Talk:Sokoban#rfctag

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Heartbound (video game) (6 participants) Puppet Combo (0 participants) Project Moon (1 participant) Zoë Mode (0 participants) Shafik Quoraishee (4 participants) Cat Daddy Games (2 participants) Wolfire Games (2 participants) Mercenaries (series) (1 participant) Blacknorth (2 participants) DigitalMania (5 participants) Brace Yourself Games (2 participants) Dejobaan Games (3 participants) Characters of the Kirby series (5 participants) BitComposer Interactive (2 participants) Built Games (1 participant) Big Robot (2 participants) BlitWorks (2 participants) Wang Jinrei (6 participants) Distinctive Software (1 participant) Cyberpunk: Edgerunners 2 (5 participants) World 1-2 (6 participants) KiriKiri (2 participants; relisted) Random map (4 participants; relisted) List of Bemani musicians (3 participants; relisted) Stormind Games (5 participants; relisted) Black Widow Games (5 participants; relisted) Doublesix (7 participants; relisted) Aggro Crab (5 participants; relisted) Dan Bull (6 participants; relisted) Freebird Games (6 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Gears of War: Reloaded (discussion) Development of Deus Ex (discussion) Femc Reloaded Project (discussion) Marvelous Entertainment (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Nintendo DSi gaming handheld in black Terraria (nom) List of cancelled Nintendo 64 games (nom) Good article nominations F1 24 (nom) Isaac Clarke (nom) Amstrad GX4000 (nom) Crash Bandicoot Purple and Spyro Orange (nom) Anthology of the Killer (start) Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game) (start) Ayane (Dead or Alive) (start) Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy (start) DYK nominations Danan: The Jungle Fighter Jennifer English Reviews and reassessments Rain World (rev) BioShock (nom) Tigger's Honey Hunt (rev) New Super Mario Bros. (nom) Animal Crossing: New Horizons (rev) Tetris (rev) Kyo Kusanagi (rev) Space Invaders (nom) Miiverse (rev) Articles that need... assessment (40) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (10) infoboxes (11) cover art (250) screenshots (9,261) photos (77) translation from japan (182) creation merging

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Dragon, Lost (2017). "The Ultimate Jaguar Unreleased/Beta/Source/Dev Master List! - Page 5". atari.io. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2019. https://retrocdn.net/index.php?title=File%3ABeepMD_JP_1989-11.pdf&page=56 https://shmuplations.com/thinkingrabbit/ https://archive.org/details/game-players-issue-12-vol.-2-december-1990/page/90/mode/1up

Enough with the implementations already! Sokoban is probably one of (if not the most) reimplemented puzzle games for computers. Given that most of the generic implementations can be readily googled, I think that having so many external links is pointless. I plan (a) to tidy up the external link section and (b) remove the external links from the variants section, unless someone can present a good reason why I shouldn't.--Malcohol 12:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest grouping them, using different levels of bullet points. Really only the most popular implementations should be listed, or at least listed first. On my Sokoban site (not listed in this article, I'm happy to say) I simply link to someone that maintains a larger list of links, namely Sokosave.  — Lee J Haywood 18:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about keepin (though maybe organized) all the info together? Future readers just get it all in one place (and no googling: who said google was part of the wikipedia project?). I'd even dream of a place that would complete it with some way to retrieve the referred docs (a bit the way google/yahoo caches do, to mention them). Reasons? The content can't be defeated, may the web change evidences would remain. knowledge & memory. good article & thanks || Zui 15:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made most of the edits I intended to. My worry was that the external links section would end up with a link to almost every implemenation of the game. Considering the article is a short one, this would be inappropriate. Currently the list seems under control, but I will trim it down if it gets out of control again.--Malcohol 17:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another random sokoban implementation added to the list! Sigh. A suggestion: we create List of Sokoban implementations and let people add their implementation there, where it won't affect the main article. --Malcohol 14:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of suggesting that same idea, but I'm not aware of any precedence for a list of external links – in this case where those implementations probably wouldn't have their own articles. On the other hand, perhaps we should consider writing articles for individual implementations that are well-known? Other computer games, not to mention numerous TV series, often get such treatment.   — Lee J Haywood 20:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, an article that I started/designed, Wikipedia:WAP access is a list of external links with an explanation for each. I suggest moving the current list from the main article to the new one, then we can all contribute to the new page.   — Lee J Haywood 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I'm too busy right now to manage this, so if you want to, please go ahead. If no one has made a start on it by next week, I'll do it.--Malcohol 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I just visited Rogue (computer game) which has a list of "Ports, Clones and Remakes". This seems to work quite well, and might serve for the Sokoban page for now. We might still need a seperate page if the list gets unwealdy.--Malcohol 13:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC). Done --Malcohol 10:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember making some sokoban-maps for Crossfire_(computer_game) back in 1993. It has the mechanics needed for creating sokoban-like puzzles. Filik (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to squash a spammer, User:Funpcgame, and in the processed noticed your External links. I removed all variants, since that seemed excessive (and aforementioned spammer added himself here). I also suggest paring down the list much further, or it's just bait for spammers. --Storkk 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is some to-ing and fro-ing on whether Erim Sever's Sokoban web page is a suitable link for the External Links section. It was originally removed because "The language and the layout quality of the web-site is not good enough". While I agree that the layout and writing are poor, I don't see why that should justify reason for its removal (see Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link). It should rather be judged on its content. I haven't checked the site in detail, but it does look to be quite comprehensive. --Malcohol 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a "see also" to the game Kwirk here but it was removed. I think that removal was hasty. I appreciate that this page is subject to a lot of spamming by numerous commercial and non-commercial implementations, but interesting Sokoban-like games which have their own Wikipedia page surely deserve to be referenced. --Malcohol (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the removal, but on second thought, you're right: it was too hasty; I'm sorry. If "Chip's Challenge" should be listed under "see also", then "Kwirk" should have the same right. I won't object if you put "Kwirk" back on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.206.120 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more information about the correct spelling of this game's name? I see a personal website that shows a literal Romanji translation and the now-official translation. There's also automatic romanji translators that convert it into "soukoban", and other places that indicate a mistranslation as well. The official translation seemed to win, but it's something that can be documented. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This article being listed in "free games," wouldn't it make sense for (at least) a link in the "external links" section be made to a download of such a game? For example, http://sites.google.com/site/twipley/games; however, the real problem is that most versions seem OS-dependent. Twipley (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the real problem is that this article gets bombarded with links to free and commercial versions of Sokoban, to the extent that it became unusable. The consensus seems to be that no such links should be accommodated. See discussion above. Besides, any decent search engine will link to numerous versions.Malcohol (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth to gather links to Sokoban clones, especially for the open source ones. We can gather the links in the talk page for the moment. Later we can decide where to save them: at external links or maybe on Wikia. Here two such open source clones:

• Sokoban YASC, an open source version of the game
• JSoko, an open source version of the game written in Java

—  Ark25  (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Mega Drive have a video game in 1989 for Japanese Version, & 1990 for English Version.--على المزارقه (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)^[1][2][reply]

Under "Development":

In 1988 Sokoban was published in US by Spectrum HoloByte for the Commodore 64, IBM-PC, Unix, Commodore Amiga and Apple II series as Soko-Ban.

I'd love to know what UNIX this was ported to in 1988? The link to the specific version by Spectrum Holobyte only lists Commodore 64, DOS, Apple II, and BBC Micro. Maybe some exotic OS for BBC Micro? I have no idea...

Mercster (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One implementation I know of is on Magic Lantern for some Canon EOS cameras: https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=4691.0 Erik Krause (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section could be renamed 'History.' For the first game in December 1982, I only mentioned the NEC PC-8801.

According to an investigation at https://sokoboxes.com/articles/sokoban-80s-product-codes, the FM-7 and PC-8001mkII versions were released in 1984.

The product codes FUTQ-13003 for the FM-7 and NETQ-17002 for the PC-8001mkII show that these versions were released after the Sokoban 2 versions.

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@MimirIsSmart Please consider that Sokoban is both a video game series and a video game genre. The long-standing version of this article primarily treated Sokoban as a puzzle genre, covering its gameplay mechanics, history, variations, and broad influence on other games. While it’s true that Sokoban is also the name of a specific series with multiple official releases, shifting the entire article’s focus solely to the series undermines its broader genre coverage, which has been in place for years. Merging the Soko-ban (video game product) article into this one is problematic because there are over 50 official Sokoban-branded releases, and narrowing the scope to just the series misrepresents the article’s intended coverage. I propose restoring the stable, uncontested version of the article prior to these changes and opening a discussion here about whether it makes sense to split the series content into its own dedicated article — similar to Pokémon (video game series) — while preserving this article’s established role covering both the genre and its historical impact. Major content and scope changes like this should be discussed here first in accordance with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. I look forward to hearing thoughts from other editors as well. Carloseow (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] For reference, here is the stable version of the article prior to the recent merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloseow (talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Also to be clear, if respondents could consider restoring the Spectrum Holobyte version of Soko-Ban from this edit. BOZ (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think the best approach would be to create an article called "List of Sokoban video games," following the example of List of Bomberman video games and optionally linking to specific titles in separate articles, such as Soko-Ban, BoxyBoy, and Sokoban Deluxe. For reference, see articles like Tetris DS and Tetris Effect. Each product article can also link back to this main Sokoban article to refer to it as a genre and to explain the gameplay. This structure would allow us to include separate reviews and detailed information for each product more effectively. Carloseow (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Just noting FYI that Thinking Rabbit was also redirected, but looking here it was unsourced. BOZ (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks BOZ for the advice. I’ve reverted the redirect, with further details provided in the Talk section of the Thinking Rabbit article. Carloseow (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] The developer's article being unsourced was the reason I redirected, and Boz was echoing that point. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please note that you are redirecting an article about a company to one about a product. This is like redirecting NAMCO to Pac-Man. An unsourced reason is not sufficient grounds for a redirect. If you need a source, you can request one here on the talk page, for example. Carloseow (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] WP:ORGCRIT demands significant coverage in secondary sources, which I could not find for Thinking Rabbit in general that isn't inherited from its games. This is the same reason why not every niche Japanese developer of notable anime style games has an article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Even if more sources are needed, that alone is not sufficient reason to redirect a company article to a product article. Redirecting in this way feels arbitrary and bypasses Wikipedia’s established process for discussing article content and notability. It’s better to address sourcing issues through discussion and improvement rather than unilateral redirects. Carloseow (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I had already did my research and found little that could not be mentioned at Sokoban, while their later history after Sokoban isn't particularly well documented. The original article was extremely short and was unsourced for a long time, adding to its lack of notability. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Trivial mentions are sufficient for these titles, so the table is probably fine. The disregard for MOS:VG isn't though, given that there isn't enough significant coverage that deems it a separate genre in addition to a lot of unsourced information. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sokoban’s mechanics were unique when the game was created, and over time those mechanics — and the game itself — came to define a subgenre within puzzle games. While it wasn’t patented like Tetris, its popularity and influence led to numerous official releases as well as many clones. Additionally, Sokoban has been the subject of academic research in computer science as a well-known example of a PSPACE-complete problem. So it’s not just a video game series by a single company. Also, it’s important to avoid factual mistakes when making changes — for example, assuming a review for the original Soko-ban applies to all Sokoban games isn’t accurate. It’s like including a review of Ms. Pac-Man in the Pac-Man article. Each release and clone can differ and deserves to be considered in its own context. Finally, after your changes were reverted, you continued to update the article to your preferred version. Instead of repeatedly invoking Wikipedia rules, please consider reverting to the last stable version for now, and propose any significant changes on the talk page first to respect the WP:BRD cycle. This approach helps keep editing collaborative and constructive. Also, please note that I am not the only editor involved in maintaining this article. Carloseow (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] You have not demonstrated these claims with sources; all of the derivatives listed in the article were ports, sequels and licensed reboots, while the clones were not backed up with significant coverage; there is no demonstration of it being a plausible separate genre of its own. In addition, I'm adjusting the scope to fit Manual of Style and make it more appropriate to its own WikiProject. In addition, Soko-Ban is an identical port without compromise of the original Sokoban, and reviews should not limited to one particular port of the game (or else there wouldn't be a separate section for them). MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] According to the WP:BRD cycle, since your changes were reverted, the appropriate next step is to discuss them here before reinstating. Also, per WP:BURDEN, editors adding or restoring material need to provide reliable sources to verify their contributions. This applies to all factual claims affecting the article’s scope and framing, including statements like “there is no demonstration of it being a plausible separate genre” and “Soko-Ban is an identical port without compromise of the original Sokoban”. If you do not have sources to support these assertions, please let us know. Otherwise, I kindly ask you to provide reliable references so we can collaboratively build a well-sourced article. I will provide sources supporting my position as well. Open dialogue with verifiable evidence benefits all editors and helps maintain the quality and neutrality of the article. Carloseow (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:BRD-NOT, the BRD cycle is not a valid excuse for reverting good faith efforts to improve the page (which I did for MOS compliance) and is neither a reason for reversion nor mandatory. This was not a bold edit against your wishes of what this page should be, but one that adheres to MOS:VG for the article's goodwill. MimirIsSmart (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I see the contested version has been reinstated again. Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR, repeatedly adding disputed material without resolving concerns on the talk page is disruptive editing. Whether or not BRD applies, it’s essential we reach consensus here before continuing to change the article’s framing and scope. I kindly ask you to pause edits on this point and continue the discussion here first. Thanks. Carloseow (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] You seem to not understand the situation; this was a MOS enforcement edit to make the article fit regulations of its WikiProject, not a bold content pivot edit that I would otherwise accept disputes and corrections of mistakes on my part. MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your efforts, but MOS:VG doesn’t apply to this article’s scope. The main question is which style guideline fits best, and that’s still under discussion. Carloseow (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Allow me to point out another issue for consideration: the edition defended by the user introduced factual errors by attempting to apply MOS:VG to this article. This led to treating nearly every Sokoban-related release as a “sequel,” when in fact, only titles explicitly designated as sequels (such as Sokoban 2) qualify as direct sequels. Other releases like Boxyboy are separate titles, not sequels. This highlights how applying a guideline meant for video game series articles can create inaccuracies when used on a broader topic article like Sokoban. Carloseow (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Boxyboy is only mentioned in a section labeled "Selected official releases". With no other context, any normal reader would assume this means it is a sequel to the original, or at the very least an official spinoff. If that's not the case, this difference needs to be more clearly delineated in the article itself. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Another error was the unsolicited, subjective, and factually wrong assessment of the game's importance in the introduction: "and since has been regarded as highly influential in the development of puzzle video games." Carloseow (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] And another factual error was "before Thinking Rabbit went defunct." Thinking Rabbit never disappeared; it simply became inactive and remained as a trademark. It’s difficult to cover all potential issues in an edit summary, but the most important to highlight was the change of scope. Carloseow (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] To support my position regarding Sokoban's influence and recognition as a puzzle subgenre, I’m sharing several sources below. These address both the historical development of Sokoban-like games and the way the term is used within the gaming community, game databases, and academic literature: Sokoban as a Puzzle Genre ---- 1. Defining a Mechanic: The core gameplay of Sokoban — pushing (but not pulling) objects within a grid-based environment to solve spatial puzzles — was innovative and influential enough to establish a distinct subgenre of puzzle games. These are often referred to as Sokoban-style, block-pushing, or box-pushing games. Modern puzzle games inspired by Sokoban continue to describe themselves in these terms. For example, Sokoban Online, a contemporary implementation of the classic game, describes its "modern puzzles" as based on "standard Sokoban puzzles" involving "many objects such as Portals, Holes, and Doors." Sources: Erik Demaine’s Pushing Blocks resource (archived) Sokoban Online: How to Play (archived) ---- 2. Influence on Other Games: Many subsequent puzzle games have adopted and built upon Sokoban's mechanics: The Puzzle Wiki explicitly states: “The name 'Sokoban' as a genre is taken from the first-ever game released that used the objectives/controls that we know today.” It also notes that prominent modern developers continue to create Sokoban and Sokoban-like games. Source: Puzzle Wiki (archived) Thinky Games, a website dedicated to puzzle games, maintains lists of Sokoban games, describing the genre as originating from the 1982 title and encompassing games where “you control a character pushing or moving objects around on a grid.” It also notes that “traditional sokoban games tend to focus on carefully moving boxes around in tight spaces, while more modern games tend to focus on having insights about their systems and mechanics.” Source: Thinky Games (archived) Steam, a major digital game distribution platform, categorizes games under tags such as "Similar to Sokoban Games” and "Box-Pushing”, reflecting the continuing influence of the game's core mechanics. Sources: Steam: Similar to Sokoban Games (archived) Steam: Box-Pushing Category (archived) ---- 3. Academic Recognition: Sokoban's puzzle structure has also been a subject of study in computational complexity theory. Its problem space has been formally proven to be NP-hard and PSPACE-complete, underscoring the depth and distinct nature of its puzzle mechanics in the context of algorithmic research. Source: Culberson (1997) — Sokoban is PSPACE-complete (archived) I’m happy to review any additional reliable sources others may have on this topic. Open dialogue and verifiable references will help ensure the article remains well-sourced and neutrally framed. Carloseow (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Don't use LLMs for proof that I believe you can type properly. In addition, Steam and user-generated wikis are not reliable sources. MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] The recognition of Sokoban as foundational to a distinct puzzle subgenre is widely accepted in game design and can be considered common knowledge among experts. For example, this academic source states: “the term ‘Sokoban’ has become genericized; it is synonymous with the genre of box-pushing puzzle games, and it can be found in the title of games that are not affiliated with Thinking Rabbit.” (Source: Jesse Chehal, Black Dude Puzzles, University of Central Florida, 2022) This supports the understanding that Sokoban is more than just a single game — it defines a recognized genre in the puzzle gaming community. Carloseow (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] That is a good source and works to back up its legacy in an appropriate section. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Given that the page had been protected for three days, would it be acceptable to decide on what can be kept from both of our edits? That would be more preferable, keeping elements from both our edits, like the infobox and adherence to MOS, while your expertise on the article's subject will be helpful for its improvement. I'm glad progress is being made and apologize for whatever offense I caused you. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Merging the "Challenges and strategy" section into the Gameplay section was a positive step toward clarity. Carloseow (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Turn that into a subsection works, alongside gameplay information from Soko-Ban pre-merge added to the basic gameplay section. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] A key point is that the Sokoban article on Wikipedia isn’t just about the original 1982 program — and not even just about the Sokoban series, though that plays a significant role. It’s about the game concept more broadly. Sokoban encapsulates fundamental aspects of transport tasks that arise not just in puzzles but in real-world logistics. The game concept transcends its specific implementations — and it’s this concept, not merely the 1982 program or the series, that the article aims to capture and explain. Because of that, the MOS for video games doesn’t apply cleanly here. Briandamgaard (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] They can be discussed with relevant sources in their respective sections, but its non-game related sourcing is quite poor, with one particularly section only containing a single footnote. Its status and commentary should remain minor parts of the article to emphasize the game and its derivatives' significance, not as a topic of its own. In addition, notable derivatives should be sourced, while an infobox containing basic info should be included. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I’m generally against including an infobox, as it shifts the focus away from the Sokoban game concept — the genre — and toward the specific programs. If (and that’s a big if) we do add one, I prefer it to be modeled after the infobox used in the Doom franchise article, not the Doom (1993) game article. That infobox successfully communicates the idea of a long-running series while also conveying relevant context without being tedious. Let’s see how something like that could work for Sokoban: Title: Sokoban Logo: Preferably none, unless there’s a good-looking and current logo. If copyright allows, something appealing from https://sokoban.jp/ could work. I would strongly object to using an outdated, museum-like image — especially the one MimirIsSmart proposed, which wasn’t even from the original game but from the FM-7 version. Even if it had been the original logo, it would still make a poor first impression. No reason to introduce Sokoban with a crude 40-year-old bitmap unless the goal is to make Sokoban look obsolete. Created by: Hiroyuki Imabayashi Original work: [Fill in, or delete] Owner: [To be verified — Thinking Rabbit? Falcon?] Years: 1982–present This is important — it immediately signals that Sokoban is still alive and relevant. Platforms: I strongly object to including “Platforms” in the infobox. It would just be a long and mind-numbingly boring list of obsolete hardware. That’s raw data — and raw data is not the same as useful information. Worse, it obscures the article’s real subject. Genre: Puzzle Not “Genre(s)” — The singular form avoids pointless ambiguity. → Link to Puzzle video game Mode: Single-player → Link to Single-player video game Merging MimirIsSmart’s edits into the consensus version MimirIsSmart asked: “[...] would it be acceptable to decide on what can be kept from both of our edits?” I find 2.5 things from his edits acceptable — if that helps put the matter to rest. An infobox, if and only if it follows the structure I outlined above: No outdated or unappealing logo No “Platforms” field that clutters the article with obsolete trivia Merging the “Strategy” section into “Gameplay” is a good idea. A “Reception” section might be worthwhile in principle — but not in the form written by MimirIsSmart. His draft is bloated with names of reviewers no one remembers, reducing it to trivia. Again: raw data ≠ meaningful content. As a rule of thumb: unless the reviewer’s name carries weight (e.g., Roger Ebert-level), there’s no need to mention it. If MimirIsSmart's references check out, maybe a stripped-down version could work. Here’s a rough sketch — I’m not vouching for it, but it might be a start: A 1988 review in Computer Gaming World praised the American version for being “pure and simple, very playable and mentally challenging,” citing its addictive qualities.[7] Dragon gave the game 4½ out of 5 stars.[8] Compute! noted that Soko-Ban may not appeal to action-adventure fans, but is ideal for players who enjoy solving puzzles.[9] I’ve omitted MimirIsSmart’s [10]-review because it adds no value; it doesn’t enhance the article. Briandamgaard (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I fully agree with this, and I would also agree regarding the reviews, because the scope of the article is the Sokoban game concept — it’s not possible to pretend that a review of a single title applies to all titles. In that sense, if reviews are to be included in a "Reception" section, it should ideally be a selection of reviews, with no more than one review per title, and without fixating on the 1988 Soko-Ban title. That’s just one of many. On Archive.org, it’s possible to find reviews for several of the other titles as well. To be fair, the ideal would be to include one review for each of the major releases: Sokoban (1982) (I have one from Micom magazine, though it needs to be translated), Sokoban Perfect, Sokoban Revenge — the major and magnificent titles from the '80s and '90s — and one from the more recent releases. Carloseow (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Background: Sokoban is a unique case because it refers both to a classic video game series (with over 50 official versions) and to a widely recognized gameplay style (box-pushing puzzles). However, Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for video games and genres (MOS:VG and MOS:VGGENRE) create challenges: MOS:VGGENRE requires the use of standard genre names from {{Video game genre}}, but “Sokoban” is not included. MOS:VG expects articles to focus on specific games or series, not genres unless standardized. Proposal: I propose making an exception to MOS for the Sokoban article by keeping its current combined scope — covering both the original game/series and the gameplay style — as this reflects common usage and reliable sources. This avoids forcing a confusing split or reclassification. Optionally, a new article like “List of Sokoban programs” or “List of Sokoban games” could be created to catalog the many official versions, similar to the “List of Bomberman video games.” Arguments Against Using MOS:VG with Just a “Legacy” Section: The article already contains a substantial Scientific research section demonstrating the importance of Sokoban beyond just a single game or series. Reducing the genre and gameplay discussion to a minor “Legacy” section would underrepresent Sokoban’s influence on puzzle game design and academic research. Reliable sources treat Sokoban both as a distinct game series and as a genre with significant scholarly and community impact. MOS:VG’s focus on commercial video game products doesn’t fit well for Sokoban’s dual identity and extensive history. The current article structure, combining gameplay, series history, scientific research, offers comprehensive coverage that benefits readers. Justification: Keeping the article as is best reflects how “Sokoban” is used in sources and the gaming community. Prevents unnecessary fragmentation and MOS conflicts. The optional separate list article can provide detailed coverage of official releases without cluttering the main article. Future: If “Sokoban” becomes an official genre recognized in {{Video game genre}}, a dedicated genre article can be created. Carloseow (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] WP:CONLEVEL states MOS in WikiProjects. cannot be overrided by consensus. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Clarification on Scope, MOS:VG, and MOS:VGGENRE Applicability: Thank you again for the feedback — it’s becoming clearer that the main issue is a misunderstanding about the intended scope of the Sokoban article and which style guidelines apply. To clarify: The current Sokoban article is not a video game series article as defined by MOS:VG. It is a topic article about a gameplay concept (box-pushing puzzles) and its origins, including the classic video game series. Comparable cases on Wikipedia: Metroidvania, Roguelike, Soulslike, and Battle Royale game are concept/genre articles that mention or even substantially discuss the games and series that originated or popularized those concepts. These articles follow MOS:VGGENRE or general article style guidelines, not MOS:VG, because their scope is about a genre or concept, not primarily about a series of video game products. In Metroidvania’s case specifically: It uses MOS:VGGENRE because it’s a recognized genre with broad coverage. It mentions Metroid and Castlevania, but this doesn’t mean MOS:VG applies to the entire article. The MOS guidelines are applied according to the scope of the article: genre articles follow MOS:VGGENRE; product/series articles follow MOS:VG. Why this matters for Sokoban: The Sokoban article discusses both the original game series and the gameplay concept, as reliable sources also treat it. Unlike other genre names (e.g. Metroidvania, Roguelike), “Sokoban” is both the title of the original game and the common name for a puzzle type. Applying MOS:VG as though it’s a dedicated video game series article would be like applying it to Metroidvania just because it discusses Metroid and Castlevania — which would be a category error. Proposed solutions: Retain the combined topic article as-is, as it has functioned appropriately for years. Optionally create a new article titled Sokoban (video game series). If desired, create a separate “List of Sokoban games” to catalogue official versions, without cluttering the main article. This structure would align with how Wikipedia handles other articles covering both gameplay concepts and originating games, while avoiding the inappropriate application of MOS:VG to a topic article. ---- Carloseow (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] MimirIsSmart wrote: WP:CONLEVEL states MOS in WikiProjects cannot be overridden by consensus. The Wikipedia Sokoban article is not a WikiProject—it's just a single article. Even if it were part of a WikiProject, reading further in the page you cited would clarify the point: “When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.” In other words, your appeal to WP:CONLEVEL misrepresents the actual guidance. It supports the status quo in the absence of consensus, not the enforcement of a style guide over established article-specific consensus. Briandamgaard (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Honestly, both versions being fought about leave a lot to be desired. Either version is both poorly organized and has large amounts of the article failing to follow WP:V and WP:RS. If the content can't be properly sourced, then trimming is in order, and that could affect what's left to "organize" in the first place. That should be the starting point here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Could you please clarify which parts you feel might lack adequate sourcing? The article currently cites 25 references, and I’d like to address any specific concerns. Carloseow (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Just an observer chiming in: at a first glance without going in too deep to check every source, the Variants and Selected Official Releases sections are almost entirely unsourced. It would be one thing if those games had standalone articles a reader could check to verify the year/console/developer/etc., but since they don't, all that information needs sources to back them up. I'm also seeing a wiki citation, which fails WP:USERG; a random YouTube citation, which fails WP:SELFPUB; and a fansite citation, which are generally frowned upon except in specific circumstances per WP:VG/S. There's definitely more that can (and should) be done beyond this, but these are good areas to start with. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I’ll do my best to add proper citations where possible, and I appreciate the concerns about sourcing. However, I’d like to ask for some consideration when it comes to trimming content purely because it lacks a traditional reliable source. It’s one thing if the information is inaccurate or speculative, but if the content is factual and verifiable through other means — like official sources — it seems unnecessarily restrictive to remove it solely because it wasn’t mentioned in a magazine or academic paper. For example, the YouTube video reference (which I didn’t add) that was mentioned simply shows a Sokoban game running on a CRT TV. That’s a verifiable fact. Additionally, the official Sokoban website itself lists newer Sokoban games available on TVs in Japan. If we can’t even cite the official site for factual information about the franchise, it raises the question: how is it fair to delete accurate content just because it hasn’t appeared in a magazine or academic publication? Carloseow (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] If it's on the official site, that would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source. Since it would be verifying a simple statement of fact that anyone who reads the website can confirm (e.g. "an official Sokoban game was released for [insert platform here]"), it would be an acceptable source in that instance. However, primary sources should not make up the bulk of citation, and verifiable secondary sources will always be preferred over primary ones. (Also, just putting the link to the official website at the bottom isn't enough; individual statements or data points should always have a citation at the end of the sentence or paragraph.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:VNT. If you can't source it, then it doesn't technically belong on Wikipedia. There are ways to cite offline things like magazines, but you need to actually be able to provide the details on where to locate it - issue numbers, page numbers, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you all for the valuable input. To help clarify and guide further improvements, could someone please advise which Manual of Style the Sokoban article should ideally follow? Since the article covers both the original video game and the broader gameplay concept, I’m uncertain whether it should adhere primarily to MOS:VG (for video game series), MOS:VGGENRE (for video game genres), or simply the general Manual of Style. Understanding this would help ensure consistency in style and content organization moving forward. Based on the points I’ve raised earlier in this discussion, my view is that the article would be best served by following the general Manual of Style, rather than strictly applying either MOS:VG or MOS:VGGENRE. Carloseow (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Correction: In my previous comment, I wrote “rather than strictly applying”, but to clarify, my intention was to suggest that the article should follow the general Manual of Style and not apply either MOS:VG or MOS:VGGENRE at all, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Carloseow (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Here's the thing: the page as it exists in its current revision is overwhelmingly focused on the original game (and by extension, the series), not on Sokoban as a puzzle game subgenre. There are no mention of any derivative games or any other games that use the Sokoban puzzle format. The word "Genre" doesn't even appear once in the article outside of the navbox at the bottom. As it stands now, this is MOS:VG through and through unless the content changes substantially. (Also, just noticed the links to Soko-Ban and Boxyboy in the list of releases need to be removed, as they're now self-redirects.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] The word "genre" appeared previously but was removed to improve readability. Consider this source: “the term ‘Sokoban’ has become genericized; it is synonymous with the genre of box-pushing puzzle games, and it can be found in the title of games that are not affiliated with Thinking Rabbit.” (Source: Jesse Chehal, Black Dude Puzzles, University of Central Florida, 2022 The articles Soko-Ban, Boxyboy, and Thinking Rabbit were redirected to Sokoban by the same user who also made efforts to apply MOS:VG guidelines to this article. This is why these articles now appear as self-redirects. If you visit those articles and review their edit histories, you will notice that after being redirected and then reverted, the redirects were reinstated, despite some discussion on the talk page. These redirects could be reconsidered again. Each article contains its own content and presents opportunities for improvement, including specific reception and reviews. To clarify: Sokoban can be considered a sub-genre of the broader puzzle genre. However, to avoid complicating the language with the word "genre," it may be better to treat this article as a topic article. Carloseow (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] As I said, the article as it currently exists is focused entirely on the series and not on Sokoban as a subgenre. No mention is made of this genericization in the text of the article itself, and having a source that says so means nothing if it is not reflected in the article itself. Also, I did look at the history, and I agree with the mergings: Thinking Rabbit as it is now remains entirely unsourced; Boxyboy had only three sources, two of which are not considered sufficient per Wikipedia policy; and while Soko-Ban is better in this regard, the content overlapped too much with the main article, such that it arguably doesn't make sense to split it off. I know you're focused on formatting, but my problem with what's been presented is that the article still has serious sourcing issues that are going to remain a problem no matter what form the article takes, and none of your comments make it seem like you're interested in properly addressing that. You need to fix what's already there before thinking about the format. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your reply — I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. Regarding the point that "the article as it currently exists is focused entirely on the series and not on Sokoban as a subgenre," I’d like to clarify that the article already extends beyond the official series. It includes coverage of variants, references to scientific research examining the computational aspects of solving Sokoban — subjects unrelated to the series itself — as well as content about unofficial reverse mode. The challenge with framing it purely as a series article is that a significant part of Sokoban’s history and cultural footprint is unofficial and community-driven. For that reason, the article currently functions as a topic article, encompassing both official elements (like the original creator and prominent releases) and unofficial aspects, including variants, academic studies, and more. Carloseow (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] That's not obvious at first glance. The section begins with "Several puzzles can be considered variants of the original Sokoban game in the sense that they all make use of a controllable character pushing boxes around in a maze." That doesn't sound like it's talking about other games that use the Sokoban format, that sounds like it's talking about other modes in the Sokoban series, especially considering it is imemdiately followed by a list of official Sokoban games. The current version of the article does a very poor job of delineating between Sokoban the series and Sokoban the concept. You need to draw a clearer line between the two and group them in a way that they are not interspersed between one another. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Carloseow wrote: The challenge with framing it purely as a series article is that a significant part of Sokoban’s history and cultural footprint is unofficial and community-driven. For that reason, the article currently functions as a topic article, encompassing both official elements (like the original creator and prominent releases) and unofficial aspects, including variants, academic studies, and more. This is, in my view, a remarkably clear and well-reasoned explanation. It articulates with rare precision the rationale behind the current structure of the article—bridging the gap between the development history of Sokoban and its broader cultural and academic significance. Carloseow has captured the core challenge and the guiding principle of the article better than I have seen it expressed anywhere else. I hope this framing is kept in mind as the discussion continues. Briandamgaard (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Except that it doesn't. As I've pointed out, the information is not well organized or conveyed, and has serious sourcing issues as has already been stated. And if parts of Sokoban's history are largely unofficial and doesn't have secondary sources to verify it or establish notability, then maybe that information doesn't need to be here at all. Honestly, considering you two have been the only significant contributors to the article for over a decade (and barely touch any other article on Wikipedia), I do worry that there is a bit of WP:OWNERSHIP going on with how other users' concerns are being dismissed out of hand. It's not a claim I throw out lightly or like making, but I do think you both need to be more open to listening to others' criticisms rather than continuing to dig your heels in. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] At this point, I think there are several things to clarify: It’s good to receive external impressions — previously, no one had raised these concerns on the talk page, so thank you for sharing your perspective. It’s important to keep the focus on the article content, not on the editors, in line with WP:FOC and WP:CIVIL. Making assumptions about contributors’ motives doesn’t help move the discussion forward. How can we improve the article while keeping its current scope? The Scientific research section is properly sourced and fits within the topic scope, which is not limited to the official video game series. In the Variants section, some entries may need trimming if they lack sources, but others — like Pukoban (which I’ll add a source for) and Reverse mode — already have reliable references. The Selected official releases section will also be expanded with sources. As a constructive step, what section names could we use to better communicate the article’s intended scope? Carloseow (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Also, could those proposing to change the scope of the article please comment here outlining the reasons for doing so — beyond the fact that some parts lack proper sources? I’ve provided several arguments for maintaining the current scope, but so far I haven’t seen clear arguments presented for changing it. I’d like to clarify that a lack of sources in parts of an article is a valid reason to improve or, where necessary, trim those sections — but it is not, in itself, a reason to change the article’s scope. Any proposed scope change should be discussed on its own merits, based on how the topic is treated in reliable secondary sources, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As I’ve mentioned, the Scientific research section is properly supported by secondary sources and remains relevant within the current scope of the article. Carloseow (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Here's a clear list of improvements, then: "Challenges and strategy" should be merged into "Gameplay". There's no reason those three sentences need to be sectioned off instead of just being part of the gameplay summary. "Implementations" should be merged into "Selected official releases", as it is essentially a summary of the same information. At the bare minimum, "Variations" needs to be renamed to "Influence" or "Legacy" or something along those lines to make it clear that it's not talking about the proper Sokoban series anymore, but instead other games that copied or were inspired by its format. And it needs SUBSTANTIALLY more sourcing. "Select official releases" should be moved above "Variations" and "Scientific research", as once again, the article keeps jumping back and forth between the series and the concept with no clear dividing point, and it makes it difficult for readers not familiar with the subject to parse. See Tetris for an example of an article with a similar layout. (Again, this section also needs to be heavily sourced. Since the official web page has a "history" section listing most if not all official releases, that can be cited as a primary source if a sufficient reliable secondary source can't be found.) These changes would not only more cleanly lay out the information in a way that a casual reader can follow, but also move it closer to MOS:VG without sacrificing the scope. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the suggestions. I’ll wait to read more feedback from other editors, and next week I plan to look for and add additional sources and possibly trim some sections if necessary. After that, I’ll step back from major edits but remain available for minor fixes or clarifications as needed. I’d prefer to leave any section reorganization to other experienced editors, in the hope they’ll maintain the current scope that has been followed over the years. Carloseow (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] About the phrase “Except that it doesn’t.” — It is true that the Sokoban community has created thousands of puzzles, as well as tools like solvers, optimizers, and some format standards, which is indeed an important part of its history. I will look for reliable secondary sources to support including this information in the article. Carloseow (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect List of Thinking Rabbit games has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 4 § List of Thinking Rabbit games until a consensus is reached. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an attempt to introduce text containing multiple factual inaccuracies.

First, the proposed introduction:

"Sokoban[a] is a series of puzzle video games developed and published by Japanese studio Thinking Rabbit. The player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations. The game was designed in 1981 by Hiroyuki Imabayashi; the first installment, Sōko-ban, was released in 1982 for the NEC PC-8801, and was followed with various sequels."

This text presents several issues. It describes Sokoban as a "series," but the claim that it was "developed and published by Japanese studio Thinking Rabbit" is inaccurate. Thinking Rabbit was the original developer and first publisher, but not the only publisher over the years.

The phrase "the first installment" implies a unified, continuous series, which is misleading. As I already clarified in the versions section: "Since its debut in 1982, Sokoban has been released on various platforms, primarily in Japan but also in other regions. Most titles are independent without a continuous narrative or unified series, though a few are direct sequels to a specific earlier release—for example, Sokoban 2 (1984) follows Sokoban (1982), and Soko-ban Revenge (1991) is a sequel to Soko-ban Perfect (1989). The following table lists a selection of official Sokoban titles."

Given this, it’s inaccurate to refer to it as an "installment," and only Sokoban 2 was a direct sequel to the original 1982 title. Therefore, claiming it was "followed with various sequels" is also incorrect.

Another issue is the use of "Sōko-ban" to refer to the 1982 version. The more appropriate form would be either 倉庫番 (1982) or simply Sokoban (1982). The series itself is not commonly referred to in romanized form as "Sōko-ban", but simply "Sokoban."

Additionally, there’s a problem with how the attempted edit presents information in the table. Consider this row:

1990

Shijou Saidai no Soko-ban (史上最大の倉庫番)/Shove It! ...The Warehouse Game

Japan, US

Sega Genesis

DreamWorks

This implies that both games were published in 1990 by DreamWorks, which is inaccurate — only the US version (Shove It!) was published by DreamWorks; the Japanese version (Shijou Saidai no Sokoban) was published by Masaya. Also, in Japan the console is called Sega Mega Drive, not Sega Genesis. While the hardware is essentially the same, they are different in branding and regional identity.

Another row:

2019

Minna no Sokoban (みんなの倉庫番)/The Sokoban

Japan

Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4

Unbalance [ja]

This implies that both games were released in 2019, which is inaccurate — the US version was released in 2021.

For reference, these are some of the rows as they appear in the stable version of the table:

1990

Shove It! ...The Warehouse Game

US

Sega Genesis

DreamWorks

2019	Minna no Sokoban (みんなの倉庫番)	Japan	Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4	Unbalance [ja]
2021	The Sokoban	US	Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4	Unbalance

Merging rows for stylistic reasons without checking all details may introduce factual inaccuracies and should be avoided.

Another point concerns the introduction. The stable version uses this text:

"Sokoban (倉庫番, Sōko-ban, lit. 'warehouse keeper'[1]) is a puzzle video game in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations. The game was designed in 1981 by Hiroyuki Imabayashi and first published in Japan in 1982."

This introduction is accurate. It shows the Japanese word, establishes the connection to Japan, and displays the romanized text. All the information presented is factual and correct.

If there are concerns about linguistic details, hovering the cursor over "Sōko-ban" reveals that it is a "Hepburn transliteration," so there’s no real need for further linguistic explanation.

Additionally, in the attempted version using "Sokoban[a]", the [a] is broken and displays a "Cite error." There is no need to provide the meaning of the word as a footnote. Since Sokoban is primarily a Japanese game and well known, the original word and its meaning should be clearly presented, not obscured. Carloseow (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the wordings even matter that much here, as long as they fit the context. In addition, different names of the SAME GAME, like The Sokoban, should remain in their own columns while also listing their regions' publishers; for pre-2000 games radically different localized version of various games are widespread, hence the Genesis and NEC versions have different names and looks in different regions. Go D. Usopp (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sokoban&oldid=1295728477) introduces a number of changes that, in my view, cannot be fully justified by the simplified reasoning “the wordings even matter that much here.” Some points raised earlier in this topic seem to have been overlooked, and this reflects a different interpretation of how to frame Sokoban.

I understand that Sokoban can be viewed as a series if considering the many official titles released over its 40+ years of history. But it’s a different matter to present it directly as a series. A comparable case is Tetris — it can be seen as a series, but its official page doesn’t frame it that way. Even on the Tetris Wikipedia article, it avoids calling it a series directly in the lead, though it uses phrasing like “these versions of Tetris collectively serve as the second-best-selling video game series.” It emphasizes versions.

That’s why I’ve been careful about not using the word “series” in this context. Sokoban consists of many different titles or versions that can arguably be viewed as a series, but one thing is can be viewed as, and another is is.

Even if saying it as a series, the proposed wording introduces other problems already raised in this topic: “installment” implies a continuous series, and “various sequels” isn’t accurate for the reasons previously explained.

There’s also a new factual issue in this table row:

2019 Minna no Sokoban (みんなの倉庫番)/The Sokoban Japan Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 Unbalance [ja]

This presents both as being released in the same year and only in Japan, which isn’t correct. I understand the intention behind combining them, but this is one of those cases where a proposed improvement brings new challenges — such as communicating “this is the same title” while the current table structure doesn’t fully support that without causing factual problems. If we want to indicate title equivalence or relationships between releases in different regions and years, another table structure might be needed. I’m not sure if any Wikipedia guideline addresses this kind of case for game release tables, but it might be worth checking or discussing. But another question: why is needed indicate title equivalence? I think the best is avoid it because it is also subjective.

Lastly, regarding Shijou Saidai no Sokoban (史上最大の倉庫番) and Shove It! ...The Warehouse Game, while similar in gameplay and graphics, I consider them different products, even differing in the number of puzzles. Carloseow (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary to list otherwise identical games like The Sokoban with only a change in name and text for international versions, kinda like basically any Nintendo game having a different English name from their JP names upon international releases. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the Genesis release is a modified port, and separating them will cause more confusion. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We use the first released year for games released in multiple regions in case of confusion, because it would otherwise be controversial for Asian, European and North American editors. Also, series can have games with similar gameplay but unrelated stories, like literally every single Tetris game ever. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sokoban isn’t formally branded as a continuous series like Final Fantasy or The Legend of Zelda. Terms like "installment" or "various sequels" falsely imply a continuous, structured series. The stable lead describes Sokoban factually as a video game, which is historically accurate, followed by ports and additional titles. Carloseow (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for your interpretation, but follow-up might be preferred over sequel. Go D. Usopp (talk) Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a Third opinion as I think it's the best solution here. Carloseow (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy is literally an anthology series with zero continuity outside of the occasional sequel and ensuing sub-series. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is about how the game is officially branded. Sokoban and Tetris have not historically been presented as formal series in their official materials, despite having many versions or titles. In this sense, the stable Sokoban lead mirrors the Tetris Wikipedia article, which presents the original game without framing it as a series. For example, the Tetris lead states: "Tetris (Russian: Тетрис)[a] is a puzzle video game", and similarly, the stable Sokoban lead uses: "Sokoban[a] is a puzzle video game". Carloseow (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you not list open-source and/or fan-made derivatives at the Legacy section? They aren't well documented and notable enough to even warrant any mentions in the article, though the individual variant used for scientific research is fine in that regard. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I haven’t listed every derivative in the Legacy section — that content has been there for a long time. As far as I know, the information is accurate, but without secondary sources, much of it may need to be removed, since Wikipedia isn’t the place for unsourced material. The last time I reviewed it, I did find a reference for Pukoban, so I believe that one can be kept after adding the secondary source. What you’re raising here seems to be a separate issue. Carloseow (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a disagreement about the lead wording. I think it should keep the name of the creator, Hiroyuki Imabayashi, since that is an important fact and already mentioned in the article. Similar video game articles also include their creators in the lead. The 1981 design date wasn’t strictly necessary but I kept it for better context.

Also, the current version repeats "1982" twice, which feels unnecessary. Additionally, the edit introduced repetitive phrasing by using "In the game" and then "The game" shortly after, which also feels unnecessary.

I suggest reverting to the earlier version for clarity and accuracy. Any thoughts? Carloseow (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see a problem with with mention the creator's name. And additionally, the year coming up twice like that violates MOS:VGLEAD. Indifferent on the phrasing - some like using "the game", others don't. I don't have an issue with it, but it shouldn't be used too much either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Thanks for your insights.

My main challenge with the contested lead (besides how it re-frames the article) is the wording itself. You mentioned not using "the game" too much, but this lead uses "In the game" right after "video game," and then "The game" again, which just feels redundant.

I also looked at "Japanese studio Thinking Rabbit." This phrase actually creates a slight repetition because the lead then says "released in Japan." It's like saying "released by a Japanese studio in Japan." If we changed it to just "his studio Thinking Rabbit," I still don't see a strong reason to replace "company," because "company" is more precise for Thinking Rabbit. While "studio" might refer to a very early time before the company was formally registered, I don't have clear evidence for that.

Overall, I don't see a strong reason to try and fix this contested lead. The long-standing version already works well, it follows MOS:VGLEAD (unlike the contested one, as you noted), and it doesn't have these repetitive issues. Beyond that, starting with "Sokoban[a] is a puzzle video game in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations" is superior because its simple wording to describe the game matches the simple nature of Sokoban's rules.

Plus, the user's main reason for changing it was to omit the creator, which you've said isn't an issue.

Because of all this, I think it's reasonable to revert to the long-standing lead. Carloseow (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the actual designer, in this case is less notable than Thinking Rabbit itself, does not need to be mentioned in the intro when the infobox and development section already mentioned him; there is little significant coverage of the person himself to need to mention him, as with basically any video game director and designer without substantial independent documentation. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Go D. Usopp: Thanks for your reply.

Regarding your point about the designer's notability: As previously indicated in my edit summary, "Claims of undue emphasis based on a lack of standalone notability misunderstand WP:N, which governs article creation, not the inclusion of verifiable facts. The creator’s identity is a core part of the game’s history, just as the designers of Boulder Dash are included in the lead of its article." Furthermore, as @Sergecross73 has also noted, there is no issue with mentioning the author in this context. Carloseow (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick. I was saying that it was not necessary to be mentioned in the lead paragraph, given that the Development section (needs work) and infobox will be enough mentions of the creator. No need to mention him a third time outside of the sections he is expected to show up, like basically any non-notable game director and producer who are mentioned alongside the documentation of video games' development. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Go D. Usopp: Thanks for explaining your reasoning, but I have not found in any part that a key fact mentioned in the infobox must not be mentioned in the lead. Carloseow (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing lead is: "Sokoban is a puzzle video game in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations." It could say "Sokoban is a puzzle video game [type]", but is not mentioned for clarity.

A new lead like "Sokoban is a 1982 puzzle video game", however, frames the article as being only about the 1982 first release, which is incorrect. This article is a topic article because Sokoban is many things at once:

- A puzzle video game type (its unique mechanic identifies it as a video game genre itself).

- The title name of the first commercial game (although it was in Japanese).

- A trademark that is used like a franchise (official games are sometimes sublicensed).

- A subject for study in artificial intelligence.

That is why the long-standing lead works better. For example, the article mentions AI research, and that's not about the 1982 release, but rather about using Sokoban puzzles.

The long-standing lead begins similarly to the Tetris article. Tetris shares similarities with Sokoban in being a unique puzzle video game with many versions and significant research. Its article lead begins with: "Tetris (Russian: Тетрис)[a] is a puzzle video game". It does not say: "Tetris (Russian: Тетрис)[a] is 1985 puzzle video game".

This provides another strong reason to keep the long-standing lead. (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. Technically MOS:VGLEAD allows for the years to be overviewed in either way (opening sentence or later in lead in separate release sentence) as long as they don't use both concurrently (again, MOSVGLEAD) but I do generally have to remind editors that it is not compulsory to mention the year in the opening sentence. If its a point of contention, it could be a time to do it the other way. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Thanks for your insights.

I agree with you that MOS:VGLEAD allows flexibility regarding the year in the opening sentence. However, starting with "Sokoban[a] is a 1982 puzzle video game" reframes the article from a broad topic to one solely about the very first commercial release. This goes against the consensus for how the article has been framed for many years.

For example, the Tetris article's lead doesn't begin with "Tetris is a 1985 puzzle video game." Instead, it states: "Tetris... is a puzzle video game created in 1985 by Alexey Pajitnov," which first defines the game by its type. The long-standing Sokoban lead follows this same effective approach, presenting the game as a broad topic first. Carloseow (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point of contention was directly leading into introducing the gameplay in the first sentence, when it would be more readable as a sentence of its own. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Go D. Usopp: Thanks for your reply.

Attempting that is challenging, as it introduces new problems. If we respect the established consensus for how the article has been treated for many years to lead with the game type, we could not say for example: 'Sokoban[a] is a puzzle video game developed and published by Thinking Rabbit' because it mixes game type and release, and it's not true that all releases have been developed and published by Thinking Rabbit. Other options, like 'Sokoban[a] is a puzzle video game. In the game [or in Sokoban], the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations,' don't look good, as they describe the game type in two sentences: primary genre and later core mechanics. However, these mechanics are so simple that combining them into a single statement, as the long-standing version does, works better.

The Tetris article's lead serves as a good model. It doesn't begin with "Tetris is a 1985 puzzle video game." Instead, it says: "Tetris... is a puzzle video game created in 1985 by Alexey Pajitnov," defining the game by its type first and not framing it about the first release. In Tetris's case, there is a later sentence about the gameplay because its mechanics are more complex and require a more detailed explanation to grasp fully, for example, how the tetromino shapes are used. But for Sokoban, its simple rules allow leading with both the type and the gameplay in a single, effective statement, thus achieving conciseness.

In summary, the simplicity of the gameplay does not justify using a separate sentence to introduce it. If the gameplay were more complex to explain like in Tetris, using a separate sentence would work better, but for Sokoban, this is not the case. Carloseow (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Tetris, the gameplay introduction in the intro has its own sentence. "In Tetris, falling tetromino shapes must be neatly sorted into a pile; once a horizontal line of the game board is filled in, it disappears, granting points and preventing the pile from overflowing." It is more coherent than "Tetris is a puzzle video game where falling tetromino shapes...". We put the most vital information in the lead sentence, which gameplay details would not fit in for it to be concise.

In addition, the Created by Alexey Pajitnov lead sentence in Tetris is a special case in itself as Pajitnov, being a Soviet software engineer, does not have his own studio (private limited companies were not an option); there was no team for him to work with and his story made him greatly associated to the game itself to be worth a lead sentence mention. The release of the original Tetris was not as substantially documented as the design of the game, while Sokoban's design process is not well documented and is not a substantial focus of the article. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Go D. Usopp: Thanks for your reply.

Regarding "It is more coherent than "Tetris is a puzzle video game where falling tetromino shapes..."." This is true because, as I mentioned, Tetris's gameplay requires more wording to explain it, unlike Sokoban.

Regarding designer and creator: The most proper word is "Created," because one thing is the creator of the game type, and another is the designer of a video game product or title. For example, the Soko-Ban (1988) video game product has this in its manual: "SOKO-BAN designed by Khaled Bentebal & Ascii Corporation." For example, they take the core gameplay and design a specific product, for example, having an elevator in a building or a tournament mode. In the case of Sokoban, it was created by Hiroyuki Imabayashi, and the first title was also designed by him. "Creator" term is related to authorship. "Designer" is a role.

Regarding "there was no team for him to work with and his story made him greatly associated to the game itself to be worth a lead sentence mention." Sokoban is notable, and its author Hiroyuki Imabayashi is a genius. It doesn't make sense, and it is disrespectful to not mention the creator of something notable in the lead. It does not depend on whether the creator was a solo developer or decided to work with a team to release the first commercial product.

Please could you point to where in MOS:VGLEAD it is mentioned that the inclusion of a creator in the lead depends on their individual notability or the extensive documentation of how they originated the game concept? Carloseow (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the mention of creator in the first paragraph, mot lead sentence which VGLEAD correlates to. Per MOS:OPEN, information in the lead paragraph should define or identify the topic; which a mention of Pajitnov's work is inevitable for this purpose in Tetris. We already have the studio (Thinking Rabbit) for identification on this page for identification of the game's development, whereas identifying the entire team at the studio as the creators of the game, as opposed to one-man bands like Pajitnov and Toby Fox. The designer of Sokoban was barely mentioned in the article too, so the infobox itself is enough to mention him; it even has a nice "creator" parameter for this purpose. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Go D. Usopp: Thanks for explaining your reasoning, but I have not found in any part that a key fact mentioned in the infobox must not be mentioned in the lead.

MOS:FIRST "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." What is better to accomplish it than "Sokoban[a] is a puzzle video game in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations."? That explains since many years ago very well the subject or topic.

"which a mention of Pajitnov's work is inevitable for this purpose in Tetris.": In "Sokoban[a] is a puzzle video game in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations." we are not introducing Sokoban as the work of Hiroyuki Imabayashi; it is a basic fact mentioned later. The point was about keep framing the article as a topic article and not a specific videogame product.

"whereas identifying the entire team at the studio as the creators of the game": The word "game" here is ambiguous. There is a game concept or game type, and there is a game product. Notice the Sokoban Wikipedia article is not about the first commercial game product; it is about the game type, what I mentioned previously as a topic article. As I explained, Hiroyuki Imabayashi is the creator of the game type. You are using the word "creators" here to refer to "developers." In the lead, Thinking Rabbit is mentioned as the company that published the first product, and is connected with Hiroyuki because it was his company. Notice that I explained that "company" is a more precise word than "studio."

"The designer of Sokoban was barely mentioned in the article too": The designer was Hiroyuki Imabayashi. Carloseow (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also refer to MOS:VGLAYOUT where identifying information always goes first. The brief summary that describes notability would accommodate the gameplay information better than the lead sentence. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Go D. Usopp: Notice the long standing lead explains "why the game is notable and important". The next info show that is acceptable mention the author in the lead, even if they not have a dedicated article.

WP:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

WP:CREATELEAD "Sixty percent of mobile users only read the lead. The lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article, should get them interested in the content, and inspire them to read the whole article. When they read the article they should not be surprised by encountering any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead. If they are surprised, then that item should probably be mentioned in the lead."

The creator of a video game type is a "basic fact" and "significant information," and omitting it from the lead will surprise readers later, thus I cannot support removing "Hiroyuki Imabayashi" from the lead. Removing it goes against the explicit purpose of the lead to summarize significant information for all readers, especially mobile users. Carloseow (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the Manual of Style links I sent before. The infobox is part of the lead so he was already credited as creator and seen by the readers. The infobox exists so the lead paragraph would not be filled with cruft like this. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you quote the exact text that supports your claim? I confirm they are two different components with different purposes. Check for example Help:Infobox; it does not mention the infobox being part of the lead, nor does it suggest it replaces information within the lead. It says: "Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." Notice "the information should still be present in the main text". Carloseow (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The creator would obviously be present in the Development section in the main text outside of the infobox, so readers who simply read the intro and infobox or are interested enough to scroll will see his name. Per WP:CREATELEAD's Rule of thumb section, information in the lead section should refer to content in the article, which I haven't seen much documentation of Sokoban's creator beyond a simple mention of his name and involvement.

It would be preferred if you can add more information about the creation of the game and the creator's involvement outside its release in the Development section with detail. That should be a priority instead of debating about a sentence. Boldly reverting others' edits shouldn't be the norm because your edits are not the only edits that matter, so I hope you can tolerate some stylistic overhauls in accordance with MOS. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and no one has the definitive say on how an article should look. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By policies, there is no reason to remove a basic fact like the creator from both the lead and infobox. I already quoted the text of the policies in previous comments, but here is one, from the same you mentioned:

WP:CREATELEAD:

"The lead should be one to four paragraphs in length and should answer most or all of the five Ws."

"A well-written lead (and article) should answer most or all of the 5 Ws and also often how:

Who is it about?

What happened (what's the story)?

When did it take place?

Where did it take place?

Why did it happen?

How did it happen?"

Thus, mentioning the creator in the lead makes sense answering "How did it happen?".

Regarding your other comments. Notice you mention a "Development" section. It is the "History" section. This naming was agreed by consensus and is more appropriate for a topic article, unlike 'Development' which is more appropriate for a specific video game title or release. It is supported by MOS:VGLEAD: "Development/History: The article should give information on how the series came to be, and follow the thread of its history across multiple releases. This continuity is vital information that would otherwise be lost in articles about the individual titles."

About adding more information about the creation of Sokoban, I could try to elaborate a brief summary of what is mentioned in the magazines, basically what happened between the prototype and the commercial release, but I prefer to do in some future to provide the full picture.

About "Boldly reverting others' edits shouldn't be the norm", notice that also shouldn't be the norm, per BRD, to start the discussion from a reinstated state, but rather from the reverted state. If some user, after a bold edit that was reverted, reinstates it without discussion, that is edit warring. Also, to suggest a 'boldly reverting' when it was done after discussion in the talk page without consensus, is not appropriate. The revert action was not bold, but the reverted content was the bold one, and it raised issues regarding MOS:VGLEAD, as highlighted in the talk page.

About "because your edits are not the only edits that matter, so I hope you can tolerate some stylistic overhauls in accordance with MOS.", It is not about who owns an edit, it is about how each edit changes the article with readers as the focus. Please if you want, can you create a topic listing any possible MOS issue that you identify, but please, not only providing your interpretation of the MOS or policy, including the exact quote will be useful. Also, asking for a third review about the possible issues could help avoid any misunderstanding of policy or guidelines.

About "Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and no one has the definitive say on how an article should look.", for that there are the policies and the talk page. Carloseow (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say to remove the creator from the infobox, I meant to KEEP it in the infobox and remove it from the lead paragraph. Go D. Usopp (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out WP:BADREVERT. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Hello editors. Disagreement over the lead section of the Sokoban article has led to edit warring. I'd like to present both discussed leads and seek your input regarding their prose, content, and style.

Please review both lead versions below. Your comments and preference, supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, would be greatly appreciated.

A) Lead Version A (Video game type-focused opening):

"Sokoban is a puzzle video game in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations. Designed in 1981 by Hiroyuki Imabayashi, it was first published in Japan in 1982 by his company Thinking Rabbit for the NEC PC-8801 computer. The game was later ported to various platforms and followed by new titles. It became popular in Japan and internationally, inspiring unofficial versions, a subgenre of box-pushing puzzle games, and artificial intelligence research."

B) Lead Version B (Specific 1982 game-focused opening, creator not in lead):

"Sokoban[a] is a 1982 puzzle video game developed and published by Japanese studio Thinking Rabbit. In the game, the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations. It was first released in Japan in 1982 for the NEC PC-8801 computer. The game was later ported to various platforms and followed by new titles. It became popular in Japan and internationally, inspiring unofficial versions, a subgenre of box-pushing puzzle games, and artificial intelligence research."

Specific Questions for Discussion

Overall Framing: Which version (A or B) do you believe provides the most appropriate lead for the Sokoban article? Specifically, should the lead primarily introduce Sokoban as:

A) A puzzle video game type/genre, with details about the first title in 1982 following.

B) The specific 1982 original video game.

Clarity: When evaluating the above, please consider how the words of the lead matches the information in the article. For example, the ai research is about general Sokoban puzzles, not about the 1982 release.

Creator Mention: Do you believe Hiroyuki Imabayashi (the creator) should be mentioned in the lead and the infobox as a basic fact?

Your input and reasoning are highly valued. Carloseow (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please formulate your RFC in your own words and not using a large language model. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I only used it to proofread my original message. I carefully read all and checked all before submit it. It transmits my original message. Even the bold was added manually by me. (This message has not been proofread). Carloseow (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated it with my own words. Carloseow (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with my own words: I'm in favor of option A, mainly because when someone ask to me or I tell about Sokoban, I say something like this: "it is a videogame where you push boxes". Most of time, they say "yes, seems I know it, or I saw it before". I never say to people: it is a 1982 videogame. Another reason is that what makes Sokoban notable for have its own article is not the first release of 1982, but all the broad topic it is. Even the ai research mentioned in the article is from researchers using Sokoban puzzles from many sources, official and unofficial. I mention this to highlight a subtle but very important difference between A and B, both use the same end words "It became popular in Japan and internationally, inspiring unofficial versions, a subgenre of box-pushing puzzle games, and artificial intelligence research." and both refers to the previous phrase "The game", but here is the difference, in A, "The game" refers to the puzzle game type, and in B, "The game" refers to the 1982 release. And on this, B fails because the 1982 release was not what inspired ai research. In fact if you read the "Scientific research" section, it not mentions Sokoban 1982, it is not considered important. Carloseow (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carloseow,

This is the first time I’m participating in a discussion like this on Wikipedia.

I don’t know all the guidelines, so please forgive me if I say anything wrong :-)

On the actual question:

In my opinion, both texts are very clear and would work well in a Sokoban article.

As Carloseow says, they have a different focus:

Version A) is about Sokoban as a general game concept.

Version B) is more about the original Sokoban game from 1982.

I clearly prefer Version A.

Sokoban isn’t just a single game that appeared in 1982—it’s an entire genre.

On Wikipedia, I expect a general description of what Sokoban is, and for that, I think Version A is clearly the better choice.

An article specifically about the first Sokoban game (like for example this one: http://sokobano.de/wiki/index.php?title=First_Sokoban_program) would be a completely different thing.

I see Sokoban as a game concept, similar to how this article describes Tower defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_defense

That article also directly describes the idea of the game.

On whether Hiroyuki Imabayashi should be mentioned directly:

As I said, it depends on whether it’s an article about Sokoban in general or about the first Sokoban game.

But Hiroyuki Imabayashi didn’t just write a Sokoban implementation — he invented the whole game concept!

So from my perspective, it absolutely makes sense to mention him directly in the text.

He isn’t simply the developer of one game, but the inventor of the entire idea.

Just like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars where George Lucas is mentioned right in the first sentence, or in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity where Albert Einstein is mentioned immediately, I think Hiroyuki Imabayashi should also be named early in the text.

I’m not very experienced with Wikipedia, so I also looked at some other articles to get a sense of how they’re written:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku – Here it explains right at the start what the game is and how it works. Dates come later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2048_(video_game) – This one also describes the game immediately and names the developer early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac-toe – This also immediately describes how the game is played. Tic-tac-toe isn’t a video game, but I don’t see why a video game’s gameplay would be less important than, say, a release date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four – Also a very good example. It first describes what the game is and how it’s played, and only later mentions the year. It also names the inventor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minesweeper_(video_game) - Again, first the game is described. What I think is interesting, is that there is also a link to a concrete implementation (Microsoft Minesweeper). Also there the game is described and later the history with dates.

I see that for some games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomberman_(disambiguation), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(video_game_series) (and many others) there is an article about the franchise and then there are articles about the concrete games.

Maybe that's a solution? The main Sokoban articel (we talk about) can be about Sokoban in general and then there can be articles about concrete implementations.

Well, I think Carloseow is right when he says that the entire article - including links to artificial intelligence research and so on - only makes sense if the topic is Sokoban in general.

If it’s only about the first 1982 game, then the whole article would need to be rewritten.

In general, I also think the main text should not be changed too often.

I just read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section, and I think the advice in “Exercise caution when revamping a lead” describes this well.

I therefore strongly argue in favor of Version A. Matthias Meger (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick addition:

The very first Sokoban program released in 1982 featured significantly different mechanics compared to later versions. In those early levels (11–20), fake walls - which are visually indistinguishable from normal walls - must be destroyed by pushing them from a specific direction in order to solve the puzzle.

That mechanic was removed entirely in all later versions.

Therefore, describing Sokoban simply as:

“Sokoban[a] is a 1982 puzzle video game developed and published by Japanese studio Thinking Rabbit.” is misleading.

The Sokoban people know today does not include destructible walls.

If the goal is to describe the general, modern concept of Sokoban, that sentence blurs an important historical distinction.

That’s why I think there’s really no alternative to using Version A. The only additional option would be to write a separate article specifically about the first Sokoban program from 1982. Matthias Meger (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Matthias and with Carlos. The original text is the best option. Also, to be clear, for the article to be about the puzzles themselves, one must remember that in the original game (and I believe all of the Thinking Rabbit/Falcon games) the puzzle data was hard-coded into the game as numerical data. The text format we are familiar with today first appeared in XSokoban in the early 1990s. In retrospect, I believe there should be different articles concerning the game as a genre (covers the game in general, including game play mechanics and rules), the puzzles as a type (the different styles of puzzle data as they appear in different versions of the game, as well as the use of AI) and the specifics of the game's evolution (from the original game through the various implementations introduced over the years).

Also, I believe in the idiom, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The original paragraph is fine the way it is. No need to change it in my opinion. WayneCa (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would opt for Option B - it flows better and fits with the style of Wikipedia leads. I'm ambivalent on whether the creator should be included within the lead. BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]