something like "Tetris is a puzzle game series..." with a footnote explaining how publications often consider Tetris to be a game. Any thoughts? Lazman321 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I object to including series in the first descriptor. Tetrisis consistently treated as a singular game the same way tennis is a singular game. (Yes, I chose that comparison specifically because the Tetrisname was in part inspired by the name "tennis".) Leaving that most common way of describing it to a footnote is not keeping in line with the sources. Let go of the idea that some versions having variation somehow reduces that core element of the game. That's where you're getting hung up. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what you mean. Just because certain games share similar "core elements" does not mean they are the same game. For example, every Puyo Puyo game involves matching four puyos of the same color as they fall down a fixed screen. Every Bejeweled game involves matching three gems of the same color within a tile-based grid. Both Puyo Puyo and Bejeweled are generally considered puzzle video game series, not individual video games, despite the variation between games within those series being no more than the variation between Tetris games. Lazman321 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I have a hard time doing a decent source review with how Google has changed in the past decade, but I wonder if Bejeweled should be treated as a singular game concept as well, like Tetris. This source talks about it in that same way, for example: [4]. I'm sure there's better sources out there talking about Bejeweled in the same way as people talk about Tetris, or Tennis. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I seriously doubt it. That link appears to be about the first game (current TFA btw). Meanwhile, I searched "Bejeweled" on WP:VG/SE, a search engine for video game sources considered reliable, and found multiple sources that referred to Bejeweled as a series, usually in the context of one of the direct sequels, Bejeweled 3, such as [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Lazman321 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason why Tetris should be described as a series or a franchise. Both of those ideas require an acknowledged owner of the intellectual property. The history of Tetris is messier than that, with competing claims and rogue releases. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
You mean The Tetris Company? Lazman321 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Those guys are the eventual winners, not arriving on the scene until after a decade of confusing claims and counterclaims, and they didn't gain full control until 2020. So no, I don't mean them. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The "confusing claims and counterclaims" occurred over a few years at most, not a decade, and were about sub-licensing, not ownership. Regardless, just because the owner of an IP has been historically confusing doesn't mean the IP couldn't exist as a series of entries, and it doesn't change the fact that Tetris has been owned by The Tetris Company and Blue Planet Software (now Tetris, Inc.) for almost two decades now. I honestly don't get your argument here. Lazman321 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Man-Man122, Noleander, Oknazevad, Mablestrip, and Binksternet. Upon further consideration, I think I might be accidentally WP:BLUDGEONING right now. I'm sorry about that. I'm gonna take a step back for a day to clear my head and give you all space to discuss this. If no clear consensus appears to be reached by the time I get back, would you all be willing to participate in a WP:DRN thread? Lazman321 (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you have anything to apologize for. You were just presenting your arguments.
In the event that no consensus is reached, I would have no problem with participating in a DRN thread.
Cheers Man-Man122 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm really sorry that your great efforts in improving this article has devolved into a semantic argument. I know how frustrating that is. Take your time. I think a big problem is that both framings are correct to some degree, so I worry it will be impossible to get everyone to agree on what the best framing for the article is. Regardless, I'm happy to make my case in a DRN thread if one's made, and I'll try to leave it at that so as not to make the bludgeoning worse ^_^; ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all for your patience. I have started a thread at WP:DRN#Tetris. Feel free to participate. Lazman321 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)