Talk:Sokoban

Development section

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.

Sokoban RFC - Lead section wording, framing, and creator mention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The lead frames the article as series, because the article is about many Sokoban titles and the legacy of it. It was briefly described as a franchise because the existence of licensed games, but later changed to series because Thinking Rabbit official site uses "倉庫番シリーズ" which means "Sokoban series" to link to the official Sokoban.jp site, and because that term shows many results, indicating it is described as a series in Japan. In that sense, the decision is backed by sources. But a careful wording is needed to not describe it or lead as a lineal series, "sequels" not apply to much in Sokoban, because there are some, but the series is mainly composed of independent titles.Carloseow (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

---

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think this discussion is not about style or the flow of reading.

As I understand it, the question between Option A) and Option B) is not simply about two different ways of wording the same thing.

It is fundamentally about whether the article should only be about the 1982 game or should be much more general and cover Sokoban as a whole.

If this fundamental question is not resolved, one half of the editors will keep changing the article to use Option A), and the other half will keep changing it back to Option B).

Carloseow wrote:

"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."

That is also my main criticism of Option B).

In many articles (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game), Sokoban is listed as a “genre.”

Even in the Puzzle video game article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzzle_video_game), Sokoban is listed under “Sub-genres.”

But currently, the links lead to an article that doesn’t describe the genre, but only a specific Sokoban game—namely, the one released in 1982.

For me, a general description of Sokoban is much more important than having a dedicated article just about the 1982 game.

The article itself also contains the sentence:

"Sokoban is considered the originator of a puzzle game subgenre featuring box-pushing mechanics, commonly referred to as 'Sokoban-like' games.[26][27]"

But if the article itself says it’s an entire genre, why should the lead sentence focus on the 1982 game?

Because of this narrow focus on the year 1982, the current article doesn’t even mention the year 1981 once.

The reader sees in the very first sentence: “Sokoban[a] is a 1982 puzzle video game developed and published by Japanese studio Thinking Rabbit.”

Then they might visit the official Sokoban page and read there (https://sokoban.jp/greeting.html) as the first sentence (translated):

"Sokoban was created in the spring of 1981, when cherry petals were fluttering."

In my opinion, that is not ideal. It's confusing.

Can someone who favors option B please explain to me why focusing on the 1982 game improves the article?

If you google for "Sokoban 1981" you find a lot of pages that mention the 1981 year. Many of these websites even quote the previous Wikipedia text (Option A). In my opinion, changing this text should therefore be carefully considered. Even if the reading flow might be better for some with Option B, it should be weighed whether this justifies such a significant change to the first sentence of the article. Matthias Meger (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, after analysis I found that both options A and B had different issues:

- Version B intended to use an alternative wording to version A, but it changes the topic of the article to the 1982 release.

- Version A intended the article topic to be Sokoban as a whole, but the wording inadvertently pointed to the 1982 game as well.

Comments to reflect it:

---

Sokoban[a] is a puzzle video game in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations.

// Here is describing the genre of a video game.

// Users with a lot of background read it as any game defined by those characteristics, but a newcomer reads it as describing the genre of a specific video game, expecting clarification soon which game is meant.

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.

// Yes, the 1982 game.

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.

// This is saying that the 1982 game was notable.

---

What is the solution? Add the word "franchise" to option A, so the topic is what Sokoban really is: a franchise of puzzle video games in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations. That is true, if you are a company you even can get a license to publish an official Sokoban game from Falcon.

If the article in previous years intended to define Sokoban as a genre, consider that any unofficial Sokoban game (not part of the franchise) is technically known as a Sokoban clone.

MOS requires a single topic and notability. In the case of Sokoban, the topic as franchise describes well what it really is. The franchise is still alive. And it is notable because its more than 40 years producing Sokoban games, and the impact on culture: plenty of clones, fan-puzzles, AI research. In fact, the standard AI Sokoban test suite, uses 50 puzzles produced by the franchise, and 40 fan puzzles.

I will update the article with this new lead:

---

Sokoban[a] is a franchise of puzzle video games in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations. Hiroyuki Imabayashi created the original Sokoban game in 1981. The first commercial game was published in Japan in 1982 by his company Thinking Rabbit for the NEC PC-8801. It was later ported to various platforms and followed by new titles. Sokoban became popular in Japan and internationally, inspiring unofficial versions, similar games, fan puzzles and artificial intelligence research.

---

And I will add some small information in the History section.

I leave the RFC open, for further comments. But I will provide the lead update, hoping no more edit warring happens. Carloseow (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I can live with this decision.

I think, anyone who wants to change the article in the future should carefully consider why and take these facts into account:

Sokoban: Game Principle vs. Specific Release

For the vast majority of people, Sokoban is known as a game principle. Hardly anyone knows the first commercial game from 1982 specifically. As Carloseow correctly states, it's this game principle that defines Sokoban and is licensed.

Official Definition of Sokoban

The official Sokoban website has a dedicated page titled "What is Sokoban" (https://sokoban.jp/rule.html).

It states (translated with Gemini):

"Sokoban is a puzzle game where you control Rabi-kun, a part-time worker, to move luggage in a warehouse to their designated storage locations with as little effort as possible."

This is the official description of Sokoban.

Creation Date and Naming Confusion

The official site also states that Sokoban was created in the spring of 1981.

The first published game was simply called "Sokoban," just like the game principle itself. This creates a similar issue to Star Wars, where the first film was initially also titled "Star Wars."

Later, "Sokoban 2" and subsequent games were released.

If the first game had been called "Sokoban 1," this confusion would likely not exist. It would then be clear that "Sokoban" refers to the fundamental game principle, and "Sokoban 1" refers to the first released game. Matthias Meger (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Although the licensed games show official Sokoban as a franchise, the term used in Japanese is "series".

https://sokoban.jp/greeting.html: "Over the following 30 years, I was able to see Sokoban ported to numerous hardware platforms, including through licensing agreements." (translated). It says "ports" but history show it means also "follow-ups".

But Thinking Rabbit site uses "倉庫番シリーズ" when linking to the Sokoban.jp site. https://thinkingrabbit.jp/

"倉庫番シリーズ" means Sokoban series.

I did not found any Japanese article or review that describe Sokoban as franchise.

However, for the expression "倉庫番シリーズ" there are many results.

For that reason, I changed the lead to:

"Sokoban[a] is a series of puzzle video games in which the player pushes boxes around in a warehouse, trying to get them to storage locations." Carloseow (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

A or some version there of. It matches in spirit we have in the lead of Tetris. This article as written is clearly about the entire series and not just the 1982 version, so mentioning the original creator and its history pre-1982 in the lead is due and a better version. Exact wording can be changed, of course. Skynxnex (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverse mode, question for newcomers in the subject

Hello,

I have a question regarding the current "Reverse mode" text on the page. I'm not sure if it is easy to understand for new readers unfamiliar with the subject. When someone already knows a topic, it's easy to fill in gaps from prior knowledge, but new readers may not have that context.

This is the current text:

Reverse mode: Some Sokoban programs allow players to play a puzzle backward. This approach can help players better understand the puzzle structure and develop effective solving strategies. Starting with all boxes on storage locations, the player pulls the boxes to return to the initial puzzle state. Solutions found this way solve the standard puzzle when both the order and the direction of the moves are reversed.[43]

I'd like to ask the community: Is this text understandable for a reader unfamiliar with Sokoban, or does it leave significant unanswered questions?

I found this section particularly challenging to express concisely. I have a draft revision (created from scratch by me and polished with LLM and reviewed by me) and would like to ask for feedback from new readers — is it more understandable than the current version?

Reverse mode: A game mode available in some Sokoban programs, such as Sokoban YASC, Sokofan, and BoxMan. It lets players approach puzzles by working backward. In this mode, the game starts from a position that resembles a solved puzzle: all boxes are placed on storage locations, and the player stands on an empty square near the boxes. The goal is to return the puzzle to its original unsolved state by pulling boxes and moving around the board. If successful, reversing the sequence of moves in order and direction constitutes a valid solution to the original puzzle. Reverse mode can also be used to explore how a puzzle might conclude—such as where the player ends up, how boxes must be arranged before the final move—and to determine in what order storage locations can or should be filled, helping to develop an effective solving strategy.[43]

Any thoughts or feedback on these points would be greatly appreciated. (Proofread by LLM and reviewed by me.) Carloseow (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs. On your question, we do not add fan-made content without sufficient significant coverage from third-party sources outside the community, even if the community seems to be really active. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the advice. I thought the message came across as somewhat presumptive and directive. When I use LLMs, it is always to proofread text that I've written from scratch, and I always double-check the result. I'm aware of LLMs' tendency to hallucinate or insist on incorrect information. I often end up editing or fixing parts myself. There's no such thing as a trusted, unchecked use—I always review everything.

Regarding my question: which version do you consider more comprehensive or easier to grasp? Note that the content is supported by this quote at [43]: 'Reversed solving, reverses the game, working from the solution back to the original puzzle. The man no longer pushes boxes, but pulls them instead.' I'm even preparing a full article to publish outside Wikipedia to cover this topic. (Proofread by LLM and reviewed by me.) Carloseow (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I literally meant to inform you to specify your use of LLM assistance in edit summaries, as specified in the guideline. I was not intending to discourage you on this use of LLMs with bad faith. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your reminder was about edit summaries. I think it's best to keep this discussion focused on the article topic. If you'd like to discuss broader points about LLM use, that could be done separately on my talk page.Carloseow (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not think the proposed section is superior; it's too cumbersome and has an awkward flow, and I don't believe it introduces the concepts to a reader better than the original. The original could be improved, but by tightening up the wording, not adding florid bloat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! The proposed version was intended to provide more detail, but if it came across as "florid bloat," then it clearly failed to achieve its goal. The best approach may be to add a secondary source that covers the subject in greater depth than the current one, allowing the original text to remain a concise summary. I'd prefer not to revise the original, as it already does the job perfectly, especially considering the article is now rated as Class B. Carloseow (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

> The original could be improved, but by tightening up the wording

Out of curiosity, could you please show a draft of it, to consider it? Carloseow (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I think reverse mode is too complex to fully describe in the main Sokoban article.

There are some specific aspects, such as:

• The player's starting position in reverse mode can be chosen freely.

• It's not enough to pull all boxes back to their original positions — the player must also be able to reach the initial starting position.

Since I’m very familiar with reverse mode, it’s hard for me to judge whether the current text is understandable for someone who doesn't know Sokoban very well.

Carloseow wrote: "I'm even preparing a full article to publish outside Wikipedia to cover this topic."

In my opinion, the current text is already quite good — it explains in just a few sentences that Sokoban can also be played in reverse, and gives a sense of why that might be useful.

For more detailed information, it might be best to simply refer to the external article.

Until now, I thought the Sokoban article should stay relatively short.

But I just read the article on Chess — wow, that’s a really long one :-)

So maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea after all to describe reverse mode and its special features directly in the article?

That raises another question for me:

Is reverse mode really a “Derivative,” or would it be better categorized as a gameplay variation under "Gameplay"?

After all, it’s still regular Sokoban - some programs just allow to play it in reverse. Matthias Meger (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It is derivative in the sense of being an unofficial game mode, it can be considered an "emergent gameplay". Carloseow (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

> Since I’m very familiar with reverse mode, it’s hard for me to judge whether the current text is understandable for someone who doesn't know Sokoban very well.

Me too. That is the reason I opened this topic.

> I think reverse mode is too complex to fully describe in the main Sokoban article.

> In my opinion, the current text is already quite good

Yes! because its complexity, trying to compact more details is counterproductive to clarity. In that sense the original summary excels.

> For more detailed information, it might be best to simply refer to the external article.

I agree.

> Until now, I thought the Sokoban article should stay relatively short.

I agree.

> So maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea after all to describe reverse mode and its special features directly in the article?

Maybe it's possible with enough secondary sources, but it might give too much weight to that topic compared to other parts of the article. Carloseow (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Versions

@Carloseow would it be more appropriate to mark whether a Sokoban game is released outside Japan instead of marking region? The only game in the list to be ported by a non-Japanese company is Soko-Ban, so it would be more helpful to list it in this way, while also adding international names of said games. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Go D. Usopp, nice job adding the developer column to the table.

Regarding the table, I’m not a big fan of adding too many items, since it makes the table feel dense. Some time ago, I added Super Sokoban (1993) but later removed it for the same reason. I’m also not a fan of grouping titles from different regions under the same developer, though others may feel differently, and that’s not a reason to remove them.

With the four new titles already added, I think it’s better to stop there to keep the table easy to read. I also don’t like highlighting the international column’s related titles or using the Yes/No style. I prefer keeping it as Japan and US, and reserving the term “international” only for newer releases that reach multiple countries through digital distribution. Even then, a game can still be Japan-only—for example, Sokoban Smart can be downloaded from outside Japan, but the game itself is in Japanese.

(Proofread by LLM and checked by me) Carloseow (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, seems the developer of Soko-Ban (1988) is ASCII.? Carloseow (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Could be a mistake on my part. On the region issue, it would be better if we simply mentioned if any international release occurred in the table to avoid overcomplicating everything. A majority of said international releases are American and whether a PAL region release ever occurred isn't worth mentioning. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I had previously separated everything into tables, but I've now removed the 'Localized Releases' table and moved their US releases into the table under the same section. Carloseow (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sokoban/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Carloseow (talk · contribs) 23:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: TarkusAB (talk · contribs) 20:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll get to this soon. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to quick-fail this as it's quite a long ways from meeting the Good Article criteria. You can re-nominate once you've made improvements and you think it's ready. I've made my notes pertaining to the criteria below.

1. Well-written Y
   • From a cursory glance, it seemed generally fine but the Legacy section is really hard to read as its broken into numerous sub-sections of one-to-two sentences each. It needs nearly a total rewrite to be more cohesive with better flow. I didn't read too closely as there were problems with verifiability and coverage I share below.
   • I'm concerned about the amount of LLM usage on this talk page, and if that carried into the article. Again, didn't look to far into this. But LLM usage is seriously concerning and you really should avoid it.
2. Verifiable with no original research N
   • Too many unreliable and questionable sources, particularly when you discuss the derivatives in the Legacy section. If you can't find a reliable source that discusses something, it should be removed.
   • The Gameplay section has unsourced statements
3. Broad in its coverage N
   • The coverage of the series history is incomplete. You cite a few interviews with Imabayashi that talk about the game design and concept development but have not brought that information into the article. Furthermore, you just kinda glaze over the history of the series in the History section. A few releases are mentioned out of the dozens released. I don't know why you only mentioned those. The cell phone games are not even mentioned. We definitely don't want to just duplicate the information in the games table, but there's more that can be said here in a narrative tone.
   • The games table is incomplete. The linked Sokoban games list on the official site shows that these games were released on way more platforms than the ones you list here. Some games are straight up missing. Just one example I found, Power Sokoban for the Super Famicom is missing. And again, games like the i-mode releases are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
   • Coverage of critical reception is weak for a series with this many releases since the 1980s. I know that finding reviews for Japanese games is difficult, but you should absolutely be able to get much more than this.
4. Neutral Y
5. Stable Y
   • There's still an RFC that appears to be open
6. Illustrated Y

If I can bring more clarity to any of this, let me know. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@TarkusAB thanks for the valuable feedback. I will work on the points. About the cell phone games, I did not mentioned it because it all are lost media (https://sokoboxes.com/articles/the-lost-archives-of-sokoban), but I have sources to mention it, and I will do. Regarding the History section, you are right, is needed to brought more information. Carloseow (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Derivatives section backup

The Derivatives section has often been challenging to maintain due to the lack of sources discussing it. Before changing it—likely removing many items and not using the sub-section style—I want to leave a backup of the section here. Maybe in the future, something can be recovered with a good source. A small note: I have often thought about removing CyberBox, since its challenge is not in organizing blocks to achieve a goal, but in pushing blocks away.

Here is the last edit before the simplification: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sokoban&oldid=1307061254

Carloseow (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sokoban/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Carloseow (talk · contribs) 15:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 13:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I do want to start off by noting that there has been definite improvement since the last GAN. Unfortunately, however, I think that there are still some substantial problems with the article.

• Lede - that's a pretty short lede for an article. It's not too out of line for what's there below, but if the rest of the article is filled out (see later points) this should be expanded to match.
• Gameplay is relatively solid. The writing is very choppy, but that's okay at the GA level; I do think that the "deadlocks" list could use some slight explanations as to why they're deadlocks- e.g. the first one could be "Two boxes placed together along a wall. Each box blocks the other from being moved.", similar to how the second explains that the box can't be moved back from the wall.
• History - This is where it starts to have problems. It's not great that most of the paragraph is cited to four sources in aggregate rather than each sentence saying where it's from, but that's minor; the bigger problem is the series of 6 1-or-2 sentence paragraphs. That's not prose, that's a bulleted list of games without the bullets. It's entirely duplicative of the table that follows in the next section as well, as it adds no "history" or development information. Just, "then these games came out".
• History - Even without further sourcing, this section could talk about how the series moved from just home PCs to consoles in 1986, and first moved outside Japan in 1988... though it really needs further sourcing. This is very bare-bones once we leave the original Sokoban; it's barely one step removed from being a "List of Sokoban games" with some context. I understand that sourcing an article like this would be very difficult, but this really feels like an extremely major gap to not have anything about the series after 1982 other than what games exist in it.
• Versions - "Most titles are independent without a continuous narrative" - this is the first time that you've mentioned a narrative at all. What narrative? If even the first game had some sort of "narrative" or framing context that's a pretty major detail to skip.
• Versions - "The following table lists a selection of official Sokoban titles" - why only a selection? I get that you want only official ones as there's hundreds of non-official games, but what criteria are you using to "select" these titles?
• Versions - I understand where you're coming from to have the table split up by region, but these kind of tables are typically ordered by release date so it's confusing. Personally I'd make the titles the first column, followed by release date and then region, but at minimum this table should be sortable.
• Versions - a lot of these rows are unsourced; are they intended to be cited to "The History of Sokoban" (25)? That's not clear.
• Reception - these sources seem underutilized. I can't read Japanese, but the first source (Pasocom Game Ranking Book) is a full-page review that's being used to cite nothing more than that it got a 94/100. You only have two reviews for the game, so the article really should be using what they say as much as possible.
• Reception - again we have a 1-sentence paragraph hanging out, which is even odder as the previous sentence had to do with sales rather than reviews and so would more naturally go with this.
• Reception - and again we have the few reviews available being cited for nothing much beyond a score.
• Legacy - Here the article devolves from one-sentence paragraphs to one-sentence subsections. Again ignoring the choppy sentence structure, this is 2 or 3 short paragraphs of information stretched out into 7 paragraphs across 4 subsections. This needs to be more cohesive; right now it's a handful of facts with no connection and little context.
• References - There's a few duplicates in here (15, 40) and some (51, 65, 66) that aren't filled out all the way. The references used for many "variants" are going to need a lot of justification for why they count as RSs.

Ultimately, this article reads like a skeleton. There's some good bones in there, but they're disconnected from each other and there just isn't enough meat/content. I get that finding sources for 1980s Japanese game development is a monumental task, but as-is the bulk of this article is really just some gameplay summary + a good paragraph of how the first game was made, a chopped up "list of Sokoban games" that doesn't say much more than that they exist, and then a listing of review scores and a listing of interesting fan-made variations. That's just not enough to be considered a comprehensive overview of the series. You've put in a lot of great work over the last few months into this article, and it really has been a big improvement, but unfortunately I think it's still pretty far from the GA bar. I'm going to close this nomination as not promoted. --PresN 13:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)