Talk:Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Original Briantrainer

This product was the first of what has become a whole generation of brain training games on a wide variety of platforms. Do we need something about the genre as a whole, rather than just this very specific article about the one game on the one platform? 81.2.64.18 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientific appraisal/criticism

I don't think this article is complete without some discussion if it actually works, or just helps you to train for this kind of tests (just like training for IQ test is possible).. I heartd about such discussion regarding this game, but couldn't find sources, but wiull continue looking, anybody an idea? Romanista 10:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, please provide info. Thanks Pluke 10:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] this article mentions that there is currently no firm evidence. Pluke 09:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

section added, if anyone can expand it that would be grand Pluke 22:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't just expand but remove the majority of this article as well! We need a write-up about the game and not a walk-through of the entire game. There is way too much text for such a small game. (Just imagine if we'd have to go into such detail with other games too.) The primary reason one would lookup this game is to verify the scientific background. There should be much more focus on that. 16:03, 21 December 2007 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.6.204 (talk)

European localisation

Hello there, I've added information for the European localisation of Brain training, it's my first real article for Wikipedia besides some little chemistry stubs.. so please don't get mad if my formatting isn't great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.181.70 (talk • contribs) .

No worries. We all have been newbies at one point ;) -- ReyBrujo 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was at an event where they said this would be released in Australia in March and never in the US (probably working on old news, typical), but it's damn fun. Perhaps a synopsis of some of the stuff involved in it is in order? Also I believe it's based on a book by the Japanese guy who features in the game, but I know no more than that. Confusing Manifestation 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Brain Training 3

Whoever wrote that Brain Traning 3 will come out in Europe when it's not even out in Japan is incorrect. There is no 3rd Brain Training game and Nintendo hasn't announced it either. The "source" just takes it to info about Brain Training 2. TJ Spyke 22:05, 21 April 2006 (ET)

North American sales

Has any sales numbers been released for the North American version or is it too soon? Fableheroesguild 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no sales numbers yet. Unless Nintendo releases information for the first week' sales in a press release, we will have to wait until around the second week of May for NPD numbers. -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo informed 120,000 copies have been sold in the first three weeks. During the first three weeks in Japan, the game sold 120,719 copies. -- ReyBrujo 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I have heard that if you say Microsoft, the head will make a disgusted face. That could go in the trivia section. -- ReyBrujo 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just tried it now. It's hilarious. I'm adding it. CrossEyed7 23:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just tried it and I couldn't get the same responce twice. One time his glasses raised, one time he made a "mad" face, and other times he laughed. Unless it's just me, it seems as though saying Microsoft is like saying everything else and produces a random result. -HumanZoom 06:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Changing to references

If nobody complains, I will be switching all inline links to references this weekend. I believe that will make the article look somewhat more polished. -- ReyBrujo 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Title

--Zeldamaster3 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Should it not be:

Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!

and not

Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day

Seems so. We should check if other games with ! also use it. -- ReyBrujo

A quick check of the lists of video games gives a large number of results in the positive, so I'm making the move. Confusing Manifestation 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sales information

The game has been in the top 10 of the Japanese software sales in 47 of the last 51 weeks (that is, since it was released, only 4 weeks it stayed outside the top ten). I believe that is quite noteworthy. I was planning on adding a chart showing that information. However, I am not enterily sure about how to do it, since there must be 47 different bars (see User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Japanese hardware sales, the lowest chart is the one with the BT game information). Suggestions? -- ReyBrujo 04:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

References moved here following change to cite

I've changed the inline refs, but the following were listed without pointing to a particluar spot in the article. brenneman ^{L} 12:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Breaking: GDC - Detailed Nintendo Keynote Coverage
• GDC 06: Nintendo rallies the faithful
• Interview with the localization team at 1Up.com and Game Informer
• Mail interview with professor Ryūta Kawashima

Those were references used to build the History section. Although not inlined, they should still be included in the section. Later I will see if I can inline them. -- ReyBrujo 13:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I am often dubious about external liks in the "references" section. But since I saw your name I was pretty sure that these were legitimate. - brenneman ^{L} 13:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I usually create an extra section for references that haven't been inlined so that anyone can inline them if necessary. Besides, I don't really like spamming the EL section. I will inline them now. -- ReyBrujo 13:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Finished inlining them. Two interviews stayed in a "Further reading" section. I have added more links, prose'd the reviews section, added some detail about media coverage (there is much more about this, I have seen it featured in several other TV programs). Hopefully more references can be found later. -- ReyBrujo 15:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Glitches

Does that one 'glitch' really need to have a mention? Considering it only happens to some people (I just stopped playing the game for today and I had no problems with it, for example), and there is no source to back the claim, it sounds like it's less a glitch and more that the person who added the line can't enunciate properly. User.lain 05:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I will add a source later. I have read people have some problems with the word blue, enough times to consider it significant, but it was clear that it was not happening to everyone. -- ReyBrujo 11:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On the note of verifiable items in the article, is there any conclusive evidence that the head-shaking is a direct response to saying "Microsoft" and "PSP", or is it just a sort of "I don't know what you're saying" response? (Of course, once the game comes out here tomorrow I can probably experiment for myself.) Confusing Manifestation 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about PSP, but I have heard about Microsoft (it is even in the Nintendo forums). I have a sealed copy, but won't open it (it is against my own rule of not opening a new game until I finish the previous one, in my case Metroid Prime Hunters). -- ReyBrujo 15:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've been experimenting, and it seems that he gives the reactions to a whole bunch of random sounds, and it's quite likely the correspondence with at least some of the ones mentioned in the articles is just a coincidence. Confusing Manifestation 13:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess Kelestar has beaten me to it (serves me right for working through my watchlist backward). Confusing Manifestation 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

No offence to whoever wrote it, and I realise that this is the way that Japanese names are referenced in other articles, but the first paragraph reads like illegible garbage. It is not accessible at all. Is it not possible to write a couple of lines on Alternative Names under the main US title? I'd do it myself only I'm not sure how. Kelestar 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean you read little blocks? that just means you should install the correct fonts to read it as intended Romanista 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He means the fact that the Japanese name is so obnoxiously long, both in Japanese and in its translation. I think so too - there's gotta be a better way of showing the information. Hbdragon88 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Cover

The image located on this page seems to be the cover of the Japanese cover for the sequel and not the original. I believe this is the correct cover. Can anyone confirm or deny this so appropriate changes be made? -HumanZoom 06:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. The image is the Japanese cover of Brain Training 2. Interestingly, the uploader of the image uploaded the cover of the Brain Training under the title Image:Brain Training 2.jpg (see file history). --Kusunose 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. I do not understand hardly any Japanese at all, but I did recognize the "2" in the title :) Anyway, I updated the caption to reflect the fact that it is a picture of the sequel's cover and not the original (at least until we get a copy of the original on wikipedia). -HumanZoom 06:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Brue"

Will any include the "Brue" thing so that people will understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.104.155 (talk • contribs) .

Credits

Regarding this edit, I believe the credits are necessary, as we should focus not only in the gameplay, but the design, development, and history of the game. That would include the credits (much like the crew that is shown in singles and albums articles). -- ReyBrujo 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

blue

yeah the blue thing is a pain in the ass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamersedge (talk • contribs) .

Chris Tarrent gaffe

Does anyone think it's mentioning the whole thing with Chris Tarrent forgetting his wife's anniversary while they were splitting up thing? It seems relevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EvilRedEye (talk • contribs) .

Move discussion

I argue that we move the article from Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! to Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old is Your Brain?, under the logic that the latter has performed far better than the former. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the game has been very succesful in the United States (even making the top 10 games of 2006). Start a poll if you want to move it. TJ Spyke 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It sold slightly more than half of what it's done in Europe in NA. In NA, it surpassed 1.1 million. In EU, it surpassed 2 million. The latter was according to a Nintendo press release. Combined, the game has sold more than 5 million as Brain Training, in three different regions (Australia, Europe, and Japan). As Brain Age, it's done less than 1.5 million in two (USA and Canada). Really, I think the situation asks for you to show why Brain Age is more well-known. The fact that it sold more as Brain Training is quite the good reason.

PS: Did you know that you are expected to assume good faith and not say "hey, he's fixing a redirect! He must be doing something for the sake of forcing it to stay his way!" It doesn't make me look worse. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When you moved the page, then edited the old page, that just prevents a move back. Europe/Australia/Japan combined have more than 850 million people (with about 700 million just in Europe) while the US/Canada just 310 million.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? → Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! — I explained at WP:CVG, but briefly: the article was moved unilaterally by a user (and edited several redirects, preventing non-admins from moving it back). Brain Age gets over 10x as many Google hits (463,000 vs. 38,300), has been a big hit in North Amerca (one of the top 10 games of 2006) and is the more common name based on how it is referred to in the media. TJ Spyke 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Strong Support as nominator (here plus my comments at WP:CVG). Ignore ALTP and his comments about Google hits, "Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a day" gets over 10x as many Google hits as "Brain Training: How Old is Your Brain?". TJ Spyke 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Wikipedia:Naming conventions clearly supports that the most common name to english speakers should be used in a tie such as this. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support ALTP added edit history to prevent other people from moving it back and also moved it over the objections of several users on the CVG talk page. There was no consensus achieved in the orgiinal move, so it should be moved back. Let ALTP gain consensus there. Hbdragon88 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

   Can you back up this allegation? Looks like a reasonably genuine redirect fix after a serial move. Chris cheese whine 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

   I finally pulled up the ArbCom case that I had remembered - see the AndiyK ArbCom decision. Hbdragon88 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   Hbdragon88 doesn't back up his unfounded allegations? OMG. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Support, as far as I can tell, it was the original page title and both are valid. Google is also cool, even though it wouldn't be a good reason by itself. Voretus 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. In the case of two valid names, original should be restored. Don't really see need to include subtitles, however. Gene Nygaard 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

   Huh? I'm confused. You don't use evidence that the original name is better, you just say that I need a consensus for this move. So pray tell - if I did do a vote, what would you vote and why? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

6. A Link to the Past moved (twice... no wait, thrice) Trace Memory to Another Code: Two Memories because European name, and it was released in Europe before the North American version. I would like to see some consistence in his arguments from time to time. -- ReyBrujo 03:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   You forgot to mention that there is only ONE thing on either side that isn't anecdotal evidence for Trace Memory's move dispute - what you just mentioned. If Trace Memory had verifiably sold more than double as copies in NA than it did in EU, I wouldn't move it. However, I am not arguing for "first appearance tops all" at any point. I'm saying "since it's the best argument I have and is better than your argument, it works". Brain Age coming to NA before Brain Training came to EU doesn't matter, because Brain Training is the name in EU and Australia, and it is also more popular in those two territories than NA. At no point should being released in NA trump that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   The problem with your theory though A Link to the Past is that page names should reflect what English readers while look up in situations like this and not sales numbers. There are far more english readers in the Americas than the UK. While the all of Europe may have sold more than America, America has sold more than the UK (and other English speaking countries). Jedi6-(need help?) 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   (multiple edit conflict) Never in your move attempts you stated you were moving them based in amount of copies sold. The three times were based simply in "it launched first in Europe". Now you are trying with the "sold" amount. However, this guideline is pretty clear: use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things You are basing yourself in the fact that, since the game sold more in Europe, it is more known than in US. However, check the References section of the article: 4 mentions to Brain Training, 13 mentions to Brain Age. Therefore, per the article's own references, it is clear the game is better known as Brain Age than Brain Training. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   Wow, the majority of reliable references are from North American sources? Blows my mind, never would have guessed that because North American gaming media is more powerful than European gaming media, the odds of North American media being referenced is much higher. And I never said Another Code sold more copies. I said we have no IDEA how many copies Another Code sold, but we do have the Sega Mega Drive argument to back that up, and we do know that it came first. Being moved to Brain Age isn't backed up by the SMD argument, and because the sales are exceedingly higher in EU/AU than in NA, coming first is out because it's a lesser argument. Also, English is a common language in many EU regions, so I don't see why they should be excluded. It's language, not nationality that matters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   You agree that North American gaming media is more powerful (I am guessing this means North American sites are accessed by many more readers than European ones, right?). Then, wouldn't you agree that it is more likely someone who comes to this article is more likely to be referred to a North American site about the game, or come from a North American resource (say, Time magazine, in example)? Note that I prefer the old name better than the new one, but I would much prefer leaving the article in a simpler link like Brain Age or Brain Training. -- ReyBrujo 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Strong opposition. Brain Training is the original name (precedence set by Sega Mega Drive, the game is based on a book called Brain Training, "Brain Training" gets more hits than "Brain Age", is more successful in Europe (a weaker market than NA). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
   • What? Brain Training does NOT get more Google Hits. Using both the shortened names (Brain Age and Brain Training) and the full names get way more Google hits for the North American name. Also, there are 708 million people in Europe (compared to 310 million for US/Canada. TJ Spyke 04:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
     • And that proves that the EU market is stronger why...? Are you saying that population is the only determining factor in a market's strength? Regardless, the attach ratio of Brain Training is 5:1, compared to Brain Age's 10:1 (just for trivia's note, Nintendogs in Europe is 2:1). Google hits are purely anecdotal evidence, and do not cancel out the fact that it is the original name (an argument successfully used for the Sega Mega Drive article), does not factor in that there is a book related to the game called Brain Training, the fact that it sold more in Europe, the fact that it is the #2. best-selling DS game ever in Europe, and only the #5. best-selling DS game ever in North America. In Japan, it's #5., while the sequel is #3. Your only arguments are that it was Brain Age in NA first, and the Google hits. The only GOOD argument is the "first come, first serve" argument, but we KNOW that it is more popular, and we KNOW that the name was originally Brain Training. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
       • Where did those attach ratios come from? And where did those numbers like it being the second best DS game in Europe come from? TJ Spyke 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
         • Nintendo press releases and NPD data. In Europe, Nintendogs = 5 million, Brain Age = 2 million, New Super Mario Bros. = 2 million. And I'm still waiting for why sales figures, being the original name, and being based on a book called Brain Training loses to Google hits. It'd be great to know. Oh, by the way - Brain Training is presently the number one selling DS game week after week in the UK. Not so in North America. It's also the best-selling in Germany week after week (and sometimes, it's the best selling of any game in that week), and one of the best-selling games in France. I don't see how you can argue that despite a clear disadvantage in popularity, Brain Age should take the title. English is a common language throughout Europe, even in countries where it isn't the primary language.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) 06:08, 7 February 2007.
         • [2] [3]
2. Oppose, as the search engine test by itself is not good grounds for a move. Chris cheese whine 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. There is no sound encyclopedic reason to give a Wikipedia article an advertising blurb as a title. — Athænara ✉ 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Both Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? and Brain Age: Train your Brain in Minutes a Day! are both the full title of the game. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Google hits? USA is a stronger industry, and thusly has more media coverage, and thusly will get more hits. Considering how much larger the industry is in North America compared to Europe, the fact that Brain Training has almost outsold Brain Age by 2:1 speaks to how much more popular it is in Europe. Also, it's the original name. Brain Training is the name of the book, and in all but one in the world in which it has been released, it is known as Brain Training. Brain Age in North America is the exception. I don't understand the idea that Brain Age, which sold less, is not the original name, and is in a stronger market should be the name instead of the original name, which sold more, and is in weaker markets. In Europe, it's sold more. In Japan, it's sold more. The only region Brain Age has beaten Brain Training in is Australia, and DS Lite is not very strong there at all compared to NA, EU, or JP. And will you stop trying to paint my actions as acting bad faith?! You keep making it seem like I changed the redirects for the sake of forcing the situation my way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Brain Training is not the name of the book. It's Train Your Brain, a slightly different title, but in any case it should not be used to justify the name of hte game. As far as I know, sales are not the sole indication of how any article should be named; it's based on the most common name. Your move is in bad faith because you purposefully added edit history to the redirect to prevent others from moving it back, thus forcing this discussion here. Hbdragon88 05:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Great logic - based on absolutely nothing, I acted in bad faith. I guess whenever anyone fixes redirects, it cannot be anything BUT acting in bad faith. Have you ever read a single policy on Wikipedia in your life (other than "assuming bad faith", of course). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You started an informal discussion on the CVG talk page asking whether the page should be moved or not. Despite the numerous objections, you moved it over anyway. Obviously I doubt good faith here, would you mind explaining why you moved it over anyway? Hbdragon88 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Popularity? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of confusion. See, the only arguments that work for Brain Age are "it came to NA first" and "Google hits" (which is anecdotal evidence that leans towards North America on account of the fact that many of the top hits for this game come from the biggest media websites, which are all based in NA). However, I can state for a fact that it has sold significantly more in Europe + Australia (Hell, EU alone outsells it, Australia's just an extra nail in the coffin). The name is not incorrect to the Japanese name, and is recognized by more EU/AU DS owners than NA DS owners.

I have provided EU sales for Brain Age, but will not provide NA sales - would if I could, but NPD forbids posting that information. However, AGF more or less states that you'll have to trust me in that what I say is true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this need not even be voted on. The ArbCom has ruled that move pages that have become irreverislbe can be moved back without a WP:RM discussion. See Reveral of irreversible page moves on the AndiyK decision. Hbdragon88 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move.

I once again bring up that it should not be at the NA title.

1. Google hits are NA-biased by default. The #1. usage of football, according to Google, is American football. Does this make it more popular than football (soccer)?

2. Brain Training has sold much more than 2 million copies, compared to Brain Age's 1.3 million. On top of that, Brain Age is not even in the top ten DS games (or on the very outer edge of it) in NA, but Brain Training is often in the top ten of many of EU's regions and AU.

3. Another note on sales, Iwata personally criticized NoA because Brain Age was selling well under Brain Training's weekly sales figures - while Brain Training did 30,000 on average for a week according to Iwata, Brain Age only does 10,000 weekly. The fact that he criticized them for these sales shows that he considers the NA version to be in "last place" in regard to popularity and success.

4. More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain? is being released before the release of Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day. I would reckon that the higher LTD figures and higher week-to-week figures caused NoE to give it an earlier release.

5. Really, the fact that Brain Age came to NA first has become irrelevant - there was no success to base it on, as the DS just wasn't popular enough to get such a big game first (in EU). But now, many DS games and the DS itself are much, much more popular in Europe, and considering that it's smaller gaming-wise, that's an accomplishment. And as stated before, Google hits are irrelevant because they also prove football, a sport that's popular all over the world, is less popular than a sport which is not very popular outside of North America (if even outside the United States). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see...

1. Though one title may have more sales than the other, that still doesn't prove that said title is more recognizeable. Showgirls is a very recognizable title in north america, but I should hope it didn't sell that many copies.
2. Once you start getting into the millions, it really doesn't matter how many either title sold. Fact is, you've still established that both titles are very well-recognized. That means that, even if you could somehow prove that one version is more recognizeable than the other, you've still proven that both are valid choices.
3. If there are two valid choices, and you've proven that there are, then it becomes a matter of stylistic preferences. The rule of thumb is to stick with the first major contributer when it comes to style preferences.
4. As a secondary rule of thumb, if a style choice has been stable for a reasonable period of time, then there's no need to change it.

Am I missing anything? Bladestorm 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. But there exists nothing to say that Brain Age being more well known is even remotely true, while I provide evidence in troves. If one side can't argue for their side, they shouldn't be arguing.
2. Apparently, Brain Age was not successful enough. I've shown that one title has sold more in EU, on a system which sold more in EU. It sold to a larger audience in a smaller market. The fact that this game defies the standard NA > EU rules of sales is bigger than "Google hits, first release, the article was first titled Brain Age".
3. It's not stylistic preferences. You can't just say that because both names are good, that even if one sold 99 million and one sold only 9 million, that they are equally well-known. There is nothing to even hint that Brain Age is more well-known, but I provided a ton of evidence that would suggest it - even with the highest position in the entire company declaring Brain Training to be more successful than Brain Age.
4. If there's reason to believe that one name is better than the other, we should use it. We don't just go with the original name because the only ones who cared never noticed it for a while. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*... I really wish you would've paid more attention to what I was saying...

1. The first point was that sales are not the sole determining factor for recognizeability. Keeping that in mind, you have not provided "evidence in troves". And I don't rely on google hits to be the final say in anything, but they do support "brain age" as being more recognizeable (not successful, just recognizeable). And, didja notice that if you do google "brain age", you get titles that all use "Brain Age", but if you google "brain training", you still get several titles that use "brain age"? Heck, is there even an official "Brain Training" website for the UK? I found braintraining.com.au, and brainage.com, but no braintraining.co.uk? The point is, you've tried to use "success" as a substitute for "recognizeability". Currently, you've yet to make a single attempt to show that one is more recognizeable than the other.
2. Again, it doesn't matter how successful it was. The fact is, you proved that "Brain Age" is a very recognizeable title. In doing so, you've proven that "Brain Age" is still "acceptable". Doesn't matter which would be an arguably more ideal title for a new article. You've established that both are acceptable.
3. I never said they were equally well-known. Of course, that may be so, but I never said it. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that both are known. Both are valid. And you keep trying to argue about which one was more successful. Here's a challenge: Find a single wikipedia guideline or policy that explicitly states that sales are the sole criteria for naming conflicts. Again, according to wikipedia's manual of style, "follow the variety established by the first contributor." If you're going to try to suggest that we should go directly against MoS, when it's very very explicit in this case, then you need a better argument than, "but it sold more!"
4. Your personal beliefs take a backseat to the guidelines established for this very specific type of problem. Even when disputes over style issues persist, MoS has another suggestion, based on an arbitration case: "If an article has been stable in a given style, it is not converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, editors defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

That is, you personally proved that both names are very well-known. (I know you think one is better-known, even though you've neglected to offer a shred of evidence to that effect) Since both are well-known, MoS unambiguously states that the article should remain at the earliest major contributer's style choice. That means it needs to stay at Brain Age. If, for whatever reason, you disagree with that, then MoS goes on to state that it should remain at its stable version which, again, is Brain Age.

Like I said on the VG project page, I don't really care about one title over another. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. But I do have a problem with people flagrantly throwing the rules out whenever they don't suit them. I have a huge problem with proposed actions that would certainly lead to constant edit warring.

There's really no wiggle-room here. MoS says it stays at "Brain Age". You've yet to make a single argument that actually cites policy. Bladestorm 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so

Success

Popularity

Notability

Recognizability

Success - Brain Training has been shown to be much, much more successful than Brain Age, and the president of Nintendo even called Brain Age's sales disappointing (ie, not successful).

Popularity - Both are popular. Nothing has been shown to say that Brain Age or Brain Training is more popular outside of sales figures.

Notability - Both are notable. Nothing has been shown to say that Brain Age or Brain Training is more notable outside of sales figures.

Recognizability - Both are recognizable. Nothing has been shown to say that Brain Age or Brain Training is more recognizable outside of sales figures.

So we see:

One reason to use Brain Training, not a single reason to use Brain Age.

I may not be able to give a reason why Brain Training is more well-recognized, but neither can you - So Brain Age loses or draws in everything, Brain Training wins in success. If there's no reason to believe Brain Age is more popular, notable, or recognizable, then why do we assume it beats Brain Training and go with that title?

Also, Google hits, regardless of what thing you provide, why are you bringing it up? I've already shown pretty definitively that Google is never NOT biased towards NA. Apparently, a sport only popular in North America is more popular than a sport popular all around the world - according to Google. Of course you try to use Google hits - they're always on your side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, may I ask where the MOS suggests we use the original title in the face of logic? Here's a hint why we used the original title - because it was the only one that existed at the time. It was the only English game released. I doubt that the people who wrote the MOS had in mind that the original title will remain the same until the end of time. If you can't provide a good reason why Brain Age is one of the following: Successful, notable, recognizable, or more popular, how can you argue against a name which actually successfully beats Brain Age in one of those? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Heh... Actually, google hits are not always on my side. And I try to avoid them. But, what I find very disappointing is that you ignored that I didn't just go by the number of hits, but also what those hits were. And you never addressed my concerns that there apparently isn't even a dedicated Brain Training (official) website for the UK.

But, all of that takes a backseat to the real problem here. Success? Heck yeah, Brain Training was more successful! But, you forgot part of the challenge: Find the wikipedia policy or guideline that supports using sales, above all else, for naming disputes. Can't do it, can ya?

Know how I know you can't? Because of the other part you ignored, the official wikipedia guidelines, as outlined in MoS. You acknowledged that there is nothing to establish either title as being more recognizable than the other. More importantly, you established that both are, indeed, very much recognizable. This means that both are valid. This means that it's a matter of preference.

See, I say this is a matter of preference, because this is precisely the sort of thing that these guidelines were intended to avoid. By your logic, every case of "color" or "colour" ought to be the same spelling throughout the site (And, there's a good chance it'd end up being, "color"). But, see, that's why we have the Manual of Style. And, in two different sections of MoS, it directly supports leaving the article as-is. Not because "Brain Age" is necessarily better per se, but simply because it's a valid option, it's stable, and it's the version reflected by the earliest significant contribution.

Any arguements you might want to make must address, or at least acknowledge MoS. Simple as that. Bladestorm 18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)

Again, where in MoS does it say that "success" is even a criteria? Anywhere? No? Exactly. As for where MoS supports the original title, here and here. "In the face of logic" isn't a valid argument. The naming conflict guidelines are intended to avoid edit wars, not favour either of two valid options. If they had intended for article names to be repeatedly reviewed, then there would've been a mention for that. But, no, they're very clear. If both are valid (ignoring if you can make a minutely stronger case for one over the other), then you stick with the first major contribution. Failing that, you stick with the stable version. Again, cite a policy/guideline, or directly address what you're faced with. Bladestorm 18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I never stated that success is a factor in naming conventions. But all you factor in from the naming conventions is that "this is what it started as". Yes, when it was the only possible name to give it, people gave it that name. The logic that we should use the original title even though it was only used because it was the only title that existed at the time is silly. I actually provide a single shred of reasoning why it should be the title, Brain Training that is. What has been provided? Google hits are patently unreliable, and not only is Brain Training currently relevant (constantly selling in the here and now and still has a lot of advertisement), but it's roughly the second best-selling DS game ever in Europe (third between EU and NA - behind Nintendogs in EU and Nintendogs in NA). I'm really tired of NA bias - Minish Cap comes to Europe first, the article is based on the NA version. Nintendogs sells better in Europe (by several million copies), article is based on the NA version. Well, let's see...

1. Pocket Gamer, UK calls "Rhythm 'n Notes" "Brain Training plus Guitar Hero".
2. The sequel was announced in Europe and Australia before North America.
3. MTV.com calls games like Brain Training/Age "Brain Training" DS games.

Three good reasons to at the very least hint that Training is more valid than Age, versus more or less no reasons to even hint at Age being more valid or equally valid.

I just want to know one thing. How is the argument of Brain Age being the original title valid when it was that or the Japanese title on the en.wiki? Your argument is that because European gamers aren't clairvoyants who can predict the future and give it the EU title, it should be the NA title. It was given the NA title because it was the only title. No one made the choice of one title or another, they chose the only possible title that could be given to it. You seem to be just adding reasonings that contradict each other - first you say there's not enough evidence to show BT to be more valid as a title, and then you say that we should stay with the title because that's how it was initially? If the second reasoning was true, you would have never even bothered with the first reasoning. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation. There is no reasoning whatsoever to say "keep at Brain Age". One may wish to undermine the fact that it has been extremely successful in Europe and a particular disappointment in North America, but it's better than nothing - which is, coincidentally or not, the substance of your argument. "It was the original title" is an accompanying argument. You have nothing to attach it to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I hadn't seen this one. I last replied in the WikiProject Videogames page (Under NA bias). Please forgive my oversight. I was following three different versions of this discussion that you've started. (I think you'll admit, that can tend to lead to one of them being overlooked)

However, I don't care to reply to this. It's too hard to follow. Too many strawman arguments and misrepresentations. I have no interest in discussing the Minish Cap (how could you possibly think that was relevant?). Nintendogs isn't at all pertinent to this discussion. I have no interest in discussing clairvoyance (how you thought such sarcasm would be construed as genuine cooperation in the project is beyond me). I will explain the simplest, and most basic reason (If you want more than that, then I'd suggest you actually read what I've already written). It is irrefutable that the game is significantly known (and identifiable) by both titles. That makes it a choice of style. MoS has two rules of thumb when such situations come up. The first is that you go with the earliest significant contribution. The second rule of thumb (intended to solve disputes centred around the first) is that, if an article uses one style for a decent length of time, don't bother changing it. If you feel that MoS inherently creates regional bias, then CHANGE MoS. Don't complain that the rules don't fit your personal desires; try to get the rules changed! In the meantime, don't simply cast them aside when they don't personally suit you. The whole reason we have these guidelines is to prevent edit warring.

Do you seriously believe there wouldn't be a far bigger argument and edit-warring if you were to just cast all the rules aside to fit your personal preferences? If you want the longer version of my explanations, then read here, and both sections of the videogame project page (especially the NA bias section where the logical conclusion to the dispute has been there for about two and a half weeks). Bladestorm 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, logical conclusion. You have no argument, so logically, you win. In Bizarro Land amirite? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit tentative about participating in a discussion that has gotten so heated, but just to add my two cents, I'm personally in favor of a move of both this article and Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day to Brain Training and More Brain Training, respectively. It's more consistent with the naming in the rest of the world, it's used commonly-enough everywhere, even in the NA press (especially when referring to it in the context of its Japanese origins), and is in a sense incorporated into the North American name through the subtitle. At the very least, having the subtitle in the page location doesn't seem to follow with the common names convention, which basically states that a balance is to be struck between accessibility and accuracy. An IP recently experienced some frustration editing the Touch! Generations article because of the current page locations, which are inconsistent about the exclamation marks (and finicky about capitalization). I hadn't done anything about it yet because of the naming dispute. Dancter 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)

Asserting that people have no arguments is not the same as actually defeating them.

1. MoS (which you're supposed to follow) supports Brain Age, twice. (Incidentally, that's already a "nuff said". Since you aren't supposed to throw the rules out just because A_Link_to_the_Past doesn't like them)
2. You've never gotten any consensus to move it in general. No consensus=no change.
3. Whether or not it sells better is independent of how well it's recognized. "Showgirls" was an incredible flop. But it's an insanely well-known movie. Selling (what was it, 40% more?) more copies doesn't mean it's better-known.
4. Constantly using your bad-faith accusations that wikipedia has an unfair NA bias as a reason for a move tends to discredit you. If you weren't complaining about the minish cap and such, and constantly making multiple accusations of NA bias, it might be easier to work with you.
5. Google hits are never the final word in anything (I'm not an idiot). But they certainly do show, at the very least, that "Brain Age" is very recognizable and identifiable. They don't have to show that it's more-so, just that it's very recognizable by that name. (And how you thought higher google hits for 'Brain Age' was a valid reason to go with 'Brain Training' is beyond me)
6. Which region nintendo was more impressed by is irrelevant. Unless, as a result of that, they formally declare to the world, "Due to these poor north american sales, "Brain Training" is now the only official name of the title!", it really doesn't matter.
7. Constantly taking such a hostile position, and accusing editors who happen to disagree with you as simply being far too biased is grossly uncivil, violates AGF, and is simply a lousy way to behave. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I constantly have to hear people say, "zee", and see them spelling colour and humour without the u's (remember? canadian here. I can empathize with feeling like commonwealth english is being stomped on). Treating me like I'm just a stubborn nitwit isn't going to make me suddenly realize, "OH MY! YOU'RE RIGHT! I AM JUST MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MY NORTH AMERICAN BIASES! I WAS A FOOL FOR THINKING THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE MANUAL OF STYLE FOR REGIONAL VERSIONS OF ENGLISH!"

Do I really need to go further? Because I don't consider this terribly productive. Bladestorm 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

People ARE biased here. Someone actually referred to the NA boxart of Mario Strikers Charged as the real boxart. How is THIS not biased? Also, don't just say "two things in the MoS say that Brain Age is the right name". Tell me what those two things are - otherwise, I could just say "well, SEVEN things in the MoS agree with me!". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, calling the NA boxart of a game the "real" boxart probably shows some serious bias (or possibly ignorance, if they really didn't know). But that's not the same as outright claiming that all opposition to renaming an article is grounded in bias. Nor is it the same as attributing ill intentions to people's actions. Have you ever actually READ the section on assuming good faith? Because you're pretty much behaving as directly opposite of that concept as possible.

As for MoS, um, you could've looked it up for yourself, but fair enough. You can find it here and here. There are extra little tidbits strewn about in there, as well as on the subpages (they REALLY make you read to get the 'whole picture' here!). It gets changed now and then, and I think it's been shortened slightly since we first started this debate, but here's a useful quote, "If an article has been stable in a given style, it is not converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, editors defer to the style used by the first major contributor." In this case, the style's been stable. Thus, it should remain. If you don't accept that, then the style of the first major contributor was for 'Brain Age'. There are, of course, other parts to read, but those stood out.

Also interesting is, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." Saying that it sold better in one region than another isn't synonymous with "strong regional ties". (though that may give you good reason to rename some other articles for games that were both developed in the UK and did extremely well there) You might also want to look here, where they reaffirm the "stable" argument. Bladestorm 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is that Brain Age is part of an unstable bias - I suspect that Picross DS will eventually change to be NA-based - Another Code: Two Memories did, Minish Cap did, and many others have. There IS a bias towards NA - whether or not it's intentional I can't say. However, there needs to be some established criteria to divert people away from constantly using the NA title, even against proper reasoning. The only reason Brain Age was used in the first place was because it was the only existing title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There are established criteria to divert people away from unjustifiably favouring north america! MoS and the policy for naming conventions are in place to address that issue. I'll look into Picross, Another Code: Two Memories, and Minish Cap. If MoS and the naming conventions policy aren't being adhered to, then I'll be happy to do my best to fix them. However, this article is not so-named because of unfair biases. It's so-named because that's what wikipedia's guidelines and policies support. Bladestorm 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I need a bit of help here. I can't find the article for Another Code: Two Memories. And what's the problem with the minish cap article? (And has picross been changed yet? And, if not, what part do you think will change?) Bladestorm 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Picross DS would be getting a different name in North America. And what about my comments? Have those already been addressed? Dancter 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't, I just expect someone will change the box art. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Link, if someone tries to replace the cover art, I'll be more than happy to back you up on that one. For the minish cap, I'm not sure what part was changed. Can you help me out? As for Trace Memory (I finally figured out what you meant), that one's not so clear. The earliest significant contribution (more than a single paragraph) was Trace Memory. On the other hand, it doesn't look like either name is extremely recognizable. (google hits favours 'trace memory', but still has enough on 'another code: two memories' to deem it 'recognizable enough') Neither title was terribly stable (though, I should like to point out that you were an integral part of that instability) for that to be a reason to favour either. My suggestion on that game would be to see if anybody terribly objects to 'Another Code...', and put it to a real vote if they do (or just leave it at 'Another Code...' if there isn't enough support for a vote).
Dancter, I'm not sure I entirely understand your reasoning. Similarities of the subtitle to the european name aren't really terribly significant. Both titles are recognizable, so I'd simply prefer to stick with MoS and the policy on naming conventions for this one. Bladestorm 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed The Minish Cap's box art to be the original box art. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind me changing your indent) Uh... Link... which version of the boxart was first used in that article? Bladestorm 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No way to know. The first image has been deleted. Even still, Minish Cap's EU box art was the first existing box art, and should have been used either way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeesh...

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

We do NOT change good-faith content in an article just to make a point! The fact is, there was an image already being used. There was nothing inherently wrong with it!

You then replaced it for the most trivial of reasons!

Sorry, but that's entirely uncalled for.

You're starting to show that you are putting a far heavier weight on regions than any of the supposed 'biased' editors. Stop changing the ratings listings to put your preferred region first. Stop changing box art just to match your preferred region. It's unconstructive. It's hostile. It's disruptive. Of course you're going to get reverted on those types of edits. But that has nothing to do with biased editors. It has everything to do with your conduct. Bladestorm 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I switched the image with an argument. If Minish Cap came to the US first, I would use the US box art. My actions are based on what region I think warrants focus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

The region it goes to first is not the be-all and end-all! Real people edit these articles, and such trivialities are no reason to undo good-faith work. There was nothing wrong with the previous image, so there was no justification in replacing it. There was nothing wrong with the previous ratings orderings, so there was no justification in reordering them. You really need to work with people on these things, not just barge in and start changing everything you don't personally like. There was nothing wrong with that image. Changing it had no constructive impact on the article. Bladestorm 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As do I - must be two very close walls. You claim that my action was just as bad as other biased editors, when I actually put more worth into reasoning. I am not biased because I would have done the same if the situation was reversed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, you are biased, in that you've used your distaste for alleged North American bias as your reason for proposing changes. But, besides that, I do say your actions are unwarranted, because they are in flagrant opposition to all notions of a collaborative project. Absolute fact: That image was just fine. Absolute fact: You changed it anyways. Conclusion: Bad call. Absolute fact: The previous ratings ordering was not confusing to readers. Absolute fact: There exists not a single policy (or guideline) in wikipedia mandating that ratings need to be ordered according to chronological order of release. Conclusion: You were putting your preferred region first to make a point. I think there's one key quality you're lacking here: a desire for cooperation. The goal is to make an encyclopedia; not to win. Bladestorm 22:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about similarities in the NA subtitle was stretching the argument a bit, but part of what I was saying is that "Brain Training" is, in one form or another, the general brand that ties all the related works together globally, including Kawashima's books, such as Train Your Brain: 60 Days to a Better Brain, and is a decent supporting reason to move the articles. And I was referring to an MoS guideline. The main suggestion I was trying to communicate was eliminating the subtitles from the main page locations; the Brain Regardless of which regional title is more common, I feel pretty confident that more people search for article under any non-subtitled name than all full-titled names combined. Dancter 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't particularly care for the subtitles either. (I mean, obviously they're handy for the header, but not very convenient for the article main title.) As far as the books and such are concerned, I'm not really seeing that as a compelling reason (I mean absolutely no disrespect. Just expressing my opinion). The fact that one title for a videogame is slightly more similar to a book's title simply doesn't seem particularly compelling. However, is there any opposition to removing that subtitle? Bladestorm 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I am vehemently against dropping subtitles from titles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? I'm only talking about changing the page name for accessibility reasons, per the common names guideline. Actual article content wouldn't need to change at all. Dancter 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Point? I reordered the ratings for the same reason that one would reorder the release dates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to note that I do not care which region gets the high end of the stick. I fought for Dark Cloud 2, I included a proposal in my list of proposals that would potentially damage my argument for this. I wouldn't have done either if I was for arbitrary advancement of European naming conventions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre?

If I'm not mistaken, this game's genre has bounced between 'Edutainment' and 'Puzzle'.
What are your thoughts on which it should be? I tend to associate "edutainment", by virtue of the word, "education" as implying that it actually teaches something. It doesn't seem like this game is intended to actually teach anything.
Then again, in spite of the inclusion of sudoku puzzles, and all the math problems it provides to 'solve', it also doesn't seem to quite fit into the 'puzzle' genre either. So, opinions? Bladestorm 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that they are certainly puzzle games (BBA, Brain Age, Brain Age 2). All of the puzzles can be called puzzles - really, they are brain teasers, which are often considered puzzles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems logical. Any 'oppose's to changing it back to 'Puzzle'? (just trying to sort it out on the talk page, before reverting) Bladestorm 20:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, usage of edutainment is completely inaccurate - after playing this game, I can say that I've never once learned anything from this game - I've only improved on my existing knowledge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I learned that there were a couple books I wanted to read. And some of the trivia was educational. It just didn't seem like the game, as a whole, was particularly educational. In any event, I'll move it back to 'Puzzle game' after about a day or so unless there's an objection. Bladestorm 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Boxart

Hello.
Style choices over whether the european or north american boxart is more appropriate aside... it seems like both boxarts would be appropriate in this case.
I may not have the best understanding of 'fair use' rules, but it seems as though there's value in seeing both versions. The european cover seems to be more subdued, and the style supports the 'non-game game' marketing strategy nintendo's had with the ds (and wii).
If possible, I'd like us to discuss the merits of including both boxarts here before removing it from the article. Bladestorm 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, right now having any boxart at all would have a shaky fair use justification based on the "significance" criterion. I'm pretty guilty of it myself, but we really shouldn't be throwing up box covers up for every single game without in some way contextualizing and engaging with them in a way that makes them essential beyond mere identification. Detailed, specific fair use rationales are mandatory now for images, something that is intended to rein frivolous use of non-free images. I'd say keep them both out for now. Dancter 22:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's an interesting point... Hm. I know I should do this myself, but can you refer me to the most appropriate page for dealing with fair use images? (particularly, whichever most closely addresses things like boxarts) I kinda, um, lost the link. Bladestorm 23:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment was a bit of a strict interpretation of the non-free content criteria; but regardless, neither image currently meets the guideline on fair use rationales, and both could be tagged for deletion on those grounds without controversy. Dancter 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a hassle, and I have yet to bother making any for images I've uploaded, but it is part of the policy, and the result of considerable debate. I wouldn't recommend fighting the requirement. Dancter 23:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have no intention of fighting the requirement to come up with strong reasons for putting up someone else's copyrighted (copywritten?) work. I simply saw some value to the article in specifically including both. I'll read both of those pages you linked very carefully a little later. For now, supper. :) Bladestorm 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. One of the images does have a rationale. It's not a very strong one, but it is there. Dancter 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean, both images. Dancter 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not need two non-free images here, per WP:FUC #8. They are not very different at all, and neither is the subject of any commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. So when are you going to change back to the version preferred by three editors and actually discuss it (you know, something that Wikipedians - especially admins - are encouraged to do)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. The fact that three people want two non-free images doesn't change Wikipedia's fair-use policy, which is clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. What other articles do you own and thusly get to say that the article must be one way because you said so? None of the images are non-free. It's all about providing rationales, and just because you say that the rationale provided by three people is not good enough is wholly irrelevant. What authority do you hold to grade the quality of the rationale? None. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not free images; they are not released under a compatible license nor are they in the public domain. The issue is not that the rationale is insufficient, but that using two non-free images where one suffices is not allowed.

I don't care which image is used, particularly, but just like with Wii Sports, having two non-free images for the sake of a compromise isn't allowed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And I say that one doesn't suffice. Either you say "too bad" or "that's not a good enough reason". First statement would be awful and no one would give it any notice. Second one would require you to discuss it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering this article has no commentary on thecover whatsoever, a single image is charitable. WP:FUC #8 is clear on this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And I say providing two images provides a global perspective. Whee. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fair-use policy is necessarily narrowly construed. "Providing a global perspective" is not one of the reasons a non-free image can be used. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only does removing one of the images alienate one group of people, it is also unnecessary. Two primary box arts for two different versions is helpful to the reader, and it is not as if we're providing two redundant images. Having two box arts is as redundant as having two screenshots. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY what can be said about Picross DS, but apparently, you don't want it there. King of America 01:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for two box arts, because they're the exact same title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A title can easily be presented through text, and is not an adequate reason in itself for displaying a non-free box cover, let alone two. Dancter 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all editors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, and evaluate fair use rationales for images, improving or disputing them as necessary. It's hardly different than most other things on Wikipedia. A Man in Black has as much authority to grade the quality of a fair use rationale as any editor does to judge a contribution. Dancter 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Link, you really really aren't helping with the confrontational attitude. And you're making it difficult to be on the same side in this case.
MiB, it really isn't appropriate for you to constantly remove content while people are trying to justify why they should be kept in. It doesn't show me the same respect that I show you.
In spite of that, I'm still going to proceed with the hope that we can cooperate here.
I'll try to address all the components of the Fair Use Content page.

1. No free equivalent-Well, this one's obvious. There's no way for an independently-created unofficial graphic to still represent the game.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities-The main product is the game itself, not the cover. There's really no possible impact on sales.
3. (a) Minimal use -If I can show that each image has a unique contribution, or that the combination reflects a contribution that couldn't be achieved with one image alone, then I think this'll be covered.
   (b) Resolution/fidelity -I think these are relatively low-res pictures. They show up nicely on a computer screen, but don't contain enough detail to be able to do a professional print of them.
4. Previous publication -Finding these far and wide outside wikipedia is a trivial matter.
5. Content -Well, it's suitable content in that it illustrates the presentation of the game.
6. Media-specific policy -I think this satisfies the image-specific requirements. If not, then we can address those after the other 9 points are covered. (If we can't cover the other 9, then there's no point in covering media-specifics anyways)
7. One-article minimum -Well, as far as I know, we're talking about including them in precisely one article.
8. Significance -This, along with 3(a) is the stickler. And, I think that if this one can be sufficiently proven, 3(a) will be implicitly proven in the process. Obviously, it's best to establish that each image is significant on their own merits; failing that, I hope to show that the combination of them has its own merit, in and of itself.
   • The european cover best illustrates precisely the ideas that nintendo is trying to convey with their 'touch generation' games. The non-game game. (You can read all sorts of commentary on this from nintendo's people, and even see comparisons of brain age's non-gameness vs big brain academy's gameness at ign) It's very clearly been designed to follow the fundamental concept behind the touch generation games, and simply seeing the cover conveys this idea far better than simply describing it would. (What's more, there's no good way to describe this connection anyways, especially without it being OR. But it visually presents facts to the reader for them to draw their own conclusions)
   • The north american cover is the most recognizable on the net. It seems to be the most commonly used cover for reviews and such. It even comes up as #4 when you do a google image search for "brain training". It's the only universally recognizable image (that anybody at all familiar with the game, regardless of whether or not they own it, will recognize as being for that game) that people in the north american market will recognize. If I'm not making sense, my point is that, in north america, whether you own it or not, the brain age cover is the most universally recognizable image of it. (second would be the cute 3d likeness of dr kawashima himself, but you really have to have better knowledge of the game to recognize that)
   • It's my understanding that the european 'Brain Training' sold considerably more copies than 'Brain Age'. There's an inherent value in seeing what consumers of both markets saw on the shelves, when one market responded more positively than the other; especially considering that the title that most closely matched the philosophy did better.
9. Restrictions on location -Not an issue here. We're only talking about the article namespace.
10. Image description page -I'm bad with these. But I think you'll agree these are an easier matter. If you don't approve of this one, then it can be fixed. :) #3 and #8 really are the sticklers.

If you still aren't convinced, then I'm more than willing to further discuss. It would be helpful if you told me the numbers where you still weren't convinced. (Though I'd expect that to be #3 or #8) Bladestorm 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

3a and 8. You've made the case that the juxtaposition of the images is a subject of commentary. Where's that commentary on the covers in this article? Where's that commentary in the sources?

You say "The european cover best illustrates precisely the ideas that nintendo is trying to convey with their 'touch generation' games." According to whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I said that there was a commentary on the two covers. I said that nintendo's focus on non-game games has been commented on; specifically that brain age's less game-like presentation has been commented on. I also said that including both covers shows what the two markets saw (where one market expressed notably more interest than the other), and put it in the context of the more profitable market's cover art more closely sharing the theme.

As far as the european cover better illustrating the ideas nintendo is trying to convey, I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you want me to prove that Nintendo is trying to sell non-game games? Or do you want me to find independent sources acknowledging that graph paper and simple ovals is less splashy and more adult than sunbeams and those pointy-balloon-dealies? I really don't know how I could prove the latter, nor why it should be necessary, especially if the point of including fair-use images is precisely to convey ideas that don't translate well into words.

Since #8 doesn't even state that the article needs to directly talk about the image (or cover, in this case), could you explain why this is necessary? Bladestorm 04:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to need the image to illustrate something; it's a consequence of #8 and #3a combined. #8 tells you why we use fair-use images, and #3a says not to use non-free images unless you meet #8's standard.

I want you to point to me where there's commentary on the second image in this article (and note that it will need to be sourced commentary). Until then, we can do just fine with the customary single image to identify this game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, where does it say that the article needs to directly comment on the picture?

• "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable."

If you feel the article doesn't adequately convey the ideas I'm talking about, then that's one thing, and I'll try to improve it as best as I can, but I don't see how you can interpret that quote as meaning that, "the article must contain a direct commentary on the image". If nothing else, it is fact that one title fared significantly better than the other. And showing the presentation used for each of those two titles contributes to the article in a way that words couldn't. (In that it's an entirely neutral and direct presentation that doesn't rely on second or third party sources. It draws no conclusions.) I think I'm done for this tonight (already 1am), but I'd really like to understand how that quote directly indicates that the article needs an explicit commentary on the image. Bladestorm 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I like to look at it this way: if a picture is worth a thousand words, then an image in a Wikipedia article is like a large blockquote. While it can argued that an image can "speak for itself", just like a blockquote, it is preferable if it is somehow "deconstructed"; broken down, analyzed, integrated so that its function in the Wikipedia article is of a different character than in its original context. Granted, I'm drawing from fair use more in the legal sense than in the sense of Wikipedia policy, but they are somewhat related. Strictly speaking, there should be some sort of transformative engagement with the image for it to be fair use. Dancter 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A single image identifying the subject of the article or illustrating commentary the image itself are what is meant by "contribute significantly". This is the standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

??? If that's the standard, why isn't it part of the policy page? I don't see how anyone can reasonably follow the policies here if there are two sets of rules: The set that's presented as policy, and an alternate set that's enforced. If you're removing the content based on rules that aren't even part of the policy, then I really must protest. Bladestorm 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't write the policy page. I'm telling you the standard of acceptable non-free content with regards to fair-use, from long experience dealing with such images on WP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Yeah, I know, I thought I was going to bed, too) Well, I respect your opinion, but I think I'm still going to have to pursue external input on this subject then, because the rules you're trying to enforce are separate from the policy page you linked me to.
Since I already invited dancter to comment on my previous summary anyways, I figure I may as well wait for his input before pestering anyone else. :) However, in the meantime, since you don't actually have any policy to back up your position, and since I've already put in a more elaborate rationale than half a dozen typical games articles combined, would you object to restoring the second image for now, with the assumption that its inclusion still needs to be defended in this discussion? Bladestorm 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done a very good job of explaining why these images aren't allowed.

They aren't allowed because non-free images aren't allowed by default. You need to make a specific case for each and every image you want to use. This is a consequence of WP:FURG.

In this case, you have a justification for a single image: the image shows the cover of the game for identification of the subject of the game. A second image does not serve this goal; instead, you're making a vague argument about the image illustrating Nintendo's marketing efforts, but the article makes no mention of the EU cover when discussing Nintendo's marketing efforts.

You say: "What's more, there's no good way to describe this connection anyways, especially without it being OR. But it visually presents facts to the reader for them to draw their own conclusions." This is especially problematic. You want the image because it reinforced a point-of-view that cannot be sourced, and that the article rightly eschews.

Basically, you seem to be under the misapprehension that this image is "fair-use" and you can use it because it's relevant. Instead, you need to make a specific case for the use of every single image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I realize that 'fair use' doesn't apply to images 'by default'. And I realize that wikipedia already has far too many images that probably violate the fair use rules. However...

I have tried to explain the value of having both. First off, setting any motivations/themes aside, and even setting aside the fact that both titles are entirely different (with different titles, colours, graphics, and tones) aside, the fact that the two markets fared differently seems to suggest that showing what people in each market saw on the shelves would have value.

As far as the POV that cannot be sourced, which POV are you talking about? That the european title is less 'kiddie'? Or that nintendo was trying to make Brain Age seem less like a game? I need to know which you're talking about.

(Since you haven't specifically mentioned it, I'm assuming the argument saying that the north american cover is the most generally recognizable, by virtue of google images, and especially reviews, is adequate. If not, and I still need to justify that one as well, please tell me. Then again, I suppose the European title is the most recognizable to the two million people who bought it...)

But you never answered my question. Since I'm still making a genuine effort to prove that both images particularly add to the article, and since you actually cited a part of a policy that didn't even exist in the policy, would you object to re-adding the second image while the discussion continues? There's clearly no bad faith here, and the letter of the policy is being followed. (Whether or not the spirit of it is still being followed is still being discussed, but I don't see why it can't be up during the discussion when there isn't any obvious violation present.) Incidentally, I'm not sure why FURG is directly related to this. If you think the fair use rationales for the images are insufficient, then they can be ammended. But there's a reason that FURG and the FUC pages are separate. FUC deals with the article, FURG deals primarily with how the image is described on the image page, right? Bladestorm 06:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OR is a bit of an issue when it comes to making any sort of analytical commentary on the image, but it is possible that sources could exist to that end. Gamasutra often has such articles. And even if there aren't such sources, I think it is possible to skirt the edge a bit when it comes to NOR, using non-controversial descriptive statements. There are common design elements in the series: the head-shaped outline, divided into four quadrants, etc. Dancter 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And I would say that the fair use rationales are insufficient, because if they were adequate, much of this discussion shouldn't have taken place. Dancter 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the boxarts are different is cirucular reasoning for showing them. The only fair use rationale I can think of for displaying both is if there was some particular controversy or interesting history attached to the differing art, which there isn't in this case. Only one should be shown and if it can't be decided which, perhaps it should be replaced with an in-game screenshot. Marasmusine 08:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Circular? In what way? Bladestorm 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Putting this down here just to make it easier to understand the chronology of comments)
Well, fair enough then, dancter. But I'm just slightly unclear about something. Is it that you outright think we probably shouldn't be using both images, or just that you think we need to be a bit more diligent in pursuing references and explaining rationale to support it? Bladestorm 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's closer to the latter. Publicity and marketing is a relevant aspect that should be covered better than it is in video game articles, so I do think that there is a place for multiple box art images in Wikipedia. But the justification for multiple images isn't there at the moment. As A Man in Black commented, right now even a single box art image is charitable.

For example, Nintendo Seal of Quality and Genesis does what Nintendon't, while in dire need of improvement, are good examples of articles for historical video game subjects where non-free images could contribute significantly. With all the press on actress Nicole Kidman being involved in European marketing for More Brain Training, there is material for building such coverage in the Brain Training articles. Dancter 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bit confused here...

A recent BBC article [4] says MindQuiz is a Nintendo DS game, but when I search MindQuiz it brings up a PSP game saying its similarity to this. Does anyone know if this game uses an offensive word when a player performs poorly? It should be included in whatever article the BBC means. Cheers seven+one 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I think the BBC meant Mind Quiz (PSP). seven+one 00:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sales figures inconsistency

I've already brought this up on the list of best-selling videogames, but there're kind of inconsistent figures as to the game's sales. The source sited here (and once there) is Gamespot in October 2006 saying it sold 8.51 Million. However, it sites a second source, a Nintendo Earnings Release in 2007 says that it sold 7.7 Million. I'm inclined to say that Nintendo is more likely to have the right answer here, and they're not doing themselves any favours by saying it sold less. Maybe I'm misreading one of the sources, but I think it's worth checking just to be sure. Darien Shields 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the talk page on list of best-selling video games (think I got the name right this time...) the higher figures reflect combined sales of Brain Age and Brain Training. I've editted the article to include the 7.70 million figure as Brain Age's sales, and also kept in the mention of its combined sales with Brain Training (although I question their relevancy, since they're not even "sales for entire series") Darien Shields 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, as my edits have been reverted due to further unsourced sales, I'd like to mention that now some of the references I made later in the article have been messed up. Plus... sales of Brain Age 2 are not sales of Brain Age. You cannot say "The Playstation has really high sales; look, 200 million PS2s were sold!" because they're two different things. Anyway, I'm not gonna bother editting this stuff again, if you guys want to fix the references or whatever, all the stuff'll be in history. Darien Shields 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Brain Age 2 sold better because it's sold 4.4 million copies versus Brain Age's 3.4 million (in Japan). - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Swich a round

If no one objects, i'm going to swich around the training programs so they are in order that the player unlocks. -Mouscher 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Other games?

I don't think that the two sections about the other games are really necessary, but if they are deemed relevant for the article, why not combine them into "References in Other Games" to simplify things? Caterfree10 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)