Talk:Tetris

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)

"Title" is almost always the wrong term - see WP:ELEVARTITLE. Popcornfud (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [], 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)

Spare time or work hours

The article says:

While at the center, he developed more than twenty types of games in his spare time[8]

with a paper reference:

テトリスを創った男 パジトノフ独占インタビュー [Exclusive interview with Pajitnov, the man who created Tetris]. The Super Famicom [ja] (in Japanese). Vol. 4, no. 7. SoftBank. April 16, 1993. pp. 72–73.

I don't have access to the paper magazine and I do not read Japanese, but I understand that the "spare time" is reported by Pajitnov himself, so there could be a conflict of interest. Julien Mailland says:

Despite the fact that the USSR generally did not recognize private property, or the copyrightability of software for that matter, or the fact that he had designed the game on his work time using his work computer, Pajitnov, who by then had moved to the U.S., cast himself as the victim and claimed that the game’s copyright had been his all along.

[...]

Further, he developed the game on his work computer during work hours, which under U.S. legal principles would make it his employer’s property.

How do we address the conflicting versions? Did the trial state something about whose time he developed it in? Do we say that he claims to do it in his spare time instead of putting it in Wikipedia's voice? -- Error (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think spare time, in this context, means the time Pajitnov had to himself while at work, which does corroborate what Ackerman says in page 33 of The Tetris Effect. It makes sense, since Pajitnov wasn't tasked with creating games, he was tasked with working on speech recognition software. I don't think we need to say this statement in his voice, though I would prefer to find a secondary, English source for this claim. Lazman321 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)