Talk:Tetris/Archive 2

Why was the competition portion of the article changed? The I.G.A.'s championship is just as important! Why remove that piece of the article after a month of it being there? Makes no sense. Xero, 11/22/11 74.240.252.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

The I.G.A's Tetris World Championships finished earlier in October. Yet no one has added the data and the championships. It hasn't been published completely yet, but I saw a Wordpress link on the web about it with the winners final score. TetMan66 22:39, 15 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.115.186 (talk)

It makes no sense to call this a "soviet" game, as if its creation was the will of Stalin or something. It's enough to say "created in the Soviet Union." Danfeder (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• True. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  16:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! "The will of Stalin!" Hoho! Seriously, I'm laughing my ass off on that statement! Still, I agree that the change is a good change. Apple8800 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - the games oozes Soviet-ness, the music, the graphics, marketing, and the social implications surrounding it. It's much more than a game created in the Soviet Union and it's impossible to consider the game wiothout also thinking of its background. a_man_alone (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere I read it says the game was made in Russia but I still have the original game boy version and it says it was made in Japan. Pyrolord777 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The game concept itself was invented in Russia. Most game cartridges are mass manufactured in Japan and the like. Termine (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That explains alot, thanks. Pyrolord777 (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Google is beginning to set-up and feature this on their homepage. Suggesting you lock this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.131.2 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be on their main page logo link as of now. A lock would be good. --bc (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lock seems to be in place for newly registered users --User:Eedlee (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pieces are not generated through purely random means, but rather through a bag-like algorithm. The seven pieces are generated in a random order, and so on. So it is never possible to encounter the same piece more than 3 times in a row. I'll dig up a source in a minute or so... --Nintendorulez talk 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Source here: http://www.tetrisconcept.com/wiki/index.php?title=Playing_forever --Nintendorulez talk 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

16/04/2007 Game speed

It mentions here that "They can no longer keep up with the increasing speed" however the game has a "speed limit" beyond which the game can't actually process the game mechanics any quicker, this occurs on level 200 heart (level 400 of the normal game) when the game is simply unable to get any faster and additional levels do not increase the game speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.159.78 (talk)

True, the gravity on the Game Boy version has a maximum of 1/3G, but the DAS (sideways motion autorepeat) on the Game Boy version is ridiculously slow at 1/9G. Combined with no lock delay, this results in the accessible cone not entirely covering the bottom rows of the playfield. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing I always used to think about as a kid was whether it was possible to clear the screen completely once play had started. Anyone know about that? Phyte 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Clearing the screen is called a "bravo" and is worth extra points in Tetris The Grand Master. Colour_thief's latest version of the "Playing forever" proof (linked above) has a chance of producing a bravo every 140 pieces. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks :) Any place for this in the article, do you think? Phyte 20:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bravos" are possible but uncommon. I've played for years and have maybe racked up twenty or so. However I have yet to achieve a double Tetris Bravo where two 'I' pieces fall in succession each scoring a Tetris with the second leaving the screen clear. It remains one of my ambitions. That and a Triple Tetris which must be as rare but is at least a possibility on the old Gameboy version which doesn't use bag generation. Carlospesdacore (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Tetris: From Russia With Love per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetris: From Russia With Love. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:06Z

A user has replaced the image in the infobox with a screenshot of the game, saying that this is more informative. The problem with the new screenshot, from Wikimedia Commons at [1] is that it is somewhat non-standard. It does not display the traditional pieces made from four squares (this is why the pieces are called tetrominoes). While the idea of a screenshot of the game is a good one in principle, it might be better to find a copyright free image that is closer to how the game normally looks.--Ianmacm 14:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. If a line is cleared containing a piece, the blocks in the line are removed, and the piece no longer has four blocks in it. The only time you have all complete tetrominoes is if the player just started the game or recently bravoed (cleared all blocks in the playfield). But I can provide a screenshot of a Free (GPL) game that comes closer to the Guideline, at least with respect to colors, next, hold, ghost, etc. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

unless somebody posts a little more information, this should be regarded as spam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.6.112 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I think the article should be expanded to include more information from the From Russia With Love documentary (which just aired last night on the Discovery Science Channel here in the US). The history is quite interesting, and it would really add a lot to the article. - Oldiesmann 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The term Dual Rotation has been used as a trademark by Sherpa Snowshoes. This gaming article article only referred to dual roation one time, and in all other places referred to double rotation. So I edited to change to double rotation. Jeff@loquate.sbcgloabl.com

There's a lot of confusion around the web on what the music for the Gameboy/Tengen versions are based on. Music A GB is obviously the Korobeiniki, Music C is Bach, but Music B I haven't managed to find a definite answer for: it isn't the Kalinka in any version of it I've heard, and it isn't the Sugar Plum Fairy either. I don't know the Tengen one well enough to speculate. Anyone got anything definite? If I have some time in a week or so I may make a webpage with direct comparisons to clear up the issue once and for all.

Though the most common Music A is Korobeiniki, there was an early gameboy release in Japan with different Music A. This is mentioned on the Gameboy Tetris page (says it's unknown), and on the Japanese wikipedia page on Tetris (says it's "Minuet", which isn't very specific). This version is very rare, and I don't think was ever released outside Japan. I'm going to try to do some more work on tracking down the exact song and then I'll update the page accordingly. --Koorogi (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is wrong the music B!! Isent Katyusha by Matvei Blanter, you can listen it on youtube and see the truth. Change please. --155.54.231.32 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

TetriNET is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TetriNET, which will likely either result in keep or merge to Tetris. Please contribute to the discussion if able. ∴ here…♠ 18:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction says 1984 and in history 1985.

-- According to Reuters and The Guardian, the correct year is 1984, not 1985.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/virtualworlds/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217701315&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_Personal_Tech

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/jun/02/tetris-25anniversary-alexey-pajitnov

Hatredman (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This article fails to mention that many people consider Tetris to be timeless... sort of like a new chess that people will still be playing and analyzing thousands of years from now. I can't find a source... but it's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VFX Watch (talk • contribs) 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I distincly remember seeing a phantom option in the origanal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.87.123 (talk) 18 August 2007

What "phantom" in Tetris 3.12 appears to do is make the O tetromino invisible. It's not like the modern "ghost piece". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The L-Block is tearing it up at the GameFaq's contest, after its conclusion I suggest we add a section about the "character" if not give it its own wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.76.123 (talk)

I am pretty sure the I-Block was at the top of the list for "Best video Game Weapon" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.84.36 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should have its own section, though its own page may be pushing it.--Liekmudkipz 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence in the section needs to be removed, if the piece of trivia remains at all. It's not wikipedia's job to say what is and isn't a video game character. Especially since the source doesn't say it isn't one. Besides, it's clearly an alphanumeric character in a video game ("L" block). --72.138.186.64 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the middle of May. 67.160.38.235 (talk · contribs) is deleting the paragraph again, writing (The tetris shape is not a videogame character that exhibits any human traits nor does it have its own persona therefor it cannot be considered a character, it was a comic relief element of a contest.) People who think Tetris shapes don't have a persona obviously haven't seen the cut-scenes in Kids Tetris. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the video I'm talking about. I've already used up my revert for the day, so I'll keep it on talk for a while. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I integrated the interesting trivia points into the article, but a few just weren't significant enough to make their way in. The trivia warning box says after integration, to remove the inappropriate ones. Yay or nay? 72.150.35.103 22:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NOT A SINGLE WORD OF MENTION IN A TETRIS ARTICLE. MIGHT AS WELL PUT THE LEGEND OF ZELDA AND LINK IN THE SAME ARTICLE AS WELL. IT IS THE BEST PIECE --24.188.17.249 (talk) 2007-11-10T23:52:32

"Not a single word"? O RLY? Then what's this, quoted from the article as of right now?

The video game website GameFAQs hosted its 6th annual "Character Battle", in which the users nominate their favorite video game characters for a popularity contest in which characters participate. In 2007, the L-shaped Tetris piece (or "L-Block" as it was called) was entered into the contest as a joke. However, on 2007-11-04, it was confirmed to officially have won the contest.

What else must be said, other than what is already said here or in GameFAQs#Contests? --Damian Yerrick (serious | business) 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say this. First off L-Block isnt a character, but is a piece to the whole puzzle. To say it is a character is somewhat ignorant and silly. Also how can you say it is a male or female when in fact it has neither male or female reproductive organs. Giving L-Block its own page qould be rather absurd and a great waste of a wikipedia entry. Venomscarnage (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

L block is not a character the majority already acknowledges he was a joke entry in gamefaqs and is not an actual videogame character - people will continue to remove him from the page because stating he is a character on the tetris page is a form of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.38.235 (talk • contribs)

The point is that even if L-Block isn't a character, it still beat characters in the contest. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed while many sources on the internet describe the Nintendo scoring scheme, in which points are awarded for lines and even more for combinations, almost none mention the original scoring scheme, in which points are only awarded for dropping pieces. The only source on the internet that I've found that actually describes the original scheme is

http://colinfahey.com/tetris/tetris.html

although it is alluded to in

http://books.google.com/books?id=HJNvZLvpCEQC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=tetris+spectrum+holobyte+scoring+no+points+lines&source=web&ots=sw1ukxcKpF&sig=UGhsa3NxA7sh1TZCwFdDHap1v8o

However, I'm not sure the first source counts as verifiable and I don't actually have access to the second source. I haven't played the original version, but I do know that the old Spectrum Holobyte version uses this scoring scheme (or something very similar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.124.160 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As of 2001, "standard" scoring is a constant times 1, 3, 5, 8 for 1, 2, 3, 4 lines, or 12 for a back-to-back 4 lines. I can provide a most reliable reference from the manuals of Tetris Worlds (GBA) and Tetris Zone and supporting references from various online descriptions of Tetris DS. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded the original version maybe a year ago, I can't remember where. But if you look, you can find it, and verify the scoring system, if you're really curious. But I guess that would be considered "original research" and not valid to be published here. 208.70.18.89 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)XIF866

Should we add a section regarding the Tetris movie that comes out August 20th, by Black 20? Trailer here: [2] Kei-clone (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any corresponding announcement on Tetris.com. I'll put it in the article if you can WP:CITE a couple independent reliable sources that demonstrate that the trailer is not a hoax. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps I should have linked to the mainpage for the movie instead [3]. Not sure about the lack of announcement on tetris.com, but it could be the indie nature of the movie that keeps it off the mainstream talks. Dunno what WP's policy is on indie movies, but I thought I should at least give it a mention here. Kei-clone (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core content policy is that all claims made in articles must be verifiable to reliable sources. The notability guidelines, such as the guideline for films, follow from this policy. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was not aware that notability applied even to films. I shall return in the future to this article then as we come closer to release date, when (probably) reliable sources do come up. Kei-clone (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The top-most picture is from "Emacs Tetris." That space should be reserved for a legitimately licensed game--or at least a game that was under the pretense of a license. 65.6.98.84 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Elorg (or whatever it's called now) has never licensed a Tetris® game as free software. I'm guessing the screenshot of the tetromino game in GNU Emacs got put there because some editor interpreted non-free content criterion 1 to preclude the use of a screenshot of an authentic Tetris game. I just removed the image for now, so as not to imply that the tetromino game in GNU Emacs is an authentic Tetris game. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be an image of the game in the infobox. I am not an expert on all the different versions of Tetris, but there must be an image somewhere that qualifies as a non-free screenshot, such as the one used in the infobox of Pac-man. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I'll use a shrunken version of the NES game's box art. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I more or less discovered that the Windows Best Of Entertainment version does not assign pieces randomly, but rather it's a carefully pre-arranged set or sets of pieces that are meant to accomodate the preceding pieces so as to set up moves for you, thus making the game somewhat predictable. To that extent, having realized that, the challenge then becomes a matter of how long you can think alongside the game as you lay down your pieces before the speed supercedes your ability to predict the gameplay. Again, don't ask me how I reached this conclusion as it just became suddenly apparent though it's definitely true. -Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that there may be a few too many images. What does everyone else think? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me at the moment. The biggest problem is avoiding copyright problems. The pictures of the pieces are useful for showing how the game works. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need five screenshots of Tetris? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Each screenshot of a Tetris product has a distinct purpose. We have the first version to be spread (Vadim Gerasimov's MS-DOS port), the iconic version (Game Boy), the two versions related to the copyright/trademark lawsuit (NES by Tengen and NES by Nintendo), and a modern Guideline version (iPod). --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If we had to lose one, it would be the iPod version which is not very descriptive of the game itself. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need an image of the Nintendo Tetris either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the importance of the handheld Nintendo version to the history of the game, I can't really agree here. The images are not repetitive because there have been numerous versions and incarnations of Tetris, and the article is designed to reflect this. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the NES version. The NES version is pretty standard. Maybe even Tengen's screenshot could be dropped - the differences are not significant enough to warrant both images. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Significant problems exist with this article.

• It contains lots of irrelevant information. Required content would be how the game is played, not what colors each block in every official and fan-made version is. Dwelving into the internal mechanics of the game without relating to what impact or concern this should be for casual gamers and non-gamers is certainly out of the scope of this project.
• I am in agreement with A Link to the Past above; there is an excess of images here. Image:Tetrominoes_IJLO_STZ_Worlds.svg is free and good (very valuable). The game cover serves to identify the game. For gameplay, only a single screenshot is needed (the principal interface is the same among all versions). The official NES version serves well enough for this role. Any other images that show off the same interface is just decorative and clutter.
• Among the primary sources used, just how notable is Lockjaw and [4] in the world to deserve singling out here. The Tech House innovation is unique and noticeable, getting noticed on BBC and other news sites, but those two homebrews?
• Further on reliability, what makes these sites reliable?
  • http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/huge_tetris_game_played_on_dor.php

Owned by Anticlown Media, it states "We're not business professionals or publishing professionals or any other sort of professionals. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what we're doing. We spend half the day running around the office with underwear on our heads, and the other half producing the greatest websites you've ever seen. It's not the most productive formula, but it works for us."

• http://www.arkmay.com/tetris/pieces.html

A fansite

• http://www.atarihq.com/tsr/special/tetrishist.html

A fansite

• http://www.abednarz.net/tetris.html

A blog

• http://www.freshcreation.com/entry/2000_square_meter_of_tetris/

A blog

• http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qauniver.html

No author, no references

Please read up WP:RS, WP:V, WP:VG/S, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches on what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia.

• The following should be reliable but can do with some backup from neutral sources.

• http://www.eeggs.com

Even though the site owners have published a book on easter eggs, it might still need further proof to back them up as experts on these things.

• http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/specialArt.cfm?artid=11267

Personally, I feel its reliability is iffy; it needs someone else (third-party reliable sources) to vouch for this site's claimed expertise.[5]

• http://vadim.oversigma.com/Tetris.htm

It would be helpful to get third party reliable sources to vouch for him as an expert on the game (he has credentials but need neutral backup).

• http://www2.math.uic.edu/~burgiel/Tetris/explanation.html

Considering this is only an extract or draft of the final piece, it is definitely more preferable to obtain a copy of Dr. Burgiel's "How to Lose at Tetris" in the Mathematical Gazette, July 1997 and use it as reference.

• Massive under-referencing: several paragraphs are unsourced.
• Beware of copy violations. Unless the uploader is specifically the copyright holder of the piece concerned, please do not link to youtube clips.
• It is missing consumer and critical reception. How did game reviewers view Tetris? What was the public reaction to it? This should have been huge. I recall people playing Tetris and its clones in subways and anywhere to while away their time. Sales information and news reports would have talked about this.

Instead of presenting a balanced piece that tells a reader about the history of Tetris (background and development), its gameplay, impact (sales, critical and consumer reception), and legacy, the current article is more interested in digging into the "geek" side, droning out the casual reader's interest with details of different versions unknown to most. Trivia could also have been better handled than simply tossing out "Here is where Tetris appeared!" In fact, it could be trimmed. It certainly befits the "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." of C-class. Jappalang (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Among the primary sources used, just how notable is Lockjaw and [6] in the world to deserve singling out here." Answer: The Tetris Company has never opened the internal operations of its products to public inspection. This means free fan games are the only tetromino games whose operations the public can inspect. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia caters to the masses. This means that the majority of readers would not be PhD holders. Most would likely have completed a high school education and achieved a degree or diploma later. Not many would like to dwelve into the "whys" of the game mechanics. Giving them a general overview of how the game is played is sufficient. If notable experts have explored features of the game, again a summary of their findings would suffice. Going into gravity and specifics of the algorithms is overwhelming to almost anyone (biggest guilty party: Variations section). Tetris is a simple but complex game. It would be best to tell readers "how" complex the game is but not throwing the book of "whys" at them. If there are multiple reliable sources that deal with significant research into the mechanics of Tetris, then an article—such as Mechanics of Tetris—that expounds on their findings can be spun off from here. Jappalang (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"It would be helpful to get third party reliable sources to vouch for him as an expert on the game (he has credentials but need neutral backup)." Our stub about Vadim Gerasimov cites Game Over, a book about Nintendo history by David Sheff. Can someone with a copy of that go grab some page numbers? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Unless the uploader is specifically the copyright holder of the piece concerned, please do not link to youtube clips." Will this be interpreted under Tetris Holding's disputed stance that it owns copyright in the rules of the tetromino game, not just a trademark on "Tetris" and a copyright in implementations? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how this relates to Tetris Holdings. To clarify, the copyright of the game shows belong to the media companies. Unless those companies specifically uploaded those clips to Youtube and expressly declared it so, do not link to them. Jappalang (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about Brain Wall. But I was referring more to videos of gameplay. A couple times this year, Arika (developer of Tetris The Grand Master) has filed OCILLA takedown requests with against YouTube users who post videos of themselves playing Heboris and Texmaster, claiming that videos of Heboris and Texmaster violate Arika's copyright in TGM. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tetris party (a WiiWare game) probably should be mentioned, if it isn't already.Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely this article is lacking, being without a photograph of a Nintendo Gameboy, which is the strongest visual association which the majority of readers will have with Tetris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.144.70 (talk)

There used to be one. It appears to have been taken out because Tetris products are not free software, and WP:NFC recommends keeping screenshots of non-free software to a minimum. See section "Images" above. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some one needs to add to the Colors of tetrominoes ... with the game boy tetris game colours, allthough the game was in greyscale, you can still use the patterns. just makes sence judging thats its the massive version of the game.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Three issues:

1. Copyright.
2. Wikipedia is not StrategyWiki.
3. I'd wager that all versions of Tetris that use Guideline colors combined (including at least Tetris Worlds, Tetris Elements, Tetris DS, Tetris the Grand Master Ace, Tetris for iPod, Tetris Evolution, Tetris Splash, Tetris Party, Tetris Online in Japan, and Tetris Friends) outweigh all versions of Tetris that use the Game Boy patterns combined (pretty much just Tetris for Game Boy and Tetris DX).

--Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.45.245.207 (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Easy spin dispute" section is difficult to read. We should start with an explanation of "easy spin" and evolve in a linear way please. 114.148.210.42 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion on playing forever, "one in (2/7)¹⁵⁰" doesn't make sense. Should be simply "(2/7)¹⁵⁰" or "one in (7/2)¹⁵⁰". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.64.216 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to edit the main page for fear of doing something "wrong," but I think that the pop culture section could be expanded by adding the human tetris performance by Guillaume REYMOND which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0LtUX_6IXY and Hank Green's "The Man Who Throws the Tetris Piece," which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApbvchiEdTY

Tonksnlupin (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culture" sections can become bogged down with trivia unless notability can be established. The human Tetris game is notable with around nine million views on YouTube, but the song is less well known. The human Tetris game could go in the external links section if nobody objected.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note:

The third paragraph says that Tetris is the second best video game ever, according to IGN top 100 video games...

It's 3rd...

heres the link...http://top100.ign.com/2005/001-010.html

2nd is...# 002 // Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

{{editsemiprotected}}

This is a fair point, although the citation in the article uses a chart produced by IGN in 2007, in which Tetris is indeed ranked at number 2.[7] There may be some issues about the notability of IGN charts, but the citation seems OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And really such charts are completely subjective and constantly changing. And the quote does attempt to put it in perspective by stating it was listed as such in their 100th issue vs. just stating its the 2nd best game period. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual Wikipedia policy is to stick to charts that have a proven track record of notability. It is unclear whether the IGN charts fall into this category, so the IGN references could be removed without any great loss. See also WP:BADCHARTS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  Not done: The statement is about the ranking in the 2007 IGN top 100. The cite validates that statement. It was ranked third in 2005, but second in 2007. Celestra (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

page seems to be (semi)protected? and has no icon on top. please add an icon. 79.101.242.230 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the shapes is currently called Tetromino. But in this article, will we standardize on "Tetromino" (the spelling used by mathematicians) or "Tetrimino" (the spelling used by The Tetris Company since the early 2000s)? TTC seems to use "Tetrimino" to refer to any polyomino, even the dominoes and trominoes, in the description of the beginner mode of Tetris Party in the game's manual. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed the whole article to use TTC's spelling "Tetriminos", even where tetrominoes are used in non-Tetris-related contexts. I've changed cases not directly related to Tetris back to "tetrominoes" and reworded the start of "Gameplay" to try to make a distinction between the two: "Tetriminos are game pieces shaped like tetrominoes, shapes composed of four square blocks each."

Tetris Friends is a free online service from The Tetris Company - why got the link removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.87.176 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Pentomino, which as far as I know was the game that inspired Tetris in the first place. -- Grumbel (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that while this article makes mention of infinite spin in new tetris versions, it doesn't mention the bag algorithm. In the official tetris standard the pieces are distributed as if they were in a bag, or a deck of cards, as such. you get one of each, then the cycle repeats. This makes the section on whether or not a tetris game can continue indefinitely much more complicated than it poses the question. source: http://tetris.wikia.com/wiki/Random_Generator 64.252.128.37 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikia is an unreliable source, as are its mirrors on harddrop and tetrisconcept. There is a proof that Tetris can continue forever,[8] but it was removed from the article due to failing the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This article (and the referenced paper) claims that, among other optimization problems, "Maximizing the number of rows cleared while playing the given piece sequence," is NP-complete. This is not true, for the simple fact that they are not decision problems (yes/no). (The optimization forms of problems like the Travelling salesman problem are NOT NP-complete.) This means the problem is not even in NP, but the paper misleadingly says, "It is easy to confirm that TETRIS remains in NP for all objectives considered below." They probably mean that deciding whether a particular value for each objective can be reached is in NP, which is true. One cannot expect a general audience to assume the distinction, however. The main result of the paper, not mentioned in the wikipedia article, is a decision problem: is it possible to clear the entire gameboard? --pfunk42 (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7813637.stm  Aar  ►  23:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of more modern Tetris versions generate pieces using the bag method that means you never get more than two of any piece in a row (which must make the game a whole lot easier) but I play the original Nintendo Gameboy version which must use some other algorithm because it is possible to get several pieces the same in a row. However if the generation was truly random then you would expect to get two in a row every 7 pieces (on average), three in a row every 7 to the power 2 pieces, four in a row every 7 to the power 3 pieces and so on. In actuality sequences are much rarer than this. Yesterday I kept track for about an hour of play (on level 9) and only noticed 3 triples whereas on average you might expect nearer forty. Also I must have played a good thousand hours in total and so might have expected to have encountered at least one sequence of 8 by now but the most in a row I've seen was 5 (twice, both times squares or 'O's). Does anyone have an explanation for these observations?

Carlospesdacore (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A month on and out of the blue an idea came to me. Maybe Nintendo Gameboy is using a 3 bag algorithm. This would mean the longest possible series would be 6 in a row and by my calculations you might expect this to occur on average every 3000 hours of play - which would explain why I've never yet seen one. 5 in a row would average out at once every 155 hours playing which sort of ties in with my experience. And two in a row would happen at about 75% rate compared to true randomisation. This is also pretty close to what I've observed. My probability computational skills aren't sophisticated enough to work out occurence rates for 3 or 4 in a row.

There is some sourcing here, but it uses the WP:WEASEL phrase "it is believed that Tetris assigns a nearly equal probability to each of these, making it much less likely that the player will get an obscenely long run without a desired tetromino." Without seeing the source code of the actual game, it is hard to comment on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph:

"The increasing speed of a Tetris game would eventually make it impossible to play unless capped at some reasonable value. Even given arbitrarily good reactions, a player would be limited by the frame rate of the computer or console on which they were playing. Consoles have a finite frame rate for both recording user input and drawing screen updates, so tetrominoes move down the screen in discrete steps. Depending on the algorithm used, this may result in tetrominoes appearing and landing within the period of a single frame, thereby preventing the player from repositioning the tetromino before it lands.[44]"

Not only does the cited source say nothing of the sort: the implication is completely untrue. I don't know of a single game which gradually increases in speed to have single-frame gravity and no lock delay, which WOULD be unplayable. The source makes clear that the TGM games do have lock delay, which makes them playable. In games with minimal lock delay, the maximum gravity is rarely even 1/20 as fast as instant gravity is. As this situation doesn't occur in any common games, it is irrelevant to playing forever. (the stuff about finite frame rates and such is also not supported by the source as well as wrong.)

On the other hand, one vaguely similar 'impossible to play forever' scenario comes up in one of the versions of NES Tetris. Around level 20 or so, the gravity reaches 1G (which, still, is roughly only 1/20 as fast as instant gravity) and, because sideways motion is so slow, it becomes practically impossible to move the pieces far enough from the column they spawn in before they lock. Unfortunately, I don't know of any reliable source for it. Vladimirdx (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The section mixes up two related notions. At lest in mathematics and theoretical computer science, something being impossible is different from having probability zero. For instance, throwing an infinite number of sixes with a die is possible -- you can construct a corresponding sequence of events. This sequence, however, has probability zero. In the same way, it is possible to play forever (you can construct a sequence of tiles that allow to play forever) but the probability that a corresponding sequence occurs is zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.115.87 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC) I believe such an event (which is strictly possible but has zero probability) is termed "almost impossible". But if you wrote that in the article, then the casual reader might assume that it could actually happen. In reality you can't play an infinitely long game of tetris, even if getting arbitrarily long sequences of certain tetrominoes were not an issue, because (amongst a plethora of real-world reasons) humans can't live forever. But for the record, the argument shows that, with perfect play, the chance of surviving after a certain number of tetrominoes tends to zero as that number of tetrominoes tends to infinity. This means that, for any non-zero probablity, there exists a finite number of tetrominoes for which the probability of survival is less than that probability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.74 (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In this subject, In order to understand what is the game, it is more usefull to give the reader a link to the actual game then to an article about it. (I put back the original link, it`s good enough and I don`t see any reason to change it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.105.221.100 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Most online Tetris games are unofficial clones and are therefore copyright violations which would fail WP:ELNEVER.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions: 1. What copyrightable elements do clones copy? 2. If clones do copy copyrightable elements, does this mean we shouldn't be linking to the official web site of GNOME Games (which includes Quadrapassel) or the official web site of Emacs (which includes M-x tetris)? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I am not a copyright expert, but links to unofficial clone games do not seem a good idea. Tetris is one of the most cloned games ever, but the name itself is trademarked and should not (in theory anyway) be used to describe unofficial lookalike games without licensing from The Tetris Company.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your trademark argument. It'd be like linking to a page about Puffs tissue in Kleenex. We already link to tetris.com, which has a "Play Tetris Now" button, and List of Tetris variants#Unofficial games mentions a few notable clones, so I guess the IP's concern is more or less solved. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's Tetris Plus (at least the console version) to be the first official Tetris with multiple piece previews and came out three years earlier than The New Tetris or The Next Tetris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.220.53 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand how competitions are held using tetris, can someone elaborate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.125.143 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says that Tetris "was released on June 6, 1984" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris#cite_note-1), but the earliest date given in the information box on the right is the unattributed "USSR June 6, 1985". Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.200.172 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tetrisominos from ASCII: (found elsewhere on Wikipedia)

▄▄█ ██ █▀▀ ▄▄▄▄ ▀█▀ ▀█▄ ▄█▀

70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time of this comment, so are "Platform(s)" listed as "Various". This is not very informative imho. Which are those platforms? This should be extended to the actual platform(s) this game is released to.

Maybe not the Game Boy version, since that has it's own article here on Wikipedia. And any other platform for Tetris that have their own Wikipedia article.

Ragowit (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In a university lecture I had a few days ago I saw a video of some scientists using optical tweezers to control atoms, and then using the atoms to play tetris. Worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A new Tetris has been announced for Xbox Live Arcade called [www.gamestooge.com/2007/02/20/tetris-revolution-confirmed-for-xbla/ Tetris Evolution]. I'm not familiar with this article, so can someone put this new info in the correct place? Thanks. JAF1970 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Update - it's NOT an XBLA title. It's a retail title. JAF1970 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Infinite spin currently redirects to this article. However, many (most?) search-engine results I see for that phrase are about spin (physics), and some are about computer programs freezing while busy waiting. (There are also some non-notable bands and companies, but those aren't relevant to us.) Is this worth a disambig or hatnote? SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Pronuciation of Russian Тетрис is IPA [ˈtɛtrʲɪs], like in теннис, not [ˈtʲetrʲɪs]) like in тетрадь. The reason of this phenomenon is that letter Е doesn't palatalize the preceding consonant (like in Russian тема [tʲemə], тесть [tʲesʲtʲ], теорема [tʲɪɐˈrʲemə], тело [tʲelə]) if the word may be considered a loanword and it is considerably new for the language. Examples are: теннис [ˈtɛnʲɪs], тег [tɛk]/[tɛg], тест [tɛst], тент [tɛnt], Теодор [tɛɐˈdor].

Source: I was born in Russia, my first language is Russian, I live in Russia. I think I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevvv (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea that play is impossible with an ideal random flow of pieces is well-cited. The argument that the piece generators are not actually random and therefore the previous argument fails in practice, seems right, but is uncited. Is it OR? Anybody know some sources on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:A002:9284:DFF:FEF3:FFE5 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In this article, there's the information: "By 1988, the Soviet government began to market the rights to Tetris, after a promotional trip to the country by Gerald Hicks, the one time United States champion of the game" Where does that info come from? I've searched on google, and here are two interesting search results:

• https://www.google.fr/search?q=Gerald+Hicks+tetris

this yields the wikipedia page, and many others with exactly the same text! (ripoff? :-) )

• https://www.google.fr/search?q=Gerald+Hicks+%2Btetris+-%22promotional+trip%22

no result with hicks and tetris, without the exact phrasing of the WP article. This makes me wonder whether it's just a piece of folklore that is being passed around. Of course I'm probably wrong, but still, I think it should be sourced. Jrob kiwi (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the section of computational complexity should be made bigger.

Check this page: http://liacs.leidenuniv.nl/~kosterswa/tetris/ There is a lot of information about tetris complexity, like ways to create board configurations, some variants of tetris that are undecidable, etc.

Also, recently appeared a document in arxiv that claims to have solved an open problem about tetris:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07204

what do you think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.13.166 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tetris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=12&id=635

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

An Ip keeps trying to add that it is illegal for someone under 13 to play Tetris. That is not what the sources say. The sources provided only discuss the privacy policy and what a tetris website will do with information, nothing about whether it is legal or illegal to play. Along with that edit they are changing a bunch of links so they go through redirects or to red links rather than to the actual article name. -- GB fan 16:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, you exceeded 3 reverts. 108.65.81.159 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not not exceeded 3 reverts, I have made 3 reverts. You have made way more than 3 reverts. -- GB fan 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, as of 2013, it is illegal for players under 13 to play Tetris. This is to comply with the COPPA. 108.65.81.159 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This is why new Tetris games ask you for your age, 0 to 120. If you enter a number under 13, you cannot play Tetris. 108.65.81.159 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not illegal for some one under 13 to play Tetris. Illegal means that someone could be prosecuted for doing it. A 12 year old can not be prosecuted for playing Tetris. -- GB fan 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It says that players under 13 can no longer legally play Tetris as of 2013. 108.65.81.159 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Which source says that they can not play it, I didn't see that in either one of the documents. Even if the Terms of Service or the Privacy did say that, it doesn't make it Illegal as you put into the article. -- GB fan 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Here. 108.65.81.159 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

To begin with that is facebook, not a reliable source. Next it is not for the generic Tetris game which this article is about. That is only for the specific Tetris Blitz game by EA. I very much doubt that what it says is true as it is not illegal to for a 12 year old to play the game. -- GB fan

That also applies to the rest of the EA Tetris games, as of 06.28'13. 108.65.81.159 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Whom ever wrote that is playing very loosley with the term illegal. A complay can not make something illegal, only a government can. -- GB fan 17:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They did that because of a 06.28'13 change to the law. 108.65.81.159 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They changed their terms of service but no goverment made it illegal. Stop edit warring. -- GB fan 17:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking that COPPA says that it is illegal for someone under the age of 13 to play Tetris. COPPA does not make anything illegal for the under 13. It makes things illegal for the websites, they are restricted in what information they can collect about under 13 year olds without their parents permission. The website can restrict access to those under 13 if they don't want to do the things they need to comply with the law for those under 13. None of this makes it illegal for someone under 13 to play the game. Also this only applies to those in the US. -- GB fan 18:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Gonna throw some solidarity in for GB fan. "It is illegal for a 12-year-old to play Tetris" is a gross misunderstanding of the words "Children's Online Privacy Protection Act". 198.86.72.2 (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Along with the legal issue above the IP is also changing links.

Changing tetromino to tetrimino

Changing pentominoes to pentiminoes

Changing tetrominoes tp tetriminoes

None of these changes are helpful, some are even detrimental to the article as they create redlinks out of blue links. -- GB fan 17:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

   On the Charlie Rose Show tonite, about 25 min after the hour, one of the closing comments of the male interviewee (Michael someone just before the female one) was to the effect that the Obamacare-repeal debacle involved [a?] "Tetris"-like situation (presumably of "too many moving parts" for control of the outcome to have been manageable). If it's not a coinage event, it may beat least a reliable source for a relatively new usage.
--Jerzy•t 03:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

   The female interviewee i mention above was the managing editor of Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs (and that Web page of her appearances presumably will be updated by sometime Monday -- if not w/in 24 hours of tonite, Friday -- helping identify what "Michael" was a guest in the same segment). My WAG is that he is Michael Duffy, Editorial Director of TIME, who has a history of 39 CR appearances, some of which may be contractual acknowledgements of his role in facilitating preparations for her (and other more telegenic TIME-folks') CRose appearances.
--Jerzy•t 04:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tetris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206023148/http://zone.tetris.com/page/manual to http://zone.tetris.com/page/manual
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805040528/http://www.gamespot.com/ds/puzzle/tetris/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/ds/puzzle/tetris/review.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607193954/http://www.gamespot.com/news/6181946.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6181946.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abednarz.net/wp/category/tetris-copyright/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140422035847/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/12/10-most-important-video-games-of-all-time-as-judged-by-2-design/ to http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/12/10-most-important-video-games-of-all-time-as-judged-by-2-design/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131205100245/http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/09/yes-the-library-of-congress-has-video-games-an-interview-with-david-gibson/ to http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/09/yes-the-library-of-congress-has-video-games-an-interview-with-david-gibson/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Histories of Tetris (see Reuters - link 2 in the article) state that the first playable version of the game was completed in 1984, not released. There is a difference.

(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tetris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427113515/http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/tetris.htm to http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/tetris.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcswMI1RwCY --Con^spiration 06:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tetris basic game.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Tetris basic game.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tetris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030513033006/http://www.geom.umn.edu/~burgiel/Tetris/tetris.PS to http://www.geom.umn.edu/%7Eburgiel/Tetris/tetris.PS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret: I understand why my edit had to be undone. It wasn't even that well done in my humble opinion. I think this the perfect time to discuss the current state of this article. One of the reasons why it was undone was because you consider this is the article to cover the original release. My concerns are that a lot of the article wants to talk about is Tetris as a series, more than a single release. I don't mind what format we use, so long as it's consistent. For me, even if there's no focus on the original game, I think this should be a series article. But that's just me, I'd be happy just with consistencyBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about this website?

• https://web.archive.org/web/20120317232434/http://pineight.com/tod/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20080615051514/http://www.pineight.com/lj/README.html#options

The only information I see is about clones.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, as you say, this is merely a clone, not a reliable source. In fact, neither source lists anything about Tetris, the latter only explains the rules of the clone game. Lordtobi (✉) 17:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

thank you. I wasn't sure what I was reading at first since they were sed as sources for aspects about Tetris itself. but I'm glad I got clarity on it. I'll remove them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that the NES version of Tetris has gotten more popular thanks in part to the Classic Tetris World Championship and the memes that came from it, do you think that this specific version of Tetris deserves its own page? The Game Boy release already has its own page and it only seems fitting that the NES version does too especially now with the resurgence in popularity and the increase in viewership of the tournament. I don't want to start doing anything unless others are on board with it. AquilaXIII (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm positive theres enough information to have its own article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia might not be meant to be a comprehensive guide, but I think T-spins are such an important part of modern Tetris that they deserve some attention. In fact, T-spins are a point source more efficient than that of Tetris's, and they've been that way since they were first scored. I'd at least like a showcase of doubles and triples, though I wouldn't mind them having their own section. https://tetris.wiki/File:Animatedtspin.gif https://tetris.wiki/File:Animatedtspin3.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon Curve (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

When picking a genre, it's important to look at the defining features of the game, which in the case of Tetris, are speed & reaction. That would categorize it appropriately as an action game.

Historically, Tetris has been classified as a puzzle game. However, it lacks all puzzle-game elements besides pattern-matching, which is not the main focus of the game. It's an action game that entirely relies on reaction and speed. Similar to games like DDR or Beat Saber, the main goal is to figure out the best positioning of your blocks/your body within a rushed time limit. The only difference is the lack of precise rhythmic timing. If we were to allow Tetris to remain under the puzzle game genre, that would be going down a slippery slope where nearly every game with puzzle elements (DDR, Dark Forces, Zelda, every adventure game) would be considered a puzzle game.

Unfortunately, no one really writes papers evaluating video game genres, so I don't have any to cite. I feel that this falls under WP:BLUESKY. Media references usually mention Tetris as a puzzle game, but that's probably self-referencing its historical categorization, which doesn't make sense. --HSukePup (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I take that back. I found 2 research paper that do address Tetris within the puzzle game genre:

Tetris could be probably considered the most influential puzzle title among the public and it is widely known. And, still, it is hard to consider Tetris a good puzzle game, as it relies notably on the players’ reflexes and coordination over the strategy or the solution (that is actually non-existent, as the player inevitably dies). However, as Jesper Juul [20] points out in his story of tile-matching games, Tetris and Chain-Shot! (also known as SameGame) could be considered the predecessors and direct influences of all tile-matching games.

— Marçal Mora-Cantallops, Transhistorical perspective of the puzzle video game genre ^[1]

Specifically, a frequently used puzzle game in these studies is Tetris. Arguably, the main cognitive demand in this game is mental rotation and spatial visualization. It has been demonstrated that transfer as a result of Tetris training is specific to mental rotation tests (Boot et al., 2008; Okagaki & Frensch, 1994). Hence, Tetris may not represent a good candidate in training high-level executive function skills.

— Adam Oei, Playing a puzzle video game with changing requirements improves executive ^[2]

The 2nd article then cites Cut the Rope as a better example of a puzzle game.

They both assume that Tetris is a puzzle game due to historical categorization while also concluding that it is a poor example of a puzzle game or puzzle game mechanics. So I suppose that does somewhat answer my own question: It is a puzzle game due to historical classification, but it's a really poor example of one that has more characteristics of the action game genre. --HSukePup (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Should there be article in these versions?--Coin945 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I would have no objections, considering their significant impact in the spread of the game in the early days. That said, I don't know if there's really enough unique about them to make them independently notable. The two NES versions (and the BPS Famicom version) have their complicated histories that are individually notable, but I don't know if that is true for the home computer versions. oknazevad (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears likely that the June 6, 1984 creation date was invented in 2009 for marketing purposes, to support a "25th anniversary" marketing campaign. The evidence of this is summarized in this short forum discussion. There are four main lines of evidence:

• Before 2009, most sources reported a creation date of 1985.
• The emergence of the June 6, 1984 date appears to coincide with the 2009 marketing campaign.
• The earliest file datestamps for the original Electronika 60 version of Tetris are from 1985.
• Vadim Gerasimov, co-developer of Tetris and programmer of the original PC port, agreed in an email (posted in the forum thread) that the 1984 date is not possible. Even his Wikipedia page says he was born in 1969 and co-developed Tetris at age 16, which does not correspond to 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.244.34 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Under "Acquisition of rights by Mirrorsoft and Spectrum HoloByte" in the "History" section, a line reads, in part, "Furthermore, intellectual property did not exist in the Soviet Union". Copyright law of the Soviet Union disagrees. It's also contradicted two sentences later with the line, "Pajitnov offered to transfer the rights of the game to the Academy". If "intellectual property did not exist", then what rights could he have possibly had to transfer? WP Ludicer (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the lead image doesn't actually show a real version of the game and instead is made up? I get wanting to use a freely licensed image, but it seems to me that it's a bit dishonest (for lack of a better word) to claim it depicts an actual game in progress. oknazevad (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Would this be relevant to add? A description of how the tetris guidelines have changed since the classic era (NES, gameboy versions) to modern tetris. Super rotation system, 7-bag (this is already mentioned in the infinite game section) standardized colors, hard drop, etc. I was also thinking of adding a small section on competitive play for both modern and classic tetris. I'm not too sure if these are relevent enough to add to the main article though. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It might be interesting if well sourced to an outside reliable source. Otherwise it's material for the Tetris wiki. The big thing is that there wasn't a single standard back in the day (Nintendo, Atari, Sega, Bullet Proof Software, And Mirrorsoft/Spectrum Holobyte versions all had their own take on the mechanics, and a major part of the reason for the vreation of the guidelines was to standardize those mechanical variations. But it's probably too detailed for a general interest encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not particularly important but the animation of a Tetris being scored has a matrix with a width of 12 minos. All standard tetris games (Even clones) have a 10x20 matrix, so the animation seems very odd to a more experienced observer. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Another reason to ditch the fake image (see my comment above). It's straight up factually incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently this article is trying to do both and it comes off as muddled. The franchise article can keep the Tetris redirect while the game article can keep Tetris (video game).--Coin945 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems maybe like a good idea, but the article should remain "Tetris", not "Tetris (franchise)". eg Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I support that. Pinging @Cat's Tuxedo: who is responsible for 27% of the article's text, as well as @S0091:, @Maestro2016:, @SWinxy:, and @Blue Pumpkin Pie: who also contributed significantly. (Out of interest, you Popcornfud have contributed 1,899 or 2.3% to the current article! :)--Coin945 (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this is a good idea. I do think that "Tetris" should be the franchise article, too. SWinxy (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no particular objections to a page specifically dedicated to the original 1984 version, though I agree that the franchise page should retain its title, and I do think the aforementioned issue could've been mollified by adapting more of the content and layout from the French page (which I had done for the History and some of the Gameplay section). Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The conversation above about Tetris (1984 video game) made me realise a need for articles on each game released in 1988/1989 during that whole copyright debacle. Currently we only have Tetris (Atari), Tetris (Game Boy video game) and Tetris (NES video game). Any volunteers?--Coin945 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Tetris (1984 video game) ([9][10] [11]- By Alexey Pajitnov for the Electronika 60 mainframe.
• Tetris (1986 video game) - By Vadim Gerasimov for the IMB PC.
• Tetris (Mirrorsoft) (7 reviews[12])
• Tetris (Spectrum HoloByte) (7 reviews[13])
• Tetris (Bullet-Proof Software) [14][15][16]
• Tetris (Sega) (Article, reviews)
• Tetris (Tandy)
• Tetris (Tengen) [redirect to Tetris (Atari)]

Before we do that, are there definitely enough sources to show that each of these versions are notable enough that they need their own article? With so many incarnations, I wouldn't be surprised if there are several that just aren't that notable. Popcornfud (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This was a period of history in which the copyright ownership of Tetris was very muddled, and all these companies thought they had the legal rights of the game. Many were actually produced and were successful, but had to be taken off the shelves. I think it's important these articles exist as part of the story.--Coin945 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I hear ya, but for the articles to exist they'll need to pass some criteria. You'll need to demonstrate that there's enough coverage out there to justify having standalone pages, instead of just being covered in the main Tetris article. See WP:NOPAGE. Popcornfud (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I do believe it is important to cover these games, but they may not all deserve an article for each one. It might be important to cover them here since they are part of the early history of Tetris.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure all those have sufficient independent notability to justify separate articles. I get the Atari/Tengen version because of the legal rigamarole and the impact of that beyond the game, Nintendo's NES version as the response (and best selling console version), and the Game Boy version being the single best selling version and such a major seller of the system. Beyond that, it's all just Tetris. This isn't a Tetris fan wiki, which does exist and is the appropriate place to have entries on each edition.

Plus, I'm stating this here because I can think of nowhere else to mention it, but, no, Tetris is not a multimedia franchise. It's a video game with no story. The existence of some ancillary merchandising does not make it a multimedia franchise. The lead of this article stinks. And it's only been that way for a couple of weeks, so I'm going to invoke the revert part of BRD to revert that lousy description. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is going to sound a bit strange, but as far as the tetris community are aware there is no evidence or suggestion of a 1984 creation date originating from before 2009, the year the tetris company did a large marketing push with 25th anniversary branding. Earlier sources including books, copyright filings, timestamps from dumps of the electronika 60 version, an interview with Pajitnov, and a more recent email correspondence with Vadim Gerasimov - one of the other co-creators - all suggest 1985. Most of the info related to this (or at least informal references to it) can be found in a pair of forum threads.

...Is there a process to go through here before changing dates? I'd assume including references to one or two older books and the Pajitnov interview would be sufficient, but thought it best to say something here explaining the situation and welcoming scrutiny beforehand. MrMangoHands (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of changing the creation date as no concrete evidence exists prior to 2009 that suggest that Tetris was created in 1984. This should definitely be changed to 1985. Bro3256 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about it being created in 1985. It's fairly well known in the Tetris community that TTC (The tetris company) fabricated the 1984 date so that they could have throw a Tetris 25th birthday party coincinding with E3 2009 as a marketing stunt. These links are in the forum threads you already linked, but for future ease of access, here are some archives of Tetris co-developer Vadim Gerasimov's website in 1999, where it says tetris was created in 1985, on June 2nd 2009, the first day of E3, where it still says 1985, and on June 18th 2009, after E3, where it suddenly changed to be 1984. There is, of course, also the interview and email which you have already linked. Lastly, anyone with an internet connection can go on google and filter only articles from before 2009, where you will notice that every single one says 1985.

As I said, it's fairly well known in the Tetris community already, so I was very shocked to see that Wikipedia still had the wrong date. I suppose there aren't many Tetris playing Wikipedians out there. Regardless, I took the liberty of changing the dates throughout the article. Hopefully didn't miss anything. If I did feel free to fix it. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This text was just removed from Tetris 99 by an ip address (not signed in). Archiving it here in case someone finds it useful for this page:

Similar games include Columns (SEGA’s 1990 attempt at competing with Tetris) and Super Puzzle Fighter (a puzzle game involving diamonds and uses the Street Fighter characters as players).

JohnRussell (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First human to beat Tetris game to hard crash (at level 157) which only AI could do thus far: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67871775 94.21.160.159 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Recently the original creation date listed in the article was changed from 1984 to the much more likely 1985. While I believe that this was a correct change, I also think that the controversy over the creation date should be mentioned in the article, perhaps even in its own subheading. The company that owns the game[17] and several high profile sources[18][19] claiming a different creation date than the one listed in the article is significant and notable, and should be mentioned in the article. Leaflemon (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't disagree with your thoughts on the matter. If you want to try to hash up a paragraph here to describe the situation feel free. I'll gladly take a look. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good idea. I'm the one who changed it from 84 to 85. The only reason I didn't add a paragraph in the article is because there's no real easy way to source it, and the leading theory for the reason TTC gives an incorrect date (while almost certainly true) is speculative. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The official Tetris website lists the launch date as 1984: https://tetris.com/history-of-tetris GraemeCod (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

And that claim is what is disputed. Please familiarize yourself with the sources already included before reposting them. oknazevad (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I am simply responding to what has been said above: the dispute can be referenced, with the original founder and now owner of the rights to Tetris claiming the game was designed in 1984 (and first played on 6 June 1984 to be precise) - and then link to his website to show this claim; whereas public and commercial references to the development of game indicate a 1985 launch date. GraemeCod (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The following sentences appear in the "Gameplay" section: "The game never ends with the player's victory. The player can only complete as many lines as possible before an inevitable loss."

According to CNN however, a player managed to beat the game by "crashing" it. If true, this would be a victory of sorts. It would also mean that a loss, while very likely, is not inevitable. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/tech/oklahoma-teenager-defeats-tetris/index.html 205.162.227.132 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Exploiting a bug in one version of the game (and it's not the original, by the way) to cause it to crash isn't applicable to all versions, and doesn't constitute "winning" in any meaningful sense of the term. If any mention should be made, it's at Tetris (NES video game), the article about that specific version, not the broad overview covering all versions here. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The media is running with this and wikipedia is a repository of information from the media, but the reality of exploiting a bug which the kid from Oklahoma recently had done, supposedly by accident, isn't beating the game just because it crashed. The formal last stage is Level 255 according to mathematics. The kid from Oklahoma made it to Level 157 which is just the furthest documented case without a crash. There is an actual Google spreadsheet that accurately and mathematically acknowledges this. It's the same as hitting the top speed in your car in 3rd gear; It's not the actual top speed of your car, you just never switched gears properly, which is the situation with this kid from Oklahoma as he never played properly to surpass Level 157 and prevent the crash of the game with the hardware. Tetris is a game to which you are playing hardware and software at the same time. 207.136.91.93 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I hate to forumchat but curiosity demands: What exactly is the exploit used here? What makes this a deliberate exploit, rather than an "actual" killscreen crash? -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

When you play Tetris at a these high levels you're supposed to NOT play certain types of lines on certain levels to prevent the hardware and software from crashing. There's a whole Google spreadsheet dedicated to this. On certain levels you're supposed to exclude certain types of lines to extend play to prevent a hardware/software crash to make it to Level 255. If you play certain line amounts on certain levels the percentage of a crash is extremely high and you have to prevent that to go the distance. The kid from Oklahoma effectively just got a high score, made it to a high level, prematurely crashed the game by not playing the correct lines, and the press ran with it. 207.136.91.93 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It would definitely be considered beating the game as there is nothing left to do. Tetris themselves had come out and congratulated him for the achievement which I'd say sets in stone that he "beat the game". Regardless whether you consider it beating the game or not, it is definitely worth mentioning in the article considering the game has aged to that point. All Tetris players now are pushing the limits of the game just as this kid did and he did it better than anyone else possibly could at 13, pretty crazy. 24.38.94.117 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Problem is it's just one version, which has its own article where this is adequately covered. This is the top level article covering all versions of the game, starting with the true original, the Electronkia-60 version from 1985. The kid from Oklahoma didn't "beat Tetris", he "beat" the NES version of Tetris. oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning he made it as far as he had is correct context and accurate as it is fully documented, but he never accomplished "beating the game". He merely got a high score, made it to a high level, attained a unique palette, and prematurely crashed the game at a point where the game has to be played differently with different line-types to progress without a crash. Media orgs are getting this confused, running with it, and confusing people with propaganda and false praise. Similar to the car example I provided (driving in 3rd gear and hitting a top speed, but not the actual top speed), Tetris, if played correctly has more "left to do" beyond Level 157 if played correctly by not playing certain types of lines to go to the next stage without there being a crash. In essence, he purposely made a crash occur due to improper playing of lines at a highly sensitive High Level within the game where crashes occur regularly on particular play-styles of lines, and if you prevent a crash by not playing certain line-types then Level 158 to Level 255 is technically attainable, regardless if the current owners of the namesake of 'Tetris' congratulate him or not. It's our duty to rightfully stipulate accuracy and filter out nonsense. He is merely the current person who has made it the furthest under a fully documented circumstance and that's it. Could there be a person who makes it to Level 158 tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year, next decade, or next century, or next millennium if they play the game correctly and document it under modern standards...yes I believe so. 207.136.91.93 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We need some sources that the theoretical 255 level is actually possible, though. What makes certain line combos cause it to crash before then? And if other line combos do make it crash, is it not true that the game is no longer functioning properly? Seems like an academic debate.

but most importantly, none of this belongs here. It belongs,'if anything, at the article on the NES version only. And this entire conversation has turned into a forum post, so is definitely not the proper place. oknazevad (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it belongs in the NES game article. I could potentially see a single-sentence mention being justifiable in this article but even then not necessarily. Popcornfud (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It was definitely NOT by accident. People have known about the NES tetris game crash condition since 2021 and he (along with a few other players) explicitly said they were playing for the game crash. That being said, I don't think it warrants a mention in this article. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)