Kung Fu Man (talk | contribs) |
|||
(345 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{List criteria|Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 5#Criteria for top of talk page| |
|||
{{tmbox |
|||
# For characters from the games, the character must have made a substantial (e.g. non cameo) appearance in ''at least'' '''two''' ''Sonic'' games. Because ''Sonic'' has such a large cast of characters, this list is primarily dedicated to major ones. One-off or minor characters are considered out of this list's scope and should be covered within their respective game's article rather than here. |
|||
| small = {{{small|}}} |
|||
#:An example of a character who '''meets''' this criteria is Ray the Flying Squirrel, who makes substantial appearances in ''[[SegaSonic the Hedgehog]]'' and ''[[Sonic Mania Plus]]''. This is the minimum required for a character to be considered noteworthy for this list. |
|||
| image = [[Image:Mergefrom.svg|50px|alt=|link=]] |
|||
#:An example of a character who does '''not''' meet this criteria is Princess Elise, whose only substantial appearance is in [[Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)|''Sonic the Hedgehog'' (2006)]]. Unless she makes another non-cameo appearance in the future, she fails the inclusion criteria. |
|||
| text = The contents of [[Babylon Rogues]], [[Blaze the Cat]], [[Cream the Rabbit]], [[E-102 Gamma]], [[E-123 Omega]], [[Wisp (Sonic)]], and [[Silver the Hedgehog]] were [[WP:Merging|merged]] into [[List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters]] as a result of [[Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 2|this discussion]]. The former pages now redirect here. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged articles, please see their former page histories, and for discussion, see their talk pages.}} |
|||
# For characters from other media (TV shows, movies, and comics), the character must have made a substantial appearance in ''at least'' '''two''' different forms of media. Because ''Sonic'' is primarily a video game franchise and there are too many ''Sonic'' characters exclusive to non-video game media to be listed here, a separate criteria exists to determine if a non-game character can be listed. |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
#:An example of a character who '''meets''' this criteria is Princess Sally, who made substantial appearances in the [[Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series)|Saturday morning ''Sonic'' cartoon]] and the [[Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie Comics)|Archie Comics ''Sonic the Hedgehog'' series]]. Therefore, she can be listed, even though she has never made a substantial appearance in a ''Sonic'' game. |
|||
{{WikiProject Video games|class=List|importance=Low|Sega=yes}} |
|||
#:An example of a character who does '''not''' meet this criteria is Geoffrey St. John, who, while a fairly significant character within the Archie Comics ''Sonic'' series, never appeared outside it. Thus, unless he makes an appearance in another form of media in the future, he fails the inclusion criteria. |
|||
{{WikiProject Japan|class=List|importance=Low}} |
|||
# All entries on this list should be backed with [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]], [[WP:RS|reliable source]]s. No entries should be sourced entirely to [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]]s, and any such entries will be removed. |
|||
{{WikiProject Fictional characters|class=List}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Animals in media|class=List|importance=Mid}} |
|||
Any discussions regarding splitting character entries from this list must happen on this talk page ''before'' any action is taken, to determine if the character has received enough coverage in reliable sources to be [[WP:N|notable]] enough to stand as their own article.}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Anime and Manga|class=List|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{Refideas |
|||
{{WikiProject Comics|class=List|importance=Low}} |
|||
|1=http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/05/16/10-worst-sonic-the-hedgehog-characters.aspx |
|||
{{WikiProject Lists|class=|importance=}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Oldafdfull |
{{Oldafdfull |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|result2 = '''redirect to [[Recurring characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog series]]'''|date2=5 April 2009|page2= List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters |
|result2 = '''redirect to [[Recurring characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog series]]'''|date2=5 April 2009|page2= List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=1|class=List| |
|||
{{Refideas |
|||
{{WikiProject Video games|class=List|importance=Low|Sega=yes|Characters=yes|characters-importance=Mid}} |
|||
|1=http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/05/16/10-worst-sonic-the-hedgehog-characters.aspx |
|||
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Fictional characters}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Animals in media|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Anime and manga|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=Low}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{tmbox |
|||
| small = {{{small|}}} |
|||
| image = [[Image:Mergefrom.svg|50px|alt=|link=]] |
|||
| text = The contents of [[Babylon Rogues]], [[Blaze the Cat]], [[Cream the Rabbit]], [[E-102 Gamma]], [[E-123 Omega]], [[Wisp (Sonic)]], and [[Silver the Hedgehog]] were [[WP:Merging|merged]] into [[List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters]] as a result of [[Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 2|this discussion]]. The former pages now redirect here. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged articles, please see their former page histories, and for discussion, see their talk pages.}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 6 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) |
||
|archive = Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|||
== Notability of the Wisps == |
|||
== Should Tom & Maddie Wachowski be added to the "Characters in other media"? == |
|||
Since 2010, Wisps have been recurring characters in the series, like [[Chao (Sonic)|Chao]] for example, and they have become a clearly notable staple in the series for 8 years, I suggest they have their own article, and as time goes it can be built-up even more. Thank you for reading. Coda16 04:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[Talk:List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters/Archive_2#Wisp_(Sonic)|this discussion]]. There's consensus that the Wisps aren't independently [[WP:GNG|notable]] enough for their own article. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 10:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I was mainly wondering whether it's time to add Tom & Maddie to the "Characters in Other Media" section. As they're very important characters for the movie franchise, with them both being in three films as lead characters by the end of the year and Maddie even having a big role in the Knuckles show too (plus they were both in the "Prequill" comic for Sonic 2). |
|||
::Seconded. They can just be discussed here at this page. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::See [[Draft:Wisp (Sonic the Hedgehog)]], I find this to be more than suitable enough for its own article. Coda16 04:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
They haven't been in games no, but neither has Chris Thorndyke and he's on there and Sally only had a small cameo in Spinball. So yeah, I just wanted to see if anyone else thinks we should add them now (maybe even Agent Stone too potentially). [[User:Tribal-Mand0|Tribal-Mand0]] ([[User talk:Tribal-Mand0|talk]]) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Which sources indicated dedicated, independent notability? Also, the draft looks pretty similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisp_(Sonic)&oldid=607210908 the merged version]. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 12:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'd just like to point out that [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wisp_(Sonic)/archive1|in 2014, a user named Tezero went so far with the Wisps as to create an article on them that went to FAC]]. Instead, it was rejected in favor of being merged off. Notability has to be ''independent of the subject'', in other words, are the Wisps notable as more than just elements in the games they're in? If not, they're right where they belong. [[User:Red Phoenix|<span style="color:#FF0000">Red Phoenix</span>]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|<sup style="color: #FFA500">talk</sup>]] 12:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:See the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Technically then they should be allowed on right? Cause they've been in the movies, the Knuckles show and the prequel comic too. [[User:Tribal-Mand0|Tribal-Mand0]] ([[User talk:Tribal-Mand0|talk]]) 04:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::How about when it comes to exclusive members of the Guardian Unit of Nations (or G.U.N. for short) should we find some sources to establish a section for it as well as sections for Tikal and Pachacamac (who [[Christopher Lloyd]] is voicing in ''Knuckles'') as both of them are currently redirecting to this article. --[[User:Rtkat3|Rtkat3]] ([[User talk:Rtkat3|talk]]) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024 == |
|||
== Rouge merger == |
|||
Please just let me edit the page thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:7s6uy8iwj|7s6uy8iwj]] ([[User talk:7s6uy8iwj#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/7s6uy8iwj|contribs]]) 19:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:{{Notdone}} Please submit requested changes on the talk page. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== I'm perfectly sure Big should have his own article == |
|||
It seems there have been some undiscussed efforts to restore the [[Rouge the Bat]] article. The most recent consensus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters/Archive_3#Merger_proposal seen here], was that she did not have independent notabilty in its current state. If people wish to have it restored, they 1) need a new [[WP:CONSENSUS]] supporting it having its own article and 2) probably have some new evidence of notability, or there isn't much hope for a change in opinion here... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
[[Sonic the Hedgehog|''Sonic'' series]] may have a huge cast however, despite the oversize cast of the series, only about six of them get their own independent article while characters like Amy Rose can get into argument over she can have her own article. For Big, I have been writing a draft about Big within [[User:NatwonTSG2/Sonic#Big the Cat|a sandbox]] and I think it's ready and loaded to become an independent article on [[Wikipedia]] because I was able to find my three best sources which are 14 or 21, 22 and 24. Also for some still-in-topic discussion, I also to believe other ''Sonic'' characters might get it own independent article instead of being a section the list article so. [[User:NatwonTSG2|NatwonTSG2]] ([[User talk:NatwonTSG2|talk]]) 02:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed merge with [[Amy Rose]] == |
|||
:Which new sources that are significant coverage have you found? (It's best to link them rather than mention them by number like that since the numbering may change as it's being edited and altered.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
After some searching, I'm sad to say that I don't think there's enough real-world coverage of Amy to warrant a separate article. The article is almost entirely sourced to the games (which are [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] and don't contribute to notability) and the secondary sources present are just listicles, passing mentions, and/or unreliable. The [http://cse.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq Google Custom Search] didn't show any significant mentions (and [https://www.wired.com/2006/10/sonic-nextgen-a/ this] was the only article solely about her). I feel it's best to cover her in a section here, as she unfortunately doesn't seem notable outside the series. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 23:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I only think Big can really get his own article if other more important/prominent characters like Amy (who really needs one), Rouge, the Chaotix, etc. ever get their own first. [[User:Tribal-Mand0|Tribal-Mand0]] ([[User talk:Tribal-Mand0|talk]]) 21:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per TheJoebro64's reasonings. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 23:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Just seen he does has his own page then, the fact that Big has his own page yet Amy doesn't is very bizzare. [[User:Tribal-Mand0|Tribal-Mand0]] ([[User talk:Tribal-Mand0|talk]]) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Strongly oppose''': This again? Well, the last [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters/Archive_2#Amy_Rose discussion] on this was overwhelming against the merge, and I doubt that would change now. So, I strongly oppose, per mine and other arguments from last time. And what's with the bias against listicles? [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 00:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::They published their draft without waiting for any feedback. I'm not particularly convinced either should have articles in their current state/what people have proposed in the past. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::By the way, here's the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Rose&diff=606239413&oldid=606170194 GA version] of the article. The reception section, in particular, had been significantly cut down since then, for some reason. Some of that could be added back. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 01:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Tribal-Mand0|Tribal-Mand0]] It usually doesn't matter if less important characters like for example, [[Bobby (Paper Mario)|Bobby]] from ''[[Paper Mario: The Origami King]]'' gets his own article before more important like Bowser. Jr did which has been redirected due of not showing notability so. [[User:NatwonTSG2|NatwonTSG2]] ([[User talk:NatwonTSG2|talk]]) 22:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support'''. [[Special:PermanentLink/880348994|The article]] is used as a [[WP:COATRACK|coatrack]] for reams of primary source detail. None of the secondary source coverage is specific to her, or elevates her [[WP:42|notability independently]] from that of the games/series. The Reception is list-like trivia: {{tq|i=y|Jem Roberts of the British Official Dreamcast Magazine called her a "little-pink-dog-type-thing."}} The second paragraph is even more egregiously non-encyclopedic. Take a machete to this and merge the most important detail to the character list. If and when that independent, secondary source coverage ever arrives, it can split out [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]]. <small>(not [[Help:Watchlist|watching]], please <code>{{tl|ping}}</code>)</small> <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 04:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Still though, I think at the very least Amy deserves her own page then, considering she is one of the core main characters of the franchise. [[User:Tribal-Mand0|Tribal-Mand0]] ([[User talk:Tribal-Mand0|talk]]) 23:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per Czar's rationale. [[User:Cat's Tuxedo|Cat's Tuxedo]] ([[User talk:Cat's Tuxedo|talk]]) 09:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Again, that's not how it works. Read [[WP:NVGC]] and the [[WP:GNG]] for how it works. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''', per TheJoebro64 and Czar's comments. --[[User:Niwi3|Niwi3]] ([[User talk:Niwi3|talk]]) 12:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have seen an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big the Cat|AFD discussion]] for Big the Cat. How minor is Big the Cat anyway? --[[User:Rtkat3|Rtkat3]] ([[User talk:Rtkat3|talk]]) 18:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''': It will be sad to see the article go, but I agree. [[User: EthanRossie2000|<span style="background-color: turquoise; color: violet">'''EthanRossie2000'''</span>]] [[User talk: EthanRossie2000|<sup><span style= "color:black">''discuss''</span></sup>]] 14:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What is that question supposed to mean? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I think it's supposed to mean that @[[User:Rtkat3|Rtkat3]] has seen an AFD discussion for Big and wanted to know how minor he is. For the minor question, in my opinion, Big is not really a minor character in the series since he has made some important appearances in games like Sonic Adventure, Heroes and maybe Frontiers I guess? [[User:NatwonTSG2|NatwonTSG2]] ([[User talk:NatwonTSG2|talk]]) 13:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' without prejudice to recreation if sources do come up. Amy Rose has always been a tough case of does she have enough or not enough coverage - about the most I could add at this point would be we have maybe two lines about her character design in [[Sonic CD]]. I think she did around the time a million and one Sonic fictional character articles and settings were merged in 2007-2008, but not now in 2018 when our standards have risen. As I have found in my years on Wikipedia, though, reliable sources do spring up over time, especially with a number of websites and magazines doing new articles that are retrospectives on a regular basis. Perhaps in the future more significant real-world coverage of her impact will be there, but for now the due weight in reliable sources just isn't there. [[User:Red Phoenix|<span style="color:#FF0000">Red Phoenix</span>]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|<sup style="color: #FFA500">talk</sup>]] 13:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Speaking frankly the "minor character" reasoning never sat right with me for that AfD, the bigger problem was the sourcing not really saying a lot about him to substantiate the article (no offense meant by that, I dug a bit too and struggled to find anything that could really carry it). But minor characters in a franchise can work perfectly fine as articles if they're picked up as fan favorites by media outlets or get some solid discussion behind them.--[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]] ([[User talk:Kung Fu Man|talk]]) 13:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''': Have any of you looked at the GA version of the article I linked to above? Surely, there's some sources that were since removed from the article that could be re-added, like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqYLfm1rWA&t=7m40s this] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q&t=19m9s this]. And don't go assuming that's unreliable, just because it's from YouTube. These videos are by [[Anita Sarkeesian]]. Now, I do agree that the article currently relies too much on primary sources, but that's not a reason to merge. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 13:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I looked at the GA version of the article and it's not much better. The WP:VG notability standards for fictional characters have been raised since the article was promoted and the last AFD discussion, and maybe it needs to be reflected in MOS somewhere. Problems I see with the GA version (and current version) are: 1) Not written in primarily out-of-universe style with secondary sources to meet [[WP:VGSCOPE]]#6 2) the coatrack issue Czar shared and 3) Lack of notability, as none of the Sarkeesian videos or other sources are about Amy primarily (except one Joe shared). She is only discussed through passing mentions in articles about the ''Sonic'' series, or female characters. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 15:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Additionally, it’s good to note that (ironically maybe) notability is not a requirement for the GA process, and the editor who wrote this and brought it to GA (Tezero) had extremely lenient views on notability, far less so than the usual requirements. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Unfortunately, this article falls pretty squarely in line with the issues I discussed in [[User:Red Phoenix/Due weight as a measure of appropriate coverage|this essay]]. What coverage are the sources? Passing mentions can look good, but it's all fluff and not actually ''significant coverage''. There aren't enough sources explicitly about the character to justify coverage outside of as part of her universe. [[User:Red Phoenix|<span style="color:#FF0000">Red Phoenix</span>]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|<sup style="color: #FFA500">talk</sup>]] 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::But I must ask, {{reply to|TarkusAB}}, who is raising these standards and why? The standards for character articles were already pretty high in the last proposal in 2014. Contrary to popular belief, sources do not need to be primarily about the subject. They need to be significantly about the subject. There's a difference. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 16:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I can't tell you a who and why, all I can say is it's a trend I've seen on VG character articles the past couple years. That's why I say it should be reflected in MOS. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 16:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I don’t think the standards changed as much as there’s more experienced editors actually observing and enforcing them now. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I dug into the page history and it turns out the Sarkeesian videos were removed from the article as the result of a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_109#Is_Tropes_vs._Women_considered_notable_for_reception_inclusion?|lengthy WT:VG discussion]]. The consensus was that ''Tropes vs. Women'' can only be included in articles if it was covered by a third-party RS like IGN or Polygon in accordance with [[WP:SPS]]. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 20:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, so that explains it. Fair enough. Well anyway, here's a [https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/02/21/sonic-the-hedgehog-movie-characters-we-need-sega/#3 few] [https://www.thegamer.com/classic-video-game-characters-cosplayed-never/ pieces] I've [https://www.lootcrate.com/community/daily-crate/sonic-characters-deserve-spin-offs/ found] after doing some searching. Though, I'm not sure if the latter two could be reliable. Those, combined with [https://www.webcitation.org/61FfpqYKu?url=http://wii.ign.com/articles/827/827234p1.html this] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20131030012501/http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/50022/features/the-best-and-worst-sonic-characters/?page=8 this], which are already cited there, I'm quite convinced that Amy is deserving of her own article. What do you think, {{reply to|TheJoebro64}}? [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 17:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::You’re really grasping here. A lot of these aren’t really helping much. I mean, short listicle entries about cosplaying as her, or a “character ranking” placement that’s only ranking sonic series characters? That’s some really weak stuff... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Whether or not the listicle is about Sonic characters, it satisfies what we look for in notability. It shows that Amy is one of the more discussed Sonic characters, and we even got a piece about Amy for the upcoming Sonic movie. You know, looking back at the previous merge proposals, I could at least get behind the ones we had for Cream, Silver and the Babylon Rouges. Those were rightfully merged back here. But Amy? No. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 18:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::See the [[WP:ROSENBERG|Rosenberg solution]]—listicles almost always contain information that is trivial; they usually just recap plot details while throwing some comments in about the character without actually providing significant discussion. As the closer of that discussion said, "Fictional characters qualifying for standalone Wikipedia articles are those that have major roles in multiple fictional works, have much longer reliable source coverage discussing them specifically, or have a real world impact, ideally all of these at once." Amy fails the last two; the other ''Sonic'' characters who have articles have been subject to '''notable''' independent discussion and have had some sort of real world impact. Sonic is a significant part of gaming history and his importance to Sega and rivalry with Mario have been extensively covered, Tails has been discussed because of his role as a sidekick and received a few games of his own, Eggman is a classic video game villain, Knuckles has been discussed for his impact on the series (people disagree if it was good or bad) and internet culture, and the Chaotix and Shadow have starred in their own games and have been discussed as emblematic of the series' problems. I'm sad to say this but I don't think Amy has been covered enough to be independently notable from the series. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I've seen that. In fact, I was one of the few who supported Ken Rosenberg potentially getting his own article. I'm still seeing an unfair bias against listicles here. Nowhere in [[WP:N]] is that second point supported. All we require is something more than a passing mention. Going by your last argument, Amy does have impact like those other characters. She is an example of love interests in video games (one-sided in this case, but whatever). [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 00:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::There’s no “unfair bias”. The GNG requires significant coverage. But how we identify that varies. Some consider listicles significant coverage. Others call it a passing mention. Others judge it on a case-by-case basis. It just depends on where people draw the line. It’s not like there’s some hard objective line where you go “Okay there’s 4 sentences so it it officially qualifies as significant coverage.” [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I don't disagree with you on the love interest thing, but the question is if it's been ''covered significantly by reliable sources''. From my searches, I don't think it has. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I've added two sources about Sonic being her love-interest in the article (two of the ones I listed above), {{reply to|TheJoebro64}}. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 17:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::It's a bit helpful, but they're still only short list entries (both only like 1/5 of the entire article) and don't really discuss why Amy's independently notable. It's... not much. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 20:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep / oppose merge''' - since the last (failed) merge proposal for Amy, the state of the article has not changed. Furthermore, [[WP:NFICT]] has not been changed. What ''has'' changed however are certain editors' personal interpretations of said policy to, dare I say it, the point of manifest absurdity, when an article such as this one with coverage in 16+ RS (not counting the ones Kokoro20 found above and the Sarkeesian videos which have been removed) is seen as GNG-non compliant. If this article was hypothetically a BLP, its number of sources and notability would be unquestioned - and those articles are supposed to be held to a higher standard than the rest of Wikipedia, not the other way around... '''''[[User:Satellizer|<font color="#00B7EB">Satellizer el Bridget</font>]] [[User talk:Satellizer|<font color="magenta"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]]''''' 12:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:*Come on, you know better than to lean on [[WP:OSE]] arguments like that. It’s bad even by OSE standards. Citing how you feel a hypothetical discussion would play out on a hypothetical BLP article as some sort of reason on how we should act here? That’s not a persuasive argument even outside of Wikipedia policy. How would you like me to counter that? Shall I dream up a few fictional discussions that end in a merge? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::He makes a good point anyway. We hold character articles to a higher standard than most of Wikipedia, when it really shouldn't be that way (and as the essay states, such arguments can be valid, depending on the case). And even disregarding his "OSE" argument, his other arguments still stand. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 16:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::My main point was that I consider the sourcing already in the article to meet GNG - simple as that, and there's not much more for me to elaborate on this. My BLP comment was more offhand food for thought on how BLPs are supposed to be held to the highest of standards on Wikipedia and even they don't have to meet criteria ''additional'' to the GNG such as listicles not contributing to notability and notability "independent" of their parental media/accomplishments, which, alongside "real-world" notability, are all restrictions not supported by any Wikipedia guideline/policy I'm aware of. I wouldn't say then that it's an OSE argument - OSE would be more along the lines of "John Doe's article had the same number of sources as this and got kept!". |
|||
:::As an additional note - and just to be clear this goes beyond my rationale for keeping Amy's page - I'd strongly support a sitewide RFC on listicles, notability "independent" of something else, and "real-world" notability for fictional elements, as it's ''[[WP:PROJPAGE|not something WP:VG can decide by itself]]'' since its ramifications go far beyond its scope. The counterargument to this of course would be that such restrictions only apply to video game fictional character articles, which would be admitting to a bizarre double standard. '''''[[User:Satellizer|<font color="#00B7EB">Satellizer el Bridget</font>]] [[User talk:Satellizer|<font color="magenta"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]]''''' 21:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you’d like to spend your time organizing a site-wide discussion on listicles and significant coverage, help yourself, but what you’re complaining about isn’t WP:VG specific. I participate in AFD discussions for a variety of subjects, and proposing this sort of listicle junk wouldn’t typically save articles from deletion. That sort of sourcing wouldn’t save a song article from being redirected to an album article either. As I mentioned above, WP:VG isn’t so much more strict as they just have an active group of editors monitoring and enforcing things. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' - I just added new content about the character based on three secondary sources that were entirely or substantially about her. There is sufficient coverage in secondary sources to satisfy the notability criterion. Video game character articles should not be held to a higher notability standard than other articles. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 00:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: Just added yet more content from another secondary source. All the content I have added in the past day has come from reliable secondary sources that talk about this character far more than merely "passing mentions." It's not difficult to find and cite these sources if you do more than a superficial Google search. I understand it's easier not to do this work and simply !vote for deletion, but I think it will be a shame if this article is deleted based on an uniformed "feeling" that this topic doesn't mean the GNG. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: The stuff you've added is helpful but I still don't think it's enough yet. Three of the sources are far more relevant to ''Sonic Mania Adventures'' than Amy (and the Game Informer article doesn't even mention her by name), and two of them were interviews (and thus [[WP:PRIMARY]]). Believe me, as a ''Sonic'' fan I personally don't want this article to be redirected, but the sourcing as it stands and from my own research is weak. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: The direct content of the interviews constitute primary source material, yes, but the interview content itself was published in third-party secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I will agree that the Game Informer article is not the strongest source, but the ComicBook.com source contains significant content about ''her role'' in Sonic Mania Adventures, and the GNG does not discount sources simply because they discuss how the topic at hand relates to another topic; if anything, discussion among secondary sources about the topic in multiple contexts counts in favor of notability, not against. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 19:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Yeah, agreed. Nice finds, {{reply to|Prototime}}! I knew Amy had to have more coverage than what was cited in the article already, and that proves it. It would indeed be a real shame to see the article merged with all that's been added since this RFC started. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I've re-added Sarkeesian's commentary to the article via a non-SPS academic source along with some additional commentary. If someone could take a look at non-English coverage - especially Japanese, I daresay there's a lot more sources to be found there - that'll also be great. '''''[[User:Satellizer|<font color="#00B7EB">Satellizer el Bridget</font>]] [[User talk:Satellizer|<font color="magenta"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]]''''' 04:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* None of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Rose&type=revision&diff=881141567&oldid=880348994 added text] changes my assessment that the character is not the subject of [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]. Adding more mentions of the character (as unparaphrased quotes) will not change that, especially when those mentions come from [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|unreliable sources]]. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 03:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::The added text is irrelevant to [[WP:GNG|notability]]. A number of new [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] have been added that further illustrate that this topic has received significant coverage. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 04:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: If those "new sources" only add trivial mentions of the character, then no, that wouldn't be [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Have you read the new sources? Most of them offer more than trivial mentions of the character. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 06:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Rose&type=revision&diff=881141567&oldid=880348994 They consist] of unreliable sources[http://info.sonicretro.org/Amy_Rose][https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2018/12/22/tyson-hesse-and-jasmin-hernandez-on-making-sonic-mania-adventures-and-the-latest-holiday-special][https://www.lootcrate.com/community/daily-crate/sonic-characters-deserve-spin-offs/], a self-published source (Read-Only Memory interview), a primary source[http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Battle_manuals], and a contentless listicle[https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/02/21/sonic-the-hedgehog-movie-characters-we-need-sega/#3]. So no, [https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/12/20/-sonic-mania-adventures-new-episode-amy-rose-sega-shop/ this sole remaining mention] of Amy does not constitute [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]. It in fact imparts as much as [https://www.gameinformer.com/gamer-culture/2018/12/20/sonic-mania-adventures-gets-a-new-holiday-episode this other cited article] does about Amy: that she appears in the episode. My objection above was that the article reads as trivia padded to look like content (or if there is substance in this article, it is buried beneath fluff). These additional sources only exacerbate that objection. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 03:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: What? "Contentless listicle"? Not at all. Sure, it doesn't consist of several paragraphs, but the listicle actually goes into why Amy should be in the Sonic film. I would think the Forbes source is okay too, considering it's situation stance, and the article only being an opinion piece. And you failed to mention [https://www.webcitation.org/61FfpqYKu?url=http://wii.ign.com/articles/827/827234p1.html some] of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20131030012501/http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/50022/features/the-best-and-worst-sonic-characters/?page=8 sources] that were already in there before. That's at least four sources of significant coverage (as in "non-passing mentions", they don't need to be several paragraphs long) right there. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 09:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: I think what czar means by "contentless" is that it doesn't discuss why she's significant. The source basically boils down to "Amy should be in the movie because she's in love with Sonic." Also, Forbes pieces written by contributors and not staff are technically [[WP:SPS]] since they aren't given the same oversight by the main editors. The IGN and ONM articles boil down to just "Amy has a cool hammer, she should be in Smash" and "Amy is annoying and sounds like Minnie Mouse." That's not sigcov. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 17:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: "Not significant coverage? Yeah, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one. You can "boil" down anything, if you try hard enough. You're making those sources seem worse than they actually are. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 21:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''': given this isn't looking to be in favor of keeping the article, I've written [[User:TheJoebro64/sandbox#Amy_Rose|this]] in my sandbox, which can be implemented if the article is indeed merged. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I wouldn't say there's a clear consensus quite yet. Most of those in favor of merging "voted" before the new content was added to the article. Only you and Czar have still voiced disagreements of Amy having an article after the fact. {{reply to|Prototime}}, {{reply to|Satellizer}} and myself all agree that the new content constitutes as significant coverage. And frankly, it would be pretty silly to merge the Amy article here now. This article, as it is, is already pretty big. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 21:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm still up for merging. Vouching for the other merge proponents here, the sources just aren't independently significant enough to justify the character's own page, and Joe's proposed section for the list is much more streamlined and concise than the article as is. [[User:Cat's Tuxedo|Cat's Tuxedo]] ([[User talk:Cat's Tuxedo|talk]]) 21:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support Merge''': The article is full of fluff. When you remove the frivolous critical commentary in the reception section and the in-universe cruft, you are left with about three paragraphs worth of compelling information, perfect for summarizing on this page. While the above attempts to save the article are admirable, they don't bring enough meaningful commentary that gives the reader any substantial information. See [[Shadow the Hedgehog]] (which was just rewritten) for an example of the quality we should be striving for here. The sources to reach this quality for Amy do not exist. I am a huge Sonic fan too but the article is not very good. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 23:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::That's quite a high bar to set. It's not GA material or anything compared to Shadow's article, sure, but it still passes the minimum of what we look for in notability. You can't expect GA quality from all these articles. It's quite silly (and may I say, dumb) to merge it here, just because the information may not be all that useful (which is very subjective, like what is useful and what isn't?). I'm sure it could be a better article, if more effort was put into it, like Shadow's article, which believe it or not, was at one point a merge candidate as well. This kind of scrutiny should be saved for a GA review, not determining whether the subject should even have an article. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 00:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's certainly not "dumb" since many competent editors here seem to think it's a good idea. And sure perhaps my comparison to a GAC is unfair, I can see that. Look...maybe some [[WP:TNT]] would do the trick. Like Serge and some others said, I agree that I'd be open to keeping the article if someone does it right. I still think there is a huge coatrack issue that Czar mentioned. The reception section reads like: "Some people said she's cute. Some said she's whiny. Others said she has an iconic hammer. Others called her a bitch." If this section can be rewritten to actually say something ''meaningful'', I think it'd be great, if it's even possible which I don't think it is unfortunately. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 00:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yeah, you see, that's why I'm favor of keeping the article. Even if the current state isn't that great, the potential is still there. I'm inclined to think TNT should be saved only as a last resort. It's not like I'm an inexperienced editor myself, as I have been lurking and sometimes editing various articles over the past several years. I've even gotten a few articles to GA, including a character one. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 07:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::OK so we agree the current state is not favorable. |
|||
:::::We also agree the potential for the article to stand on its own is there. |
|||
:::::I think we can also agree that we both want what's best, which is for the reader to walk away with a good [[MOS:REALWORLD|real world]] overview of Amy Rose. |
|||
:::::The two options to achieve this right now are the current article or the text Joe suggested above. For my money, I think Joe's suggestion does this better. It is more concise, direct, and focuses on the things that carry real world importance. I feel that the current article is too embellished that it gets lost and ultimately doesn't achieve the same impact. Even if we conclude that the Amy article passes the minimum guidelines, that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best solution ''today'', and I feel Joe's suggested text is currently a better option to accomplish our goal. How do you feel about starting it as a section here, improving upon it, then splitting it the day it becomes unwieldy? [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::FWIW I'm all for Tarkus's proposal. Start here with the basics, and keep building until it's ready for a standalone article. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 20:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I support the Joe/Tarkus Resolution as well. I think it’s time to move on this. Discussion has died down after weeks of activity, and there’s no reasonable doubt that any neutral closer would cone to a consensus here of anything other than “Merge”. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I don't know. I would rather try and fix the current article first, and save the merging as a "last resort" measure. Should the article get merged, however, I will keep that in mind, because Amy really does deserve an article. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 23:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I feel you're conflating notability with MOS here. Notability =/= MOS and I'm sure it doesn't need explaining that the two are completely different. Notability is for ''if'' something deserves an article, and MOS is for ''how'' it should be written. As Serge mentioned before, something like GAN focuses solely on MOS and not notability, and in deciding whether an article (like Amy's) should be kept, [[WP:NOTDONE|only notability matters and not MOS (i.e. the current state of the article doesn't matter)]]. If her article passes the "minimum [notability] guidelines", the !vote should be keep - whether if it's the "best solution ''today''" is irrelevant. '''''[[User:Satellizer|<font color="#00B7EB">Satellizer el Bridget</font>]] [[User talk:Satellizer|<font color="magenta"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]]''''' 10:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, that's exactly why I was leery about such a decision. The article not being very well-written is not a reason to merge. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 11:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I understand Amy meets GNG and that Wikipedia is a work in progress. We also have the guideline [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]], which tells us GNG is not the "be all end all" when determining to merge. Rather, we the editors are entrusted to make the best decision for the reader to understand the material. So the fact that the article is not well-written ''is'' relevant. |
|||
::::::::I think we both want the same thing, for the reader to understand Amy's significance. Since we agree the page quality is poor, how about we merge to a version that is understandable and agree to split back when someone can write a better version? Is that not a fair compromise between all the discussion here? I don't like the idea of keeping a page in bad shape with the hope and dream that someone might fix it someday. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 12:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::If I can make a suggestion, how about starting a new section below to ask if the article should be kept on it's current state, and start an RFC there, now that we agree that it passes notability? This is something we should get a separate consensus for. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 06:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I agree that notability is being conflated with article quality. If we agree that this article passes muster under the notability guideline but its quality is a problem, then let's have a discussion about how to improve its quality. I welcome that discussion. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 06:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Actually, I like your idea better. Maybe we can start a discussion over at Amy's article on how to improve it. I would rather get that done, if possible, than to merge. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 07:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::That would not be appropriate at this point. There’s a term for that. It’s called [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. You don’t go and start a new discussion at a new venue when a multi-week discussion with many participants doesn’t harbor the consensus you want. This has been discussed plenty at this point. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I think you're missing the point. The point is I wanted to start a discussion on the article's current MOS state, now that the notability issues seems to have been resolved. No forum shopping here. It can be done here on this talk page as well, rather than the Amy article that I suggested before. When it comes to that, we have 2 supports for keeping the current article, and 3 opposes, all bringing up competent arguments. Not really a consensus yet. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 02:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::The merge discussion has been a discussion on the article’s state. The clear consensus is a merge. I have no idea what your 3-2 count is supposed to be. I see 8 people in favor of merge and 3 against it. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::: Going by numbers, there is a 3-!vote difference at most. There are 4 editors who believe it satisfies the notability guideline, and at most 7 who don't. !votes that are not based on the notability guideline, but instead are based on "delete because I read the current draft of the article and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]", will likely be disregarded in determining consensus - and there is at least one such !vote being made here. Regardless, it isn't up for us to decide whether a consensus has been reached. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 19:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::And one of those editors who believes it's notable has supported merging, so going by the numbers it's 8-3. Like Serge, I really can't see any neutral party closing this with any other consensus besides "merge". [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Please don't twist my position, I said it meets GNG but my stance is still ''merge''. This is a [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] discussion not a [[WP:GNG]] discussion. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:07, 5 June 2024
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should Tom & Maddie Wachowski be added to the "Characters in other media"?
I was mainly wondering whether it's time to add Tom & Maddie to the "Characters in Other Media" section. As they're very important characters for the movie franchise, with them both being in three films as lead characters by the end of the year and Maddie even having a big role in the Knuckles show too (plus they were both in the "Prequill" comic for Sonic 2).
They haven't been in games no, but neither has Chris Thorndyke and he's on there and Sally only had a small cameo in Spinball. So yeah, I just wanted to see if anyone else thinks we should add them now (maybe even Agent Stone too potentially). Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- See the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Technically then they should be allowed on right? Cause they've been in the movies, the Knuckles show and the prequel comic too. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- How about when it comes to exclusive members of the Guardian Unit of Nations (or G.U.N. for short) should we find some sources to establish a section for it as well as sections for Tikal and Pachacamac (who Christopher Lloyd is voicing in Knuckles) as both of them are currently redirecting to this article. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Technically then they should be allowed on right? Cause they've been in the movies, the Knuckles show and the prequel comic too. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024
Please just let me edit the page thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7s6uy8iwj (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done Please submit requested changes on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm perfectly sure Big should have his own article
Sonic series may have a huge cast however, despite the oversize cast of the series, only about six of them get their own independent article while characters like Amy Rose can get into argument over she can have her own article. For Big, I have been writing a draft about Big within a sandbox and I think it's ready and loaded to become an independent article on Wikipedia because I was able to find my three best sources which are 14 or 21, 22 and 24. Also for some still-in-topic discussion, I also to believe other Sonic characters might get it own independent article instead of being a section the list article so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Which new sources that are significant coverage have you found? (It's best to link them rather than mention them by number like that since the numbering may change as it's being edited and altered.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I only think Big can really get his own article if other more important/prominent characters like Amy (who really needs one), Rouge, the Chaotix, etc. ever get their own first. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just seen he does has his own page then, the fact that Big has his own page yet Amy doesn't is very bizzare. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- They published their draft without waiting for any feedback. I'm not particularly convinced either should have articles in their current state/what people have proposed in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Tribal-Mand0 It usually doesn't matter if less important characters like for example, Bobby from Paper Mario: The Origami King gets his own article before more important like Bowser. Jr did which has been redirected due of not showing notability so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Still though, I think at the very least Amy deserves her own page then, considering she is one of the core main characters of the franchise. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, that's not how it works. Read WP:NVGC and the WP:GNG for how it works. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen an AFD discussion for Big the Cat. How minor is Big the Cat anyway? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- What is that question supposed to mean? Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's supposed to mean that @Rtkat3 has seen an AFD discussion for Big and wanted to know how minor he is. For the minor question, in my opinion, Big is not really a minor character in the series since he has made some important appearances in games like Sonic Adventure, Heroes and maybe Frontiers I guess? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking frankly the "minor character" reasoning never sat right with me for that AfD, the bigger problem was the sourcing not really saying a lot about him to substantiate the article (no offense meant by that, I dug a bit too and struggled to find anything that could really carry it). But minor characters in a franchise can work perfectly fine as articles if they're picked up as fan favorites by media outlets or get some solid discussion behind them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's supposed to mean that @Rtkat3 has seen an AFD discussion for Big and wanted to know how minor he is. For the minor question, in my opinion, Big is not really a minor character in the series since he has made some important appearances in games like Sonic Adventure, Heroes and maybe Frontiers I guess? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- What is that question supposed to mean? Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen an AFD discussion for Big the Cat. How minor is Big the Cat anyway? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, that's not how it works. Read WP:NVGC and the WP:GNG for how it works. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Still though, I think at the very least Amy deserves her own page then, considering she is one of the core main characters of the franchise. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just seen he does has his own page then, the fact that Big has his own page yet Amy doesn't is very bizzare. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)