Talk:Tetris

Former featured article candidateTetris is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleTetris has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2025Good article nomineeListed
August 12, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
November 10, 2025Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 20, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that some researchers have studied Tetris as a potential form of psychological treatment?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 6, 2011.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


RFC on How to Define Tetris

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for option 1. For future reference, the RFC page states that if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion. Iseult Δx talk to me 18:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


How should Tetris be defined in the lede sentence (first sentence) of the article?

  • Option 1: A video game
  • Option 2: A video game, with an endnote describing the sources that consider it a video game series
  • Option 3: A video game series
  • Option 4: A video game series, with an endnote describing the sources that consider it a video game

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your choice in the Survey with an optional brief explanation. The Discussion section is for extended discussion.

Survey (lede definition)

  • Option 2 or 1 – Sources are fairly consistent in calling Tetris "a video game". ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with 1 as well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 – Sources do seem to call it both, but in terms of the bredth of the article. There is Tetris and there are follow-ups in a larger Tetris franchise/series/etc. But you have to start with something, so saying its a game first and then series of games after makes the most sense to me. I think if anyone reads the article or even the opening paragraph this will become clear. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I think I misunderstood what I was voting for. I'm altering my vote. I don't think we need a hatnote at the beginning. The information about it becoming a series can be explained later in the series. I struggle to see anyone getting confused over this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, NOT a series. Tetris is a puzzle video game with many variations. The fact that a series was made much later is not significant enough for the first sentence. The reader should know by the end of the lead section that the many versions and variants have been collectively considered a franchise, and that in certain cases a series was issued. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Binksternet Summarizes it well. It's a video game with a lot of versions. A footnote would be unneeded and redundant to the rest of the lead section. oknazevad (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. (Summoned by bot) so I hope I understand the discussion so far, but I agree with Andrzejbanas and Binksternet. It's a proper noun and can have more than one thing it refers to, but ontological discussions about proper names and if all kinds of things that are in the Tetris series are "Tetris" would be confusing for the reader and not really what we're aiming for with this page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - Among sources, Tetris is most consistently referred to as a singular game with a plethora of variants. Therefore, I believe that's how it should be addressed in the lede. Man-Man122 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or 5 - an endnote is not acceptable -- it's not just a game and an endnote is so insufficient to represent the WEIGHT of coverage that certainly seem "series" -- in many versions (Tetris2, Tetris3, Welltris, etcetera), with the original coder Pajitnov making a sequel and the Tetris Company making it a franchise -- so option 3 is the best choice offered. I'd generally say it really should work on wording to say both points in the lead - a game with many later versions and followons -- but an endnote would not be sufficient. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 as was decided earlier this year: a game that can only be played on video devices and the groundwork for the genre "puzzle video games," as stated by the BBC. We try to put Tetris into a box so we can compare it to standalone games within conventional series and franchises like Minecraft or Zelda. And while we understand it's an orange standing among apples, we cannot deny that it's still fruit. Tetris is a video game with endless spin-offs. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that when we get too far into the weeds in an article, and especially in an opening sentence, trying to get the full scope and nuance of a subject just right, we lose the readers before they've even begun, and we give UNDUE WEIGHT to an argument that is far less relevant than the notable subject at-hand, see MOS:INTRO. Define Tetris simply alongside its notability and then go into an explanation of how it compares to other video games in the larger video game genre and the smaller puzzle video game genre. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (lede definition)

The RfC is unclear whether the first sentence is under discussion, or the first paragraph, or the whole lead section. My !vote is assuming the first sentence is the target. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's about the first sentence. Lazman321 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being relitigated, and what steps have you taken to get a better/different/clearer outcome than the RfC from earlier this year? — HTGS (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the outcome appears to be much clearer this time around Man-Man122 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, but I’d like to know what’s changed, so I know whether I should just copy and paste whatever I said last time. — HTGS (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright. It's essentially the same, but this targets the first sentence specifically. Man-Man122 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Query regarding the usage of "version" vs. "title"

I notice there is a preference for the word "version", used both as a synonym for implementation and instead of "title", as in "220 versions" or "Across its numerous versions". Regarding this last usage, I consider that a commercial title often has different versions for various platforms. I'd love to understand the reasoning for preferring "versions" in these cases instead of "titles". Carloseow (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Title" is almost always the wrong term - see WP:ELEVARTITLE. Popcornfud (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very interesting. Although I agree that "title" would not be the best replacement, I have the impression the word "version" is used too often as a synonym for ports, products, or releases. At the same time, I think it is an oversimplification to say newer entries are just "versions" of the 1985/85 original, considering they have additional mechanics and modes. Considering WP:ELEVARTITLE is an essay, I think it is not helpful to ban the word "title" entirely. I believe it is proper as a noun in certain cases (not as a synonym for "game"). Example: in a series context, the expression "developed new titles" accurately covers both sequels and ports. I believe "title" is a superior noun as a synonym for "product". In contrast, "version" can imply a mere "iteration with minor changes", which is reductive. A newly released game often features its own distinct graphics, history, mechanics, and modes that establish its identity as a standalone product rather than a simple iteration. An example: Tetris DJ, I would not call it "a version". Carloseow (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about a finer point of writing style. It's perfectly legitimate to point you to the well-written essay about avoiding bad writing practices.
You appear to want the page to emphasize commercial interests rather than its organic roots. I disagree with that effort. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Binksternet. Thanks for the comment. In a few words, you stated points that require a longer response than I intended. I want to reply briefly and not deviate from the purpose of the talk page.
> perfectly legitimate to point you to the well-written essay
I felt I never suggested the contrary. The wiki link says: "This is an essay on pitfalls in avoiding repetition. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community." It is perfectly valid to ask about the implications of the advice or opinion, because it can be read as the word title must not be utilized or that any occurrence of "title" must be replaced by "game" . The examples mentioned prove the point, but I consider it can be also plain examples without considering the context of the sentences, or reading it in isolation. For example "Sonic the Hedgehog titles" if it is under a videogame series section, is understandable in that it refers to the games; there is no ambiguity. I cannot enter into long arguments about this in this article talk page. My view is also an opinion.
@Popcornfud gently replied about why not "titles", that I don't share. But currently nobody has brought reasons about why "versions" word is used a lot.
> You appear to want the page to emphasize commercial interests rather than its organic roots. I disagree with that effort.
First you say that something "appears" to be the case, and then you call it "an effort". I refute those claims because I cannot figure how the word title emphasizes commercial interests. Also, the whole point of my question is that the word "versions" at least for me, seems to be overused and for different purposes. Carloseow (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the word "version" is used in Tetris contexts. In Retro Gamer 25, I noticed it is used many times: "officially recognizes in excess of 220 versions", "Tetris Giant [...] in this version". Other expression used are "Tetris Attack [...] this spinoff title", "Other N64 titles followed. Tetris 64", "outlining a minimum specification for Tetris titles", "Tetrisphere [...] a game of Tetris". "Hatris, a more peculiar take on Tetris". Carloseow (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede and sales

A consensus was reached on the List of best-selling video games article, aided in part by the RFC that took place here, some time ago. The consensus concluded that reliable sources were split as to whether Tetris is the best selling video game or Minecraft and thusly, arguments for either are equal in weight and both currently share the number one spot. Should the article, with particular focus on the lede and sales section, be changed to reflect this? Man-Man122 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to. It's too much of a digression. Yes, one of the most notable things about Tetris is that it's the all-time best seller when the long list of variants are aggregated. What's number 2 isn't particularly relevant here, especially since we already had the RFC that determined the consensus to treat it as a single game with variants across platforms. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may have been a misunderstanding or I may have worded my statement poorly. I don't intend to incorporate "number 2" here. I meant that, in the same vein that the Minecraft article calls it the best-selling game, despite the dispute among sources, should the same be done here (i.e. "Tetris is the best-selling game..." with a note explaining the dispute as is done on the Minecraft article), given that there are a fairly even amount of sources on both sides of the dispute and the consensus at the best-selling game article gives equal levity to both sides? Man-Man122 (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

tetriminos? tetraminos? tetrominos?

hi everyone! sorry if this has been brought up before but i was wondering if the spelling of and redirect to the tetrominos page was right, since there's a few different spellings that all have uses

for example and used here: [[1]], we see the spelling tetriminos (with an i!) which is also trademarked by the tetris co, whereas on here we see a redirect to a spelling of tetrominos, which is the math term

(but additionally, the term is commonly misspelled as tetramino also which works phonetically...) wondering if the article should reflect the term used by tetris co or the common term used by mathematicians

thank you all :) Beebsters38 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.