text:
Talk:Tetris Attack

Disambiguation
I don't think a disambiguation page is appropriate. From what I read, that's intended for situations where one term can mean many things. "Panel De Pon", for example, does not literally mean "Tetris Attack", even though they are nearly identical games. Same with "Pokémon Puzzle League". I suggest the other variations of the game should have small pages explaining what they are and then direct people to the Tetris Attack page for more detail. "Tetris Attack" is still, I believe, the most well-known (distinctive) name for the game with English people. Maybe "Puzzle League" will take it over eventually... but I don't think so yet. Thoughts?
 * I don't understand what the article would be broken apart into. Whoever suggested the split should elaborate here on the talk page. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that the article be split, but I didn't mean into a disambiguation page. They didn't have a tab for just splitting the article into just seperate articles; at least, I didn't see one at first. I wanted to make it so that Panel De Pon has its own page. I fixed it now. PsychoJosh 09:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think the new article should be at Panel de Pon rather than Paneru de Pon. "Paneru" is not a proper Japanese word, and is just "panel" transcribed from Engrish. Panel de Pon is more common and proper, despite what the article currently says. Dancter 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I based the translation on what was here before (a ??? beside the name "Panel De Pon", as if it didn't make sense, and "Paneru De Pon???" beside that) and another web page that refers to it as either/or "Panel-"/"Paneru De Pon".  Whichever way a Japanese person is likely to say it is the way it should be!  Please feel free to fix it.   --- Has been fixed.  I changed it so it says the game is "sometimes" referred to as "Paneru De Pon".  If anyone wants to elaborate on that, feel free.

Panel de pon
I think that Panel De Pon should have a separate page from this, as it's a completely different version of Tetris Attack, and this page has barely any information on that version at all. PsychoJosh 13:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that if we don't have any information on it, we should keep it at this page. Perhaps when we have enough info, we can then split. RyanG e rbil10 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree Panel De Pon should have its own page. Someone has just added one describing all of the different versions of the game (as of May 31/06).  Maybe, though, it could be dressed up a little more, and direct people to the Tetris Attack page for more detail on game play, etc.  I favour putting most of the info on game play here rather than on the Panel De Pon page because most English players know the game by one of its North American titles.  On Japan's Wikipedia, most of the content should be on the "Paneru De Pon" page (assuming that's what Japanese people call it!... see above...)

 * I'd like to see PdP get it's own page too for reasons listed above 199.126.137.209 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a bit of information that I've added from the old panel de pon page. I think this page needs some reorganizing right now it's the games applied to the sections. i think it would be much better if it were the sections being applied to the games instead what do you all think? -- BlueArcher 03:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at the bottom of this Talk page (Merge and Split discussions). I'm trying to see if we can get PdP back into its own article again. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Nevermind, I see you already addressed that section.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender
Is all this gender-bias talk about Panel de Pon and TA and "looking half as feminine" and such necessary? Furthermore, and more importantly, is it NPOV? --Ed Cormany 05:07, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Accurate
Hmm. I wonder if this article is accurate. According to my recollection Tetris was written by some Russian as a pd game. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 07:35 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * You are looking for Tetris, not Tetris Attack. --Eloquence 07:43 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Just when I pressed Save page... You know the rest. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 08:10 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Hehe, i added a reference to the original Tetris in the second sentence to help allay confusion. Hope that works!  Ed Cormany 15:56 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The maximum number of tiles that can be cleared in a combo is not 14, but 66 (using a chain to drop the 33 tiles to line up horizontally)... Seems pretty pointless to include this in an encyclopedia article, I'd prefer the sentence about a "maximum combo" be removed altogether

 * Fixed. Mentioning a maximum is good for context, lest casual readers assume that a "24-combo" is just as common as a "4-combo".

Fan
What do you know, my favorite puzzle game is on here! I have a page about skill chains, with nice pictures. Since I'm not sure if it would be self-promotion to add a link to it (and I'm quite new to Wikis), I mention it here so someone else can make an unbiased determination. Blargg 06:44 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Wow. That's impressive.  I will add a link to it on the article page.  By the way, since I've now finally found someone to compare my skills to, what's the fastest you've ever maxed out the score in endless (easy difficulty)?  I managed 7:29 after lots and lots of practice.  I think I polished off six x13s in that one... Ed Cormany 20:22 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * That sounds better than my record. I think it was around 8'56. I remember e-mailing the author of a high scores page for endless mode, explaining that the high score is 99,999 and the question is, "how long?" (I'm not sure the author believed me). Someone once e-mailed me a movie of their 6-minute 99,999 game and the chain formation was unbelievable. I used to dream getting 20x chains, and see the panels in grids like a phone keypad. Blargg 20:45 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I just played a 3:56 game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.29.128 (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

check out http://www.tetrisattack.net and the message board there too

 * Thank you, and note that the site is already linked to from the main article =) Ed Cormany

Hey (same user as before). The webmaster seems to be moving to www.tetrisattack.com (which currently redirects to .net). You may want to keep an eye on that, as I'm not sure whether he's going to keep the .net domain or not.

Changes
Because changes made in the conversion were all aesthetic, I think maybe a Panel De Pon article should have all the information on the game and it's concept and the article Tetris Attack should either list what differentiates it from the original or just redirect to Panel De Pon where the two versions can be summarized. Bad idea? Callus 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Either that, or some screenshots of the original Panel de Pon need to be put on this page. --Shroom Mage 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know whether that's a good idea or not, one of the two pages may end up as a stub. Benpc91

 * See above. Now that it's more prominently mentioned how Panel De Pon came first, I think it's better to keep most of the info here.

Other implementations
This section seems like a big ol' advertisement. Anyone else think so? 199.126.137.209 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. None of the links there point to anything that is OFFICIALLY related to Tetris Attack.  They are fan versions, and any comments about their quality aside, they are not official works by Nintendo or any of its partners. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just what I had feared
I believe this article is extremely bias towards Tetris Attack. It makes it seem like Tetris Attack was a blatant rip-off of Panel de Pon or whatever it's called, while Pokemon is simply an "update" of Tetris Attack. Sorry, but if Tetris Attack did rip-off Panel de Pon, that would mean Pokemon puzzle league ripped off not only Panel de Pon as well, but Tetris Attack. Might we want to compare differences with Tetris Attack and Pokemon Puzzle League?...If there are any? I'm not going to change anything in this deeply depraved article, but anyone who agrees with me on this is welcome. (Oh, and no flaming me please, that will just prove how immature you are, either that or how easily offended you are) Thank you.

Jugulation 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Jugulation

 * Well, I'm surprised nobody has suggested having one page for the whole series, seeing as it is basically the same game every time, just with different names and decorations. (Fryguy64 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
 * How does this article indicate that TA "ripped off" PdP? It shows what the differences are between the two games, and Pokemon Puzzle League (PPL) then shows the differences from TA.  However: TA has more in common with PdP than PPL has with TA, in that TA is pretty much exactly the same game as PdP with new branding, English text, and a few relatively minor code changes.  PPL, on the other hand, adds so many new features and such a different presentation that about all it has in common with PdP/TA is the core gameplay itself.
 * The problem with having a single article about all the games put together is that the graphical, presentation and control differences between the editions represent enough unique information to make it a really huge article. It would be like trying to combine the articles for Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, New Super Mario Bros. and Super Paper Mario all into one article, since they all have very similar gameplay but significantly different experiences.  Compare this to, say, "Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life" and "Harvest Moon: Another Wonderful Life", whose only noteworthy differences from one another are the genders of the main characters.  In the Puzzle League series's case, it's better to have some redundancy and specific contrasts, methinks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup now that TA and PdP are merged
Now that Panel de Pon has been merged into this article, the article needs some serious cleanup:
 * Do we need the PdP-TA character mapping? ✅
 * Gameplay descriptions should be centralized.
 * PdP came before TA, so the order of information should indicate this more clearly.
 * Character descriptions should probably be axed - while they are interesting to fans of the series, they don't contribute to the encyclopedicness of the article. ✅
 * Point being that we can get away with some general notes about the plots of each game, as well as graphical and music differences, but then make sure that the majority of the article focuses on the gameplay.
 * Information about Pokemon Puzzle League and Planet Puzzle League should be minimized to simple references, so that each game's main article can do the talking.

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Make sure not to follow my example and merge articles such as Pokémon Puzzle League, Pokémon Puzzle Challenge, the Puzzle League section of Dr. Mario and Puzzle League, and Planet Puzzle League. I could see the former two games being merged together and maybe the Dr. Mario/Puzzle League article's content being included in a "versions of Dr. Mario" and "versions of Puzzle League" section in respective series articles sometime in the future. Planet Puzzle League is, however, not mergeable at all, as it has many unique features to any other game in the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The Puzzle League series is kind of an odd one. Almost every game in the series shares about 80% of the core gameplay, to the point where regardless of presentation, the gameplay reads exactly the same.  And more recent games in the series did away with the plots, leaving the differences to be solely in presentation and specific feature additions.  Yet, it seems difficult to tell where to draw the line with merging.  I personally was okay with having Panel de Pon in its own separate article, since the plot and graphics details were different enough from Tetris Attack that it's not really possible to just summarize them in one or two easy paragraphs.  I understand the rationale for merging the two, but it seems that both games have had their own separate followings - enough so that the two are equally notable.  In addition, a "Games in the Puzzle League Series" article itself might be somewhat difficult, since the Puzzle League name wasn't adopted until fairly late - many people still think of this series as the Panel de Pon or Tetris Attack series (depending on which one they started with).

 * I would argue that Pokemon Puzzle League and Pokemon Puzzle Challenge are different enough (both in terms of platform and in overall focus) to warrant keeping them in separate articles. Agreed on Dr. Mario/Puzzle League (GBA) - there's very little in either game on that cartridge that's noteworthy compared to previous games in each series.  Same may also be true of Nintendo Puzzle Collection - that article is basically just a stub, and more detailed information on each game would be appropriate within each game's main article, as a "re-release".  This is already pretty much taken care of in the Tetris Attack article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nintendo Puzzle Collection hardly needs to be merged - while content for the version of Dr. Mario is the same as Dr. Mario 64, there are new plot elements in Panel de Pon, new game modes, and it is in 3D at times. Also, Yoshi's Cookie is a brand new version of it. There's also discussion about its development, its reveal, its release, and its cancellation outside of Japan. There is also discussion about Game Boy Advance connectivity as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then it should probably be left alone. Based on all of this, then, it seems like there are only two games in the whole series that MIGHT qualify for merging. :/  To be honest, I'm not all that happy with having PdP and Tetris Attack merged together - I feel it puts undue weight on the American release.  Can we consider undoing the merge and cleaning up the respective articles?  Perhaps moving the common gameplay elements of the Puzzle League series to its own article (or an article about the series itself) and linking to that, with nutshell summaries of gameplay in each game's article, would be a better way of organizing the info. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A much worse merge than this was the Zelda OoA/OoS merge, which merged only because the gameplay, reception, and development sections were redundant. Anyway, I don't know if it should be unmerged - really, what is it? A different plot with different characters and presentation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although, I'd hate to set precedent to merge all Dr. Mario games, all Tetris games, all Madden games, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, it might be safer to let the two articles exist separately. Yes, I agree that much of the gameplay is common (and in fact, TA really IS pretty much PdP with different graphics, a different plot and a couple different music tracks), but like I said, both games have their own followings, and both are equally notable.  The way we had it before seemed the most fair - letting Tetris Attack describe its differences from Panel de Pon and acknowledging that PdP came first. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Propose re-splitting PdP and TA into separate articles
I'm going to formally propose that we re-split this article into separate articles about Panel de Pon and Tetris Attack. While they are basically the same game with different graphics, each one is notable in its own right, and the number of plot and graphical differences between the two releases are enough to warrant an entire comparison section. As I mentioned above, I think having the two articles merged under Tetris Attack puts undue weight on the American release. (I should note that I think this is one notable exception to the general rule that very similar games on similar platforms should be merged.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I said in one of the other sections that the games TA and PDP are being applied to the sections. It might work better and may not need a re-split if we apply the sections to the two games instead. or would that just make things worse since they'll essentially be two articles in one?BlueArcher 03:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would make the situation worse, unfortunately. The problem isn't so much that the information is incomplete or badly organized, but the simple fact that this article is named Tetris Attack but attempts to cover both games puts undue weight on TA, and PdP is notable in its own right (and came first). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Click on the "japanese" for the "in other languages" to see sortof what I mean. I can't understand a thing but the layout (and the titles) seem to me it's the same idea I have.BlueArcher 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the undue weight issue. Perhaps there should be a series page to cover TA, PDP, Pokemon PL, and Planet PL... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've created Puzzle League series, and if consensus agrees, I believe we should merge all of the individual game articles into this series page, consolidate the common elements of each into the Gameplay section, call out the game-specific differences in the "Games in the series" section, and where necessary, provide main links to individual articles in the few cases where it's appropriate to do so. (At this point, I'm thinking we might only have one or two cases where this will be true.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But thats incorrect, isn't it? Shouldnt the game be covered under its original name? as Panel de Pon is the series in the region where the game originated from, shouldn't the series be known as "Panel de Pon" and not "Puzzle League"? That article should probably be renamed "Panel de Pon (Series)" and Tetris Attack split into both Panel de Pon and Tetris Attack, covering more the flaws in the games (as both have bugs), the storyline in them, and the scoring instead? Each of the games does have specific things to it that are important enough to deserve their own article. DieKatze88 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we're supposed to use the most common English name. Puzzle League is the closest possible thing for the series, which isn't /really/ defined as one anyway (rather, they are more just different versions of the same game, as with any puzzle game sans number...and even then it's usually close enough). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As the game that started the series, I think Panel de Pon deserves its own article. I'd support the article split. Pele Merengue 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I purchased a copy of the original SFC game boxed online, I will scan the box to enhance this article at the very least. What resolution should be used? DieKatze88 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support the split. Doki Doki Panic has its own article, I don't think the situation is too different here. Poobslag (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

At long last, the article has been split. See below. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirby's stone attack
I've reverted a few unsourced edits recently that claim that Kirby's stone attack causes him to take on the shape of one of Lip's garbage blocks - in other words, that the Kirby games reference Panel de Pon. The most recent of these edits cited a screenshot from what looks to be Super Smash Bros. Melee, so I wanted to address this issue a little further.

A screenshot from SSBM is not a sufficient source for this assertion, for two reasons:
 * 1) SSBM departs from the original game series that its characters come from, giving those characters abilities and attacks that don't necessarily appear in the original series.  Kirby does indeed have a stone attack that features a face, and I agree that one of these attacks in SSBM looks just like a garbage block from PdP.  But if anything, that means that SSBM makes a reference to PdP this way, but not the Kirby series or the Kirby character himself.  (There is another documented reference in SSBM - Lip's Stick - so this may very well be valid.)
 * 2) Regardless of which game is the source of the reference, we need an official citation stating such a reference.  Otherwise, notations about the similarity between the two games constitutes Original Research.  That's the main reason I've been reverting these edits - the other reason being that in the main Kirby games, the stone move turns Kirby into a much more generic stone with a face, and the only similarity between that and the PdP garbage block is the general shape and the fact that there's a face on it.

Hope this helps clarify my reverts. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The heck?
Maybe I'm just dumb, but why merge Panel De Pon with Tetris Attack? Just because they're basically the same game? Well, I also really hate the Tetris Attack version, but anyway... Telemachus Claudius Rhade 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * And it appears the Japanese DID get Tetris Attack as well, on the SattaliteVision. I think it's time the article is split once again -- as it stands now, it's very badly structured and confusing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and formally proposed the split. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Considering that no more discussion has taken place on this topic, I'm going to go ahead and perform the split soon. This is everyone's last chance to discuss this before I execute WP:BOLD. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Go ahead and do it! =) Telemachus Claudius Rhade 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I brought up a new discussion on WT:VG about this, since I couldn't find a good way to separate the articles without repeating a lot of stuff. What do you think of the Series Article idea I posted in a section below this one? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh God... So I'm guessing you mean PDP isn't worthy of having its own article, is that it? Curse NoA! Telemachus Claudius Rhade 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Late reply, but as I said, I couldn't find a way to split the articles without either consolidating their common elements into the Series article and making stubs out of the rest of them, adding lots of fancruft to fill the articles (which is a no-no), or making them both read pretty much identically. What we have here is a game with a solid engine that provides lots of gameplay, and the presentation is a pretty thin layer on top.  As seen in later games (like Planet Puzzle League), story elements are totally unnecessary for the game to stand on its own, but the presentation is important for the individual games.  So, where's the balance? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Panel de Pon GC characters
Even though it appears as such, nowhere in the game does it actually say they're the daughters of the original cast. I even checked the Japanese wiki on the subject, and it just says that gaming sources had only speculated of it being the case. 75.152.155.200 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Move
I suggest moving this article to "Puzzle League". Tetris Attack is indeed the original title, but Puzzle League is the currently accepted title, due to later versions not being named something like "Dr. Mario & Tetris Attack", "Pokémon Tetris Attack" and "Planet Tetris Attack". Otherwise, let's create an article about the Panel de Pon/Puzzle League series, and let this article discuss about the SNES title. - Parrothead1983 4:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * There already is a series article, and I originally wanted to merge all the common gameplay elements into that article and create subsections for each individual game, so that we could describe the common points, highlight the unique points, show the games in their release order, and not give undue weight to any one of them. Unfortunately, the consensus at that time seemed to be that the series article was unnecessary - I'd like to revisit that topic now, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bumpty??
Who on Earth is Bumpty? There are only the other 12 characters in my game... 70.44.147.242 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm... Bumpty in Tetris Attack is the Penguin. He's Stage 2 in the story mode. Tomatzu (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However, that is in the SNES version, he doesn't appear at all in the GB version. 75.111.59.25 (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

To fans of this game
When I looked at this page years ago, it sucked. After waves of changes, it still sucks. I can't help saying "I told you so." I put a lot of effort in back then to make it kick ass. For a while, it did, but a lot of my old edits got chopped out because they were supposedly fancruft. IMHO, though, it's better to have a good page with some bias than a shitty page that's supposedly neutral. To anyone with good enough taste to like this series of games, I respectively suggest you don't waste your time on this article. If you actually say anything good about the game, it'll just get deleted. And who cares about the rest? 24.64.240.230 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As one of the people who has probably been involved in "chopping out the fancruft", I would like to say that the state of the article is definitely poor, but there are a lot of reasons why extensive plot summaries and character descriptions were removed - mainly, Wikipedia is not a game guide. While I personally disagree with some of the policies (mainly technical details at this point), the spirit of those policies is to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia and to provide useful links to other sources that provide more detailed information.  Ideally, this game would have the same kind of neutral, objective and verifiable content that more popular articles such as Pac-Man have. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I didn't add "extensive plot summaries and character descriptions". (That's what's on the page right now... junk.)  I added great contextual information, and I made a lot of comments about the learning curve as well as the false endings, which are both very distinctive features of the game.  Some of it was subjective, sure.  The problem is that most Wikipedians delete first and ask questions later.  Oh well.  Enjoy your great encyclopedia! 24.64.240.230 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point us to specific revisions in the article history? Some of the info from back then could probably be reintegrated, but remember that it has to pass WP:N and WP:V, as well as conform to VGProj article guidelines. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll get right on that...
 * I think you missed the point. I'm not jumping through those hoops, and no one else should, either.  24.64.240.230 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, if you're not willing to point us to the info that you feel should be reinstated in the article, then we can't really help you. We're not mind readers. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Music Differences?
"Aside from several new tracks based on Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island..." Is this true? Which music specifically is based on Yoshi's Island? I was under the impression all the music was directly ported from Panel De Pon. Poobslag (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The title theme and Yoshi's theme are new tracks to the game, but virtually all the other tracks are ported from PdP. The title theme of TA is remixed from Yoshi's Island, and the BGM that plays on Yoshi's stage is that character's "official" theme song - it's been used in other games featuring Yoshi as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Characters?
Is it constructive to have a comprehensive list of characters here? Some articles have it (Puyo Puyo) but most articles don't (Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine, Magical Drop, Puyo Puyo Sun, Meteos)... It doesn't seem like it helps the article. Poobslag (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really think so. The characters don't figure into the game in any real form other than to contribute to the game's story.  They make a little more sense plot-wise in PdP, but in TA they're basically just there because they can be.  I'm in favor of keeping the list out of both games.  The plot section for each game should contain a brief mention of the principal characters (main char and bosses) and a general mention of the incidental characters (Lip's sisters/cousins/whatever they are, and Yoshi's friends), but we don't need a list of all the characters or how they map from one game to the other. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Split complete
Okay, I've just finished splitting Panel de Pon out into its own article from this one. It was a lot of work, but I think it'll have been worth it. Both articles need more work, though.

Right now, both articles have the same "Newer Versions" section - this section needs to be tailored to each game's relevant information. Also, if someone has more information on each game's specific releases and market info, that would be great - the infobox and information on each game's releases was all combined together in the original merged article, so I may not have split them apart correctly.

Finally, let's please remember to keep fancruft and listcruft out of these articles. Please see the VGProj Article Guidelines for a run-down on what kinds of information are accepted by consensus and what are not.

Thanks for your patience, folks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ports/Similar Games
Shouldn't there be a section for the ports and games similar to this such as Pokémon Puzzle League, Tetris Attack/Puzzle Frenzy and so on? --75.163.187.227 (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Puzzle League (series). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Open source version
Crack Attack! is an OpenGL puzzle game similar to the Super Nintendo classic game "Tetris Attack". References: —  Ark25  (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Crack Attack! - Linux Links - The Linux Portal Site, Linuxlinks.com
 * How to Install Crack Attack on OpenSUSE, Fedora and Debian, Linuxconcept.com

Regarding the merge
Personally I think Panel de Pon is worthy of its own page as it came first, instead of being a redirect to a sub-header on this one. I'll only revert the merge if there's overwhelming opposition to it though. Deku-Scrub (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was merged without discussion by, even though the last consensus overhwhelmingly favored a split and he was the only opposer. The merge was already reverted once earlier this month, then reinstated by NewAgeRetroHippie because the user who opposed and undid the merge didn't reply afterwards. I strongly favor splitting back to the latest consensus and instigating discussion to merge or not. Waiting 5 years doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore the latest consensus because you still disagree with it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  ✉  20:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I need clarification. Is it your opinion that the arguments made in that consensus hold up today? Looking at it, I can give you a very pretty list of arguments.
 * "Undue weight given to Tetris Attack" - As Wikipedia universally suggests that the English version of a product should be given more weight than non-English versions, this is not an argument to not merge. Tetris Attack should -absolutely- be the main subject, and arguing otherwise is an argument that Wikipedia as a whole should not give preferential treatment to the English version of a product.
 * "Story and art design are different" - This is only a decent argument if it's so radically different and the differences cause a drop in quality for the article. A single paragraph suffices to address every single difference between the two games. That is not going to harm the article in any way, shape, or form.
 * "Quality issues" - Perhaps a valid concern then, but not now. Having a single paragraph sum up the plot, art design, and slight differences that the two versions - not games, versions - have is not a quality issue by any definition of the phrase. One of the people involved only cited specific problems that do not exist in the proposed version of the article post-merge.
 * What reason exists now that would make a split preferable to the proposed merge? What notability exists to suggest that both articles are notable by themselves? That said, if it's really important to you, I will find a consensus quite handily. Unlike you two - I hope - others can overlook a consensus formed against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even then the guidelines were fairly well-established. It simply got special treatment because people liked it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not saying your idea of merging is wrong; I'm just saying you opposed the latest consensus, then reverted to your preference years after without even trying to form new consensus and despite opposition by at least one editor. If anything, I would certainly welcome a fresh discussion about this, whatever the outcome. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  ✉  00:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For one, the initial opposition responded by removing my comment from his talk page. Only then did I revert back to a merged article. I took this as him conceding to my points. If he did not concede, then his choice to not respond to me was not an acceptable way to oppose something. If he did not want to participate in discussing the merge, then his view on it is not valid anymore. I did not revert the merge when Deku did it because 1. He responded, and 2. Two people opposing the merge is enough justification to have a discussion. Also, I don't believe in consensus being absolute just based on a democratic concept. The reason why I did not obtain a consensus to override the old one was because the arguments no longer held true in this day and age (and in fact were not very good even then). I wanted to avoid having to make a consensus for what I viewed as an obvious merge. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to come to the conclusion that the previous consensus isn't valid anymore due to time-based concerns when the subjects of the article(s) were released years prior and there have been no significant change to either topic since. understand your intentions probably weren't innapropriate and apologize if it seems like I inferred otherwise, but for the sake of argument let's say I oppose a merge and request a discussion. :) ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  ✉  01:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there's not much interest, the two of us could perhaps have a discussion? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in here. I loved this game to death playing it on Game Boy. This definitely seems like an odd case being that it was originally a different game in Japan, but adapted to Mario/Yoshi theme for the English release. I think the biggest factor here seems to be that there is a severe lack of reliable sources. If Panel de Pon were to be split, it would need sources demonstrating its notability as a separate subject, as the precedent has been for games like Pokemon Platinum and Super Mario Advance 4(both of which Hippie was heavily involved in). Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blake that RSes should be the ultimate deciding factor. If there are sufficient sources covering the two independently then two different articles should exist. If not, then they should be merged. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As there does not seem to be active opposition to the merge, I will be re-initializing it unless there are objections. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still object. I think the differences in plot and characters are enough to warrant a separate page. Also, regarding your edit description, I said I would only reverse the split if there was opposition to it. Deku-Scrub (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, you did use the word merge, not split. You may have meant split, but you said merge. With that said, your arguments are entirely based on the notion that canon can establish notability for a video game article, which is patently untrue. All video game articles on Wikipedia must be independently notable. As it stands, there are no reliable sources that discuss Panel de Pon as its own subject separate from Tetris Attack. Simply by virtue of having a different story and art assets is not enough for the two articles to both exist, because they can be summed up in pretty much a single paragraph. There are no size issues at all w/ respect to merging, yet there are notability issues w/ respect to splitting. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant to say split. "Merge" was a mistype that makes little sense in context; I wasn't merging TA into PDP, merely splitting it off.
 * Secondly, plot differences aren't the only reason I oppose the merge. Panel de Pon is, in my opinion, notable because it has been referenced and alluded to in multiple Nintendo works created afterwards, and has received a small number of sequels and Virtual Console ports. Tetris Attack, due in no small part to complications regarding the name, has not. Deku-Scrub (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that it was a mistake. I was merely clarifying that my edit summary was accurate based on the information provided. The logic that you would have meant merge would have been based on the idea that it makes sense - you would revert a merge if there was overwhelming opposition. Anyway, what you're describing isn't valid; Panel de Pon cannot be notable for cameos or sequels or re-releases. We need reliable, secondary sources that discuss Panel de Pon beyond a trivial degree (and ideally without being in the context of being another version of Tetris Attack). They don't exist - and believe me when I say that because I've personally verified it when I looked for them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter anyways. Myself and Thibbs have opposed the split, so there is now a noticeable consensus for having the content merged. Any further arguing on you two's part would make little difference. :) Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is true, although I'd still prefer a formal split/merge proposal... eh. Deku-Scrub (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a formal split/merge proposal; Wikipedia isn't a vote. As such, any discussion where consensus is gathered qualifies. Clearly, there are more than enough people that feel this article should be about both versions of the game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Time for a rename or split?
The unaltered version of Panel de Pon will soon be released on Nintendo Switch Online, under that title in all regions. Furthermore, it appears that the name Tetris Attack will no longer be used by Nintendo in any context, due to The Tetris Company not wanting the game to be associated with their brand. I think a title change to Panel de Pon may be apropos, perhaps with Tetris Attack as a separate article. --90.227.30.140 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This feels like original research to me. I don't think either a split or rename is needed or appropriate. They're both the same game, aside from an obvious name change and the fact Yoshi and Mario characters replace the fairies, and Tetris Attack is the common name for this anyways, so I think the article is fine as-is. Even if we were to split this article, Panel de Pon would need to establish notability by its own and I don't know if that would be possible. I oppose this split/rename proposal. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I said about The Tetris Company was in reference to the quote by Henk Rogers reliably sourced in the article. Anyway, rename or no, I think the lead section should put equal emphasis on both titles, now that the game will be internationally known by both titles. I'll make the relevant edit right away. --90.227.30.140 (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not. I've posted a discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Video games, and I'd like to reach consensus there before we do anything. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 00:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tetris Attack


text: User:Aravindet

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Aravindet


text:
User talk:Aravindet

Hello Aravindet, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

Hi Aravindet, nice work on Boss (video game). Thanks for contributing! :) -- schnee

---

Hi Aravind, Saw you posting at Talk:Kerala. The Malayalam version IS lousy, but in the spirit of Wikipedia, it's almost just a placeholder waiting for somebody (you?) to add/edit material. As for the 'correct letter compounding', the solution is not as simple as that. Wikipedia uses Unicode and most browsers don't support Malayalam Unicode properly yet. We cannot use other custom fonts like those used by Malayalam newspaper websites. In fact, most of these fonts are copyrighted and using one particular font is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. afaik, the encoding in Malayalam Wikipedia complies with the Unicode standard, we are waiting for better compliance from browsers and OS. The welcome page at Malayalam Wikipedia has some instructions on how to set up your browser to view Malayalam Unicode reasonably well and how to contribute. Unfortunately, it works only for Windows. Looking forward to more contributions from you. ~Vinod 24 June, 2003 ps: The '_mp fellas' are brothers. pps: Read the revamped article on Kerala. Nice job. Will hold some comments for later.

Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board
Hi Aravindet. I would like you to be an active member of Indian wikipedians' notice board. utcursch 07:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Request you to vote. Calcutta move to Kolkata
There is a vote on to decide if a move of article from Calcutta to Kolkata should be made. I have made a case for a support vote. I request you to participate in the poll and share your independent opinion. More at Talk:Calcutta Regards Arunram 17:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SRE1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SRE1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aravindet


text:
Hong Kong Museum of History

The Hong Kong Museum of History is a public museum that preserves Hong Kong's historical and cultural heritage. It is located next to the Hong Kong Science Museum, in Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

The collections of the museum encompass natural history, archaeology, ethnography and local history.

History
The museum was established by the Urban Council in July 1975 when the City Museum and Art Gallery was split into the Hong Kong Museum of History and Hong Kong Museum of Art; some of the Museum of History's collections were on display at the City Museum and Art Gallery's original 1962 location at the City Hall.

From 1975 to 1983, the Hong Kong Museum of History was housed in a 700 m2 rented space within Star House. In 1983, the Museum was moved to a temporary location (which now houses Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre) in Kowloon Park. It was moved to its present premises near Hong Kong Science Museum on Chatham Road South, Tsim Sha Tsui in 1998. It is currently managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department of Hong Kong Government.

The Hong Kong Story
The Hong Kong Story permanent exhibition is a showcase of the history and development of Hong Kong. Occupying an area of 7,000 m2, The Hong Kong Story comprises eight galleries located on two floors. Through the display of over 4,000 exhibits with the use of 750 graphic panels, a number of dioramas and multi-media programmes, and enhanced with special audio-visual and lighting effects, The Hong Kong Story outlines the natural environment, folk culture, and historical development of Hong Kong. The exhibition starts from the Devonian period 400 million years ago and concludes with the Handover of Hong Kong in 1997. The museum exhibits prehistoric fossils, colonial documents from the 19th Century and Ancient Chinese pottery

Branch museums
The museum runs five branch museums: Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence at Shau Kei Wan, Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb Museum at Sham Shui Po, and Law Uk Folk Museum at Chai Wan, Fireboat Alexander Grantham Exhibition Gallery inside the Quarry Bay Park and Dr. Sun Yat-sen Museum at Mid-Levels in Central.

Public transport
The museum is accessible within walking distance West from Hung Hom station of MTR.

title: Hong Kong Museum of History


text:
Molecular clock

The molecular clock  is a figurative term for a technique that uses the mutation rate of biomolecules to deduce the time in prehistory when two or more life forms diverged. The biomolecular data used for such calculations are usually nucleotide sequences for DNA, RNA, or amino acid sequences for proteins.

Early discovery and genetic equidistance
The notion of the existence of a so-called "molecular clock" was first attributed to Émile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling who, in 1962, noticed that the number of amino acid differences in hemoglobin between different lineages changes roughly linearly with time, as estimated from fossil evidence. They generalized this observation to assert that the rate of evolutionary change of any specified protein was approximately constant over time and over different lineages (known as the molecular clock hypothesis).

The genetic equidistance phenomenon was first noted in 1963 by Emanuel Margoliash, who wrote: "It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome c of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged. If this is correct, the cytochrome c of all mammals should be equally different from the cytochrome c of all birds. Since fish diverges from the main stem of vertebrate evolution earlier than either birds or mammals, the cytochrome c of both mammals and birds should be equally different from the cytochrome c of fish. Similarly, all vertebrate cytochrome c should be equally different from the yeast protein." For example, the difference between the cytochrome c of a carp and a frog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse is a very constant 13% to 14%. Similarly, the difference between the cytochrome c of a bacterium and yeast, wheat, moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse ranges from 64% to 69%. Together with the work of Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, the genetic equidistance result led directly to the formal postulation of the molecular clock hypothesis in the early 1960s.

Similarly, Vincent Sarich and Allan Wilson in 1967 demonstrated that molecular differences among modern Primates in albumin proteins showed that approximately constant rates of change had occurred in all the lineages they assessed. The basic logic of their analysis involved recognizing that if one species lineage had evolved more quickly than a sister species lineage since their common ancestor, then the molecular differences between an outgroup (more distantly related) species and the faster-evolving species should be larger (since more molecular changes would have accumulated on that lineage) than the molecular differences between the outgroup species and the slower-evolving species. This method is known as the relative rate test. Sarich and Wilson's paper reported, for example, that human (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) albumin immunological cross-reactions suggested they were about equally different from Ceboidea (New World Monkey) species (within experimental error). This meant that they had both accumulated approximately equal changes in albumin since their shared common ancestor. This pattern was also found for all the primate comparisons they tested. When calibrated with the few well-documented fossil branch points (such as no Primate fossils of modern aspect found before the K-T boundary), this led Sarich and Wilson to argue that the human-chimp divergence probably occurred only ~4–6 million years ago.

Relationship with neutral theory
The observation of a clock-like rate of molecular change was originally purely phenomenological. Later, the work of Motoo Kimura developed the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which predicted a molecular clock. Let there be N individuals, and to keep this calculation simple, let the individuals be haploid (i.e. have one copy of each gene). Let the rate of neutral mutations (i.e. mutations with no effect on fitness) in a new individual be $$\mu$$. The probability that this new mutation will become fixed in the population is then 1/N, since each copy of the gene is as good as any other. Every generation, each individual can have new mutations, so there are $$\mu$$N new neutral mutations in the population as a whole. That means that each generation, $$\mu$$ new neutral mutations will become fixed. If most changes seen during molecular evolution are neutral, then fixations in a population will accumulate at a clock-rate that is equal to the rate of neutral mutations in an individual.

Calibration
To use molecular clocks to estimate divergence times, molecular clocks need to be "calibrated". This is because molecular data alone does not contain any information on absolute times. For viral phylogenetics and ancient DNA studies—two areas of evolutionary biology where it is possible to sample sequences over an evolutionary timescale—the dates of the intermediate samples can be used to calibrate the molecular clock. However, most phylogenies require that the molecular clock be calibrated using independent evidence about dates, such as the fossil record. There are two general methods for calibrating the molecular clock using fossils: node calibration and tip calibration.

Node calibration
Sometimes referred to as node dating, node calibration is a method for time-scaling phylogenetic trees by specifying time constraints for one or more nodes in the tree. Early methods of clock calibration only used a single fossil constraint (e.g. non-parametric rate smoothing), but newer methods (BEAST and r8s ) allow for the use of multiple fossils to calibrate molecular clocks. The oldest fossil of a clade is used to constrain the minimum possible age for the node representing the most recent common ancestor of the clade. However, due to incomplete fossil preservation and other factors, clades are typically older than their oldest fossils. In order to account for this, nodes are allowed to be older than the minimum constraint in node calibration analyses. However, determining how much older the node is allowed to be is challenging. There are a number of strategies for deriving the maximum bound for the age of a clade including those based on birth-death models, fossil stratigraphic distribution analyses, or taphonomic controls. Alternatively, instead of a maximum and a minimum, a probability density can be used to represent the uncertainty about the age of the clade. These calibration densities can take the shape of standard probability densities (e.g. normal, lognormal, exponential, gamma) that can be used to express the uncertainty associated with divergence time estimates. Determining the shape and parameters of the probability distribution is not trivial, but there are methods that use not only the oldest fossil but a larger sample of the fossil record of clades to estimate calibration densities empirically. Studies have shown that increasing the number of fossil constraints increases the accuracy of divergence time estimation.

Tip calibration
Sometimes referred to as tip dating, tip calibration is a method of molecular clock calibration in which fossils are treated as taxa and placed on the tips of the tree. This is achieved by creating a matrix that includes a molecular dataset for the extant taxa along with a morphological dataset for both the extinct and the extant taxa. Unlike node calibration, this method reconstructs the tree topology and places the fossils simultaneously. Molecular and morphological models work together simultaneously, allowing morphology to inform the placement of fossils. Tip calibration makes use of all relevant fossil taxa during clock calibration, rather than relying on only the oldest fossil of each clade. This method does not rely on the interpretation of negative evidence to infer maximum clade ages.

Expansion calibration
Demographic changes in populations can be detected as fluctuations in historical coalescent effective population size from a sample of extant genetic variation in the population using coalescent theory. Ancient population expansions that are well documented and dated in the geological record can be used to calibrate a rate of molecular evolution in a manner similar to node calibration. However, instead of calibrating from the known age of a node, expansion calibration uses a two-epoch model of constant population size followed by population growth, with the time of transition between epochs being the parameter of interest for calibration. Expansion calibration works at shorter, intraspecific timescales in comparison to node calibration, because expansions can only be detected after the most recent common ancestor of the species in question. Expansion dating has been used to show that molecular clock rates can be inflated at short timescales (< 1 MY) due to incomplete fixation of alleles, as discussed below

Total evidence dating
This approach to tip calibration goes a step further by simultaneously estimating fossil placement, topology, and the evolutionary timescale. In this method, the age of a fossil can inform its phylogenetic position in addition to morphology. By allowing all aspects of tree reconstruction to occur simultaneously, the risk of biased results is decreased. This approach has been improved upon by pairing it with different models. One current method of molecular clock calibration is total evidence dating paired with the fossilized birth-death (FBD) model and a model of morphological evolution. The FBD model is novel in that it allows for "sampled ancestors", which are fossil taxa that are the direct ancestor of a living taxon or lineage. This allows fossils to be placed on a branch above an extant organism, rather than being confined to the tips.

Methods
Bayesian methods can provide more appropriate estimates of divergence times, especially if large datasets—such as those yielded by phylogenomics—are employed.

Non-constant rate of molecular clock
Sometimes only a single divergence date can be estimated from fossils, with all other dates inferred from that. Other sets of species have abundant fossils available, allowing the hypothesis of constant divergence rates to be tested. DNA sequences experiencing low levels of negative selection showed divergence rates of 0.7–0.8% per Myr in bacteria, mammals, invertebrates, and plants. In the same study, genomic regions experiencing very high negative or purifying selection (encoding rRNA) were considerably slower (1% per 50 Myr).

In addition to such variation in rate with genomic position, since the early 1990s variation among taxa has proven fertile ground for research too, even over comparatively short periods of evolutionary time (for example mockingbirds ). Tube-nosed seabirds have molecular clocks that on average run at half speed of many other birds, possibly due to long generation times, and many turtles have a molecular clock running at one-eighth the speed it does in small mammals, or even slower. Effects of small population size are also likely to confound molecular clock analyses. Researchers such as Francisco J. Ayala have more fundamentally challenged the molecular clock hypothesis. According to Ayala's 1999 study, five factors combine to limit the application of molecular clock models:

 * Changing generation times (If the rate of new mutations depends at least partly on the number of generations rather than the number of years)
 * Population size (Genetic drift is stronger in small populations, and so more mutations are effectively neutral)
 * Species-specific differences (due to differing metabolism, ecology, evolutionary history, ...)
 * Change in function of the protein studied (can be avoided in closely related species by utilizing non-coding DNA sequences or emphasizing silent mutations)
 * Changes in the intensity of natural selection.

Molecular clock users have developed workaround solutions using a number of statistical approaches including maximum likelihood techniques and later Bayesian modeling. In particular, models that take into account rate variation across lineages have been proposed in order to obtain better estimates of divergence times. These models are called relaxed molecular clocks because they represent an intermediate position between the 'strict' molecular clock hypothesis and Joseph Felsenstein's many-rates model and are made possible through MCMC techniques that explore a weighted range of tree topologies and simultaneously estimate parameters of the chosen substitution model. It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence.

The molecular clock runs into particular challenges at very short and very long timescales. At long timescales, the problem is saturation. When enough time has passed, many sites have undergone more than one change, but it is impossible to detect more than one. This means that the observed number of changes is no longer linear with time, but instead flattens out. Even at intermediate genetic distances, with phylogenetic data still sufficient to estimate topology, signal for the overall scale of the tree can be weak under complex likelihood models, leading to highly uncertain molecular clock estimates.

At very short time scales, many differences between samples do not represent fixation of different sequences in the different populations. Instead, they represent alternative alleles that were both present as part of a polymorphism in the common ancestor. The inclusion of differences that have not yet become fixed leads to a potentially dramatic inflation of the apparent rate of the molecular clock at very short timescales.

Uses
The molecular clock technique is an important tool in molecular systematics, macroevolution, and phylogenetic comparative methods. Estimation of the dates of phylogenetic events, including those not documented by fossils, such as the divergences between living taxa has allowed the study of macroevolutionary processes in organisms that had limited fossil records. Phylogenetic comparative methods rely heavily on calibrated phylogenies.

title: Molecular clock


text:
Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (France)

The Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères, MEAE) is the ministry of the Government of France that handles France's foreign relations. Since 1855, its headquarters have been located at 37 Quai d'Orsay, close to the National Assembly. The term Quai d'Orsay is often used as a metonym for the ministry. Its cabinet minister, the Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs (Ministre de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères) is responsible for the foreign relations of France. The current officeholder, Stéphane Séjourné, was appointed in 2024.

In 1547, royal secretaries became specialised, writing correspondence to foreign governments and negotiating peace treaties. The four French secretaries of state where foreign relations were divided by region, in 1589, became centralised with one becoming first secretary responsible for international relations. The Ancien Régime position of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs became Foreign Minister around 1723; it was renamed Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1791 in the aftermath of early stages of the French Revolution. All ministerial positions were abolished in 1794 by the National Convention and reestablished with the Directory.

For a brief period in the 1980s from 1984 to 1986, the office was retitled Minister for External Relations. As of, it is designated as Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs and occupied by Stéphane Séjourné, who is assisted by Chrysoula Zacharopoulou, Secretary of State for Development and International Partnerships, and Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister Delegate for Europe, and Franck Riester, Minister Delegate for Foreign Trade, Economic Attractiveness, Francophonie and French Nationals Abroad.

Central administration
There are multiple services under its authority, along with that of some other ministers. Under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development, that of Cooperation and European Affairs, and that of Foreign and European Affairs, there are numerous services directly related to the ministers. Here is a list of those services.
 * The ministers' cabinet
 * The office of cabinets, which gathers a personnel in charge of the administrative and logistics aspects of the three ministers' cabinets
 * The budget control service (CBCM)
 * General inspection of foreign affairs (IGAE)
 * The prospective office (DP)
 * The Protocole, upon which the President's protocol cell relies
 * The Crisis management Department (CDC)