This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is this an entertainment or neuro-maintenance product?
The lead paragraph on the article page was vague as to what the commercial product's purpose was, reading:
Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day, also known as More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain? in PAL regions, is a puzzle video game and the sequel to Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! (2005). It was published and developed by Nintendo for the Nintendo DS handheld game console.....
So, according to the above paragraph, what's the product's 'actual intended purpose'? Is it something that's:
a) an entertaining video game, like Space Blasters(tm) or Tetris(tm)?, or
b) an educational product like an encyclopedia or math training course?, or
c) a therapeutic product that can prevent declines in cognitive thinking or short and long-term memory?
By leaving out a general description of the product's intended purpose the reader is uninformed and can misinterpret what the game's intended purpose actually is; we know that many visitors to Wikipedia are casual readers who briefly review the opening lead paragraphs to get a quick familiarization of the article's subject matter. But only later at the end of the second paragraph, and much further into the article can readers discern that there are valid scepticisms of the product's effectiveness, and that Nintendo itself has classified the game as an 'entertainment product' , refusing to provide scientific studies supporting neurological benefits. This needs to be clarified in the article's lead paragraphs to avoid casual readers associating 'Brain Training' with medical studies validating a therapeutic product's effectiveness, which could be a legitimate inference of 'More Brain Training.....' .
Therefore, the lead paragraph is being revised to counter the inconsistencies noted above, thus becoming (relevant improvements underlined on this page only):
Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day, also known as More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain? in PAL regions, is an entertainment video game that employs puzzles and the sequel to Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! (2005). It was published and developed by Nintendo for the Nintendo DS handheld game console. Nintendo has been careful not to claim the game has been scientifically validated, however stating that it is an 'entertainment product "inspired" by Dr. Kawashima's work' in the neurosciences.'
Note that a reference has been added to support the statement that Nintendo has not claimed the product has been scientifically proven. The article's remaining lead sentences/paragraphs subsequent to the above sentences remain unchanged.
A survey conducted by Alain Lieury, a professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Rennes 2 – Upper Brittany, disputes Nintendo's claims that Brain Age 2 can improve the brain. The analysis indicates that working on exercises with a pencil and paper is just as good as the game at stimulating the memory.
That criticism is hardly meaningful. Of course doing the same exercises with pencil and paper are going to be just as effective. The whole point is not how people are doing the exercises, but rather that they are doing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Lieury's research and analysis of the game's claimed benefits, and other's means to replicate them at zero cost, are valid and have been cited in a reliable news source, Times Online. As such you had no legitimate reason to remove "Effectiveness" from the page article or other references to Lieury's research, nor for you or Gary King to remove the word 'entertainment' from the article's lead paragraph since, in fact, Nintendo classifies its game as such.
If you have valid, citable criticisms of Dr. Lieury's study, not just your own opinion, then PLEASE by all means add them to the article under a 'Controversy' heading. This is an encyclopaedic reference work, not a Gameboy fanzine site. Dr. Lieury's criticisms are valid and can stay in under Wikipedia policies. Also, next time log in and sign your handy work, p&t.... --HarryZilber (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The game is an edutainment game, which I added, with a reference. I don't think we need to focus on the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the game in the lead, especially when all of that information only takes up one small section in the article, so it's a bit of WP:UNDUE. Gary King (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No consensus. Ucucha 13:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This is the more common name for the game, plus it makes more sense to have the same naming format as its predecessor. TJSpyke 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Your argument goes against naming conventions. The UK version was released first, and as such, it should be used according to current naming conventions. The idea of "common name" is confusing and it rarely can be proven definitively, which is why they are changed. Anyone who closes the discussion should take note of the fact that neither "consistency with other articles" nor "common name" have anything to do with choosing which name should be picked for a video game, and are not a part of the naming conventions. "Use the most commonly accepted English name first, if one exists. This is usually the official title in the initial English release, but not always." This game's initial English release was not Brain Age 2, and not only is there no exception rule in this case, the fact of the matter is that Brain Age being the most successful video game in the UK's history would counter any exception that anyone could come up with. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Support In the UK and large numbers of other countries in the word, the game is being retailed as More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain?. If that was the first English game title, then that should be the title we use. The point about the NTSA title (covering parts of the Americas and a small number of countries in Asia) being close to that of its predecessor misses the point that the PAL title for the original game was Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? – More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain? uses the same format as the original in the same way the NTSA titles are related. I certainly don't think we should use the NTSA title just because that is what is used in the USA. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Use the most common English name, as per WP:Article titles. If there isn't an obvious winner, then stick with what is already there. - hahnchen 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
We're using the VG guideline, to use the original English title. The guideline does only good - it prevents grey debates, and makes it clear-cut what is right. In this case, there would be no debate - Brain Age 2 came out in Europe a good while before North America, and as such, no debate is necessary. And if we're discussing the original title used for the article, the article was moved from its original title by TJ Spyke on a basis that we have to keep the titles consistent, which is not a part of any naming convention. If we go your way, the original title used for the article is not the title used now. If we go my way, the original English title is not the title of the article. In no capacity is this title the proper one to use. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Your argument for following the supplementary guideline would be more compelling had you not also been arguing to change the guideline at the same time to suit your stance at WT:VG. This article has been stable for over two years. - hahnchen 22:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The article was stable before it was moved. And your argument would be compelling if it did not accuse people of acting in bad faith; a user doing something that ISN'T for ulterior motives? That'd be completely silly! As silly as one of the opposing users consistently arguing that North American names are, with little exception, the ideal choice for articles. That's why I've made one move proposal and only one move proposal, and haven't touched Brain Age since the last discussion. Why shouldn't we go by the VG naming conventions? You don't explain it away, you don't explain away any argument in favour of the move, you simply say "OMG LOOK HE'S ACTING IN BAD FAITH, HURRY AND OBSERVE THAT BEFORE YOU REALIZE MY ARGUMENT IS WEAK". And I did the move proposal after I realized that users who agreed with me independently went ahead with adjusting the naming conventions based on my proposal, and upon realizing that it was a part of the official naming conventions, I proposed the move. Is my argument somehow weaker because I had a hand in making it stronger? Your argument doesn't address my argument; it doesn't make my argument weaker; it doesn't explain why my argument is wrong. If you ignore Wikipolitics, my argument goes hand-in-hand with naming conventions. The proposal was taken favourably because people agreed that it reduced arguments. Which is hard to believe, since people fight tooth and nail against the guidelines now because they don't like them. What is hurt by adhering to this? Are you arguing that NOT having arguments filled with anecdotal evidence and asking people to prove something that really cannot be proven is bad? This is exactly what the new naming convention does, and I think you should address why the article's title should not conform to the new conventions instead of accusing me of using my endless influence to shift the guidelines in my favour to move this article? - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, I disagree with your first statement - it was moving between unofficial and Japanese names before settling to where it is now. My argument is that we follow Wikipedia policy, of which the VG guideline is supplementary to. The guideline does not state it must use whatever came out first, and nor should it. I do not think that you have presented a compelling argument that the target is substantially more "common" than the status quo. I've not suggested you're acting in bad faith - only that you've misrepresented what the guideline says - why so defensive? Stop jumping on anyone who opposes, I don't think it helps your position. - hahnchen 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I could easily pull out the fact that Iwata called the NA version of Brain Age disappointing in sales, and that Brain Age is the most successful game in the history of the UK. But the guideline, for the sake of eliminating endless debates that arise because there's no definitive answer to what IS the most common name. And the reason I'm being defencive is because you brought up the notion that I had any ulterior motive in mind.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.