Talk page cleared; previous discussions are in the page history.

Reverted your last edit, as it seemed to have been to an earlier version and removed large amounts of discussion on other topics. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was inadvertently. I edited it again, now checking first the full changes before send it.Carloseow (talk)16:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to all of us. :)SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleSokoban isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofTarkusAB --TarkusAB (talk)20:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleSokoban hasfailed. Seethe review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofTarkusAB --TarkusAB (talk)23:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleSokoban hasfailed. Seethe review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)14:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleSokoban isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofGuyinblack25 --Guyinblack25 (talk)05:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleSokoban hasfailed. Seethe review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofGuyinblack25 --Guyinblack25 (talk)04:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your questions atTalk:Sokoban/GA3.

While we always strive for accurate and comprehensive, we do our best to stay within the boundaries ofverifiable byreliable sources. Sources that lack a history of editorial rigor and professional expertise are discouraged for this reason.

Here are the sources I found that look like personal websites, which should not be used except in limited circumstances. Unless the authors of these are recognized experts in the field of gaming, then these won't meetWikipedia:Reliable sources. Without a reliable source for verification, anything that is sourced to these should be removed.

• Personal Wix site
• David W. Skinner personal site on BentonRea
• Alfred Pfeiffer personal site on Geocities
• Sokoboxes

Regarding the thesis papers, the master's thesis likely doesn't meet the requirement onWP:THESIS: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."The PhD ones might be ok. Since it's not apparent whether they've been peer reviewed, you should prepare an explanation that can demonstrate they have "been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties."

Regarding the quotations, I'm on the fence about it. All the guidelines for quotations indicate to avoid copyright violation.WP:FOOTQUOTE states "However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations." But these are providing translations for foreign sources. The issue is that a large chunk of the source is quoted, which makes my conclusion lean towards removal. Though a second opinion wouldn't hurt.

Again, I think the article has potential. I can make some organization edits to help create a structure to build on later this week. (Guyinblack25^talk05:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

From Sokoboxes I think it is needed to keep the published interview with the creator of the game. It reveals important details not available in other sources. Regarding the translations from Japanese, all are from a professional translator. The ones used in the History section are good to keep, although a little bit long, because they capture well what the original text says. I think it is possible to reduce or remove the Japanese quotes regarding Sokoban Legend, Power Sokoban, and Ultimate Sokoban. And the German review, maybe it is possible to reduce or remove the quoted text. I provided all of it in the footnotes because it allows creating a better summary. If later some editor changes the summary working from the English summary, sometimes it diverts from what the original source says. Thus, having the translated quote allows always expressing or summarizing it working from it. Thanks in advance for your coming organization edits.Carloseow (talk)09:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The creator interview might be fine, but I haven't dealt much with such interviews on personal websites, so I'm not certain. I recommend posting the question atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. There are more experienced editors who review sources regularly.

Regarding the translations, you're right that they serve a very practical and helpful function. The magazine sources themself look great (good job on tracking those down; I know how hard that is). However, the concern is that the amount in the quotes veers into copyright violation. You can pose the question on the VG Sources talk page as well for a second opinion.

I also see that you started a peer review for the article. I made layout changes to the article to help organize the information. After the "Derivatives and variants" content that relies on unreliable sources is trimmed, I think the list should be changed into prose and added to the new "Legacy" section. (Guyinblack25^talk16:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I trimmed a lot of the quoted text. About the current ones from the magazine, I think is possible to trim it too because the summary is accurate. But anyways I think will be nice to keep (I will ask). I added two subtitles to the Legacy section, and in Derivatives and variants section, removedPukoban, and add two games:Sokomania 2, andPushy IIb.Carloseow (talk)20:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guyinblack25 the current large Games's table, we must put at the end of the article? as suggested by TarkusAB ("The games list is also quite long. Put it at the end of the article after all the prose as it's frustrating to scroll past if I just want to read about the series.")?Carloseow (talk)19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left general comments on the Peer Review. I also gave an alternative suggest regarding the list of games. I don't recall ever putting games information at the end of an series article. You always want to lead with basic information (gameplay, common elements, appearances, media in a series, etc.) so the rest of the article has context. (Guyinblack25^talk21:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]