Wikipedia

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 3

< Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Sergecross73 in topic Rouge merger
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Proposed merge with Big the Cat

Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments12 people in discussion
There's clear consensus to merge. ~ RobTalk 13:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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

The sourcing or appearances relevant for this character article have not substantially changed in two years. The Reception section remains a collection of every minor mention of the character, which together do not constitute significant coverage. The precedent, based on the Ken Rosenberg RFC, is that video game character listicle entries alone are insufficient to substantiate a full article. Everything that needs to be said about Big can be said adequately in the character list article without coatracking for primary source detail (which is outside the scope of Wikipedia, as a generalist encyclopedia). czar 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for the merge not to happen, and the character is no longer notable enough for it's own article, so I support merging the Big the Cat article into this one. Raptormimus456 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Although Big the Cat hadn't been in as many Sonic games as before, Big was a very controversial character, especially through the "Reaction and Impact" section of the article. I oppose merging the Big the Cat article into this one.Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, speedy keep. This is literally the exact same argument as two years before. The outcome of that was no consensus, and since you admit that the article has not changed, I don't see how this discussion will result in anything constructive. Considering the article is GA, it means it has passed (at least in reality) quite stringent assessment by an experienced Wikipedia editor and has not only demonstrated notability but also a whole host of other standards. I would at least get GA reviewer @CR4ZE: and article creator @Tezero: to comment here first. Additionally, the "Ken Rosenberg RFC" has been cherrypicked - I can name just as many deletion discussions where the consensus was to keep - like the infamous Sarah Bryant and Reiko Nagase AfDs, for example, off the top of my head. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you already know that we redirect and delete GA articles all the time because there are examples on the page you just linked. The GA criteria is a minimum content bar that has nothing to do with topic notability or source quality. Our low bar for significance has changed significantly over the years (think Pokémon characters). We're building a generalist encyclopedia. Topics that lack dedicated coverage in vetted sources are best covered in a niche wiki of a different scope. The Ken Rosenberg RFC was designed as an instrumental question of whether several "significant" listicles together constitute enough coverage for a separate/dedicated article. Its conclusion and wide participation show how non-cherrypicked discussions end when they aren't brigaded by partisans. So I agree, this discussion requires (1) that editors look at the actual depth of coverage, and (2) new voices—less of us. czar 17:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
In theory GA is a "minimum content bar", but in practice this is not the case - about 1 in 216 Wikipedia articles actually meet the threshold, so unless you'd argue that 215/216 pages here are complete crap, it's pretty self evident that GA is only for articles well above the standard. It's also quite evident that, in reality, articles with obvious refimprove problems would be quickfailed during assessment. I also disagree that this is a "generalist" encyclopedia - it's an inclusive encyclopedia where all subjects are welcome, including the very niche, as long as they meet standards. Policies such as WP:N or GNG are meant to ensure that editors don't take advantage of this rule and add their own unsourced non-notable content, not to be used as a tool to bludgeon content one considers to be outside the mainstream. As for Ken Rosenberg, You've admitted yourself that precedence doesn't always work, this isn't a particularly strong precedent (it's just one discussion), and the "brigading" accusations are false - when something is nominated for deletion, obviously it'll attract editors interested in that subject.
It all really comes down to two different interpretations of policy: you think Big doesn't meet SIGCOV, I think he does. I agree that the discussion may benefit from new voices. Fair enough; I've struck the "speedy" part of my !vote. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I like to think Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are a bit stricter than two years ago (see the recent "List of characters" redirect spree, for example). I have a hard time figuring this article out, though: by far the majority of the sources are in-game quotes, and they drown out the regular reliable sources. I see some specific game reviews, though I don't believe they do much for establishing notability. Multiple "worst characters"/"best characters" lists help out, though. There's GamesRadar, 1UP, and Nintendo Magazine, which is already more than the Ken Rosenberg article had. There's also a development section based on reliable sources. I'm gravitating towards a weak keep, though I agree that most of the fictional content should be trimmed... and once that is done, it could probably easily be merged into the characters article. Hmm.... Neutral. ~Mable (chat) 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the recent "list of characters" redirect spree was mostly done by just one editor (User:Czar) and has not gone unnoticed: there's a discussion at WT:ANIME here right now about it and some have since been reversed or kept. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria has not gotten stricter - the wording of WP:GNG, for example, has literally not changed - what has shifted is the subjective opinion of editors to a more and more deletionist perspective - which explains the recent flurry of en masse character redirecting. Question is: do we want even stricter interpretation of notability requirements on fictional characters, especially since they are already held to a double standard compared to the rest of Wikipedia? I certainly hope not, and would strongly oppose it. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The interpretation of the rules are always subjective – that's what I mean when I say the inclusion criteria is slightly stricter than before. I wasn't aware that fictional characters were already held up to a double standard, though? I'm just looking for a few in-detail sources so we can write a whole article without synthesizing from general game reviews and quoting the games themselves. I think that basically the entirety of the "appearances" section doesn't meet our guidelines, as it is almost entirely based on primary sources. That being said, I think that the reception section and development section are fine. What we should ask is whether the article is too long to be merged into the overall characters list. I don't know. ~Mable (chat) 05:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Different subjects have wildly different standards of notability. For example, animal species, schools, and towns/cities are declared to be inherently notable and only need a single source to prove their existence. BLPs, video games, items etc. are judged to generally harsher standards, and fictional content, such as fictional characters, fictional organizations etc. are judged the harshest of all. Obviously this is somewhat subjective, and I don't necessarily have the statistics to prove this, but it is my strongly held belief that such a double standard is existant, and at least a few other editors are of the same opinion. Take a tour around Wikipedia - compare and contrast the average number of sources of a video game article with that of a video game fictional character. Compare and contrast the percentage of video games that are stubs versus the percentage of video game characters that are stubs. I think you'll find the data to match my hypothesis nicely.
There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY about such sources being unusable, like you've suggested for the "Appearances" section. They just need to be taken with care and don't necessarily establish notability, but as the article also has plenty of secondary sources, it's a non-issue. 28,264 bytes is plenty long enough for a standalone. I daresay it's longer than several GAs. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, we really need to get rid of buildings and towns that just don't have any sources discussing them. The fact that there is a lot of stuff that still needs to be deleted doesn't mean that the guidelines aren't universal. Many buildings could be merged into their city's article, and many cities can be merged into a list of cities.
For the record, I think there's enough notable content to write two or three paragraphs about him. If there wasn't a list of characters to merge him into, I would have definitely voted keep. This is basically where I put the line between a keep and a merge. ~Mable (chat) 06:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, @Satellizer:, I also redirected a whole lot of "list of... characters", not just @Czar:. That was also done after input from WP:VG. I'm on my phone right now, otherwise I would've looked up the discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge/keep: Yeah, like @Satellizer:, my arguments from the previously proposed merge from two years ago still applies here. For the reason Satellizer stated about the precedent for Ken Rosenberg RFC, it really should be taken with a grain of salt at best. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete - Fails WP:42 as there are no 3rd party sources that discuss the topic in detail. The whole "conception and creation" section can be merged into the development sections of Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2. The rest is pretty much fancruft that is best covered in a niche wikia. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge. Just like with the recent developments concerning the "List of [...] characters", concensus can change. Most of the sources referenced here are first-party, like text taken verbatim from the games, instruction manuals or TV episodes. Those that are RS'es mention the character in a tiny blurb on how much they despise the character. There's not enough to have an entire article on the character. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge, there is a sliver of meaningful coverage here padded by a mountain of borderline trivia and JUSTPLOT. I think merging is the square peg in a square hole solution in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge, as everything that is not just indiscriminately-placed information about the character (such as plot details that belong in a relevant fan wiki) can be covered in the list. Esquivalience t 14:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge - I didn't want to be the only bad guy again, so I was waiting to see how things were going, so now I'm deciding to weigh in, and also in favor of merging. There's just very little in the way of creation or reception on him. I removed a few bits for various reasons - usually that the sources weren't considered reliable - and what's left is a few journalists adding a single sentence here or there calling the character "fat" or "stupid" in the game reviews, and a few other passing mentions of "I hate that guy" or "I'm glad he's not in X game". That's not the significant coverage we require for articles. I mean, I didn't see a single article dedicated to the subject. I'm not sure I even saw a paragraph dedicated to it. Far too much of the article is just plot, and he's not even really know much for that (and it shows, its mostly sourced to the games he comes from - 1st party accounts - rather than third party accounts.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silver and Critics

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I might be a bit rusty from my inactivity on Wikipedia the past few years, but even if the sources are considered reliable for games, they don't seem representative of "generally not well received" since they are both written by the same author. I'm sorry, but could someone please enlighten me how this qualifies as "generally not well received"? None of the other characters have any reception included either (even though one of the sources I'm criticizing includes almost all of them), so it seems out of place too.

Just thought I should point this out. I won't remove it again and risk starting an edit war for now, but I am seriously questioning the validity of including that information as fact when the sources are both opinion pieces by the same person (Jim Sterling).--Jade Harley (pester) 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, we've got 2 reliable sources showing he was poorly received received. We have zero sources stating anything else. Do you have any counter sources providing a more positive or even moderate stance? Also, I'm not opposed to tweaking the exact wording, but removing it outright when there's 2 sources supporting it, and zero opposing it, doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm tending toward Jade's point here; having two citations from literally the same author isn't a good sign of "generally not well-received". "One author stated discontent" or similar might be better phrasing. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that itself would beg the question of why one author is significant enough to warrant a mention. Also, I never said anything about Silver being more well received by anyone else. I'm only saying that section is not noteworthy enough to be included.
EDIT: I did a search on the author and it seems he has enough of a reputation so we could just write down his name in the article. I'm still not sure if that's really noteworthy though. :\--Jade Harley (pester) 04:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to reword as you see fit. I only object to its outright removal. This article needs much more out-of-universe perspective content, not less. Sergecross73 msg me 04:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This is only because the original Silver the Hedgehog article had much more sources before massive trimming when it was merged. When you read all 5 of those sources in reception it's clear that Silver has not been well received. Not sure why they were removed but I'd like to re-add them. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought there were more, but I hadn't had the chance to search. I fully encourage this, and will probably add them if you won't. Most Sonic characters introduced outside of the 1990s were pretty poorly received, so this sounds about right... Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Big the Cat removed from future games"

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently states that Big the Cat was retired in 2012. However, the character has continued to make appearances in the comic series, was playable in Sonic Runners, and is featured in Lego Dimensions as a plot element and quest-giver in the Sonic pack. And this is of course without bringing up the much-less-notable-but-still-Sega-sanctioned "Big's Big Fishing Adventure 3". That last bit in the Big the Cat section should probably be rephrased to show that, assuming the no-Big mandate was real, it's no longer in effect. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments12 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was a consensus to merge Rouge the Bat into List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. The policy based arguments pointed out that the coverage that does exist is not significant or are not in sources we would generally consider reliable. Those opposing a merger were numerically in the minority, and were generally based on reasons such as the list being too long or other classes of articles being stand alone articles without addressing the core issue of whether the article under discussion merited an article itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting the merge of Rouge the Bat to this article. I feel as if she doesn't have the significant coverage to hold her own standalone article (there are only 22 refs, and multiple unreliable sources both tagged and untagged), and the majority of articles cited are just passing mentions. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - For what it's worth, there was a consensus against merging back in 2014 when we had the massive merger discussions on a number of unnecessary Sonic series character articles. Most people were vague with their rationales, and it doesn't seem that I participated in that one (for some reason), so I'll have to dig around before I give a stance. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - The amount of references and dedicated sources is pretty scarce compared to other characters with their own pages, and on top of that, the overall degree of useful information on the page is too low to justify itself. It could very easily be merged as a more concise couple or so paragraphs. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. Ah, memories. The sourcing hasn't changed significantly since 2014 when I went through all the sources. Then, as now, they were "all passing mentions and dead links other than this two fine brief paragraphs of gaming listicle journalism: [1][2]" WP's sourcing standards have changed over time, but I still think the 2014 conclusions were more a product of canvassing than source analysis. This character doesn't have the significant coverage to warrant a separate article—merge and cover as appropriate in the parent. I'd recommend revisiting some of the other 2014 merge discussions as well, or simply first merge the content now and discuss the redirect whenever.   czar 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - The sources don't point towards independent notability, just the fact she exists and has been used in the series. This is exactly the type of character that belongs on a list instead of an article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - Per WP:SIGCOV, lack of significant coverage independent from Sega. TarkusAB 01:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - per the lack of dedicated sourcing for the subject. I think the only reason it survived the first wave in 2014 was that it was slightly better written than some of the other ones, and looked better in comparison. In comparison to the GNG, its just not there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not merge she is a major enough character in the franchise to deserve her own article. The list should be reserved for lesser characters who recur less often and play less critical parts in the plots. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Many characters on this list play much bigger roles than Rouge (Silver, Blaze, Gamma, etc), she is almost always a supporting character. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If the article is kept, it won't be for subjective claims like being a "major enough character" or that she's not a "lesser character". Even ignoring the fact that it's not rooted in Wikipedia policy in any capacity, that's extremely subjective, and to an undefined standard - that'd be impossible to enforce. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And if this counts for things, I've found another source discussing Rouge, such this from Game Informer to add to the article. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Its a little helpful, but that's still just a short listicle entry - 1/10th of the article is about her. That's...not much. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. Simply not notable by itself, not enough coverage on the development, appearance and reception of the character by itself. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep! I don't like the idea of a page to be a list of characters instead of individual pages. This list is long and overwhelming to scroll through. It's suppose to be brief. The individual pages themselves should be long and detailed. In short, this page needs to be shorter and more concise and characters should have individual pages for more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YemeniFriend (talk • contribs) 07:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@YemeniFriend, I hate to break it to you, but there are hundreds, thousands of list articles like this one. We're discussing the notability of this article's subject, not whether or not a long list is "overwhelming". You're merely saying WP:ILIKEIT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ...So those 3 links to game manuals, and 2 links to Amazon.com listing for game soundtracks, you're arguing they're helping meet the GNG too then? Because that's 5 of your 22 right there... Sergecross73 msg me 11:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mecha Sonic vs. Metal Sonic

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article does not differentiate between Metal Sonic and Mecha Sonic. Should they be considered seperate characters?Powerocean (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

They're officially separate characters, so I would say yes. Bluest Bird (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Fang the Sniper vs Nack the Weasel

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Why are we using the name "Nack the Weasel" over Fang the Sniper? He used that name in only one game, the English localization of Sonic Triple Trouble. Every other game that featured him called him Fang the Sniper in every region, even USA. Even Sonic the Fighters did; it renamed Eggman to Robotnik outside of Japan but kept Fang's name unchanged. So I think it would make more sense to call him that. Bluest Bird (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Triple Trouble is really the only game he's ever had a significant role in, and we favor English names on the English Wikipedia. Not sure it really matters, both Nack the Weasel and Fang the Sniper redirect to the same place, and both names are mentioned in the opening words of its entry. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
His role in Sonic the Fighter was no lesser than that of most characters present in that game. And why does that even matter? The fact that he was called Fang in 3 out of 4 games makes it his most prominent name in the games, and the one that superseded his previous English name. Moreover, Fang is an English name as well, seeing how it's the one used by the localizations of most games that feature him. Just like Eggman. Bluest Bird (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
To complement my previous point, I'll add that even the news media referred to him as Fang back when he still appeared in the games, as this '96 magazine article in English[3] about Sonic X-treme shows, indicating that Sega of America called him that even in the context of American-made games like X-treme. So yeah, this notion about Fang being a Japan-only name is a big fan misconception. If anything, Nack is more akin to Amy's original name in American Sonic CD, Princess Sally: a localization name that was scrapped right after the first game, which makes it obsolete. Bluest Bird (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Touma's Twitter

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

What do you mean "random, unverified Twitter users"? toumartcom isn't a random Twitter account; it's the account of Touma, Fang's character designer and creator. Bluest Bird (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets take a couple steps back here - there's a number of things you haven't established yet. Everything needs to be covered by reliable sources, and there's much missing here:
  1. Can it be confirmed that this is his Twitter account? It is not a verified account. Anyone could go out and create a Twitter account to the capacity of "Touma" and "Art".
  2. The tweet is in Japanese. Can it be confirmed that it was correctly translated? Words often have many/multiple ways of translation.
  3. Do we have verification that Touma is the artist at all? That's not sourced, or even mentioned, anywhere in the article.
  4. Does it make sense to include? If no sources ever reported on this, and all we have is an off hand comment on Twitter, is it of importance?
  5. Does it make sense to implement like you did here, where you made an already convoluted sentence even more complicated? (Try reading that opening sentence out-loud. It's a mess.)
For these reasons and more, yes, I reverted your addition. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
All right, here's the source that Touma designed Fang:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160324051409/https://artoyz.com/shop/blog/interviews/mise-au-point-avec-touma/
As for confirming that that's his Twitter account, you can verify it by doing the following: Go to Touma's site[4], click on "Blog", and then click on "Twitter" on the right sidebar. It will take you to the Twitter account that posted the tweet.
About the translation, fans have translated the tweet themselves, and I ran it on Google Translate as well as an extra check. If you still doubt it, then who get someone you deem a trustworthy Japanese translator to translate it.
Finally, I would think the character's species is an important attribute about a Sonic character like him. And I disagree it makes things convoluted, as the addition was just a single sentence in parenthesis. It didn't affect the paragraph's structure or anything. Bluest Bird (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I'm fine with inclusion now that you've verified everything, though I think a different form/context may be better, as to avoid this issue happening again years in the future, with so much of the context missing to your average reader. Perhaps a separate sentence explaining something to the capacity of "According to Touma, Fang's original character designer, Fang was initially intended to be a wolf/jerboa hybrid animal" or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Very well. Would we be putting that sentence in references or the article itself? Bluest Bird (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Splitting Chaotix

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Okay so I think I've found enough sources to split the Chaotix into their own separate article but I wanted to discuss it here before I make a move. When I was researching for Knuckles' Chaotix, I found that the coverage of the characters was not stuff like "I like Espio" or "I don't like Vector". Some of the old magazine articles (such as this one) went into excessive, in-depth detail on what each character's abilities were, controlled like, how they affected gameplay, and looked like. I've also found GameSpot and Destructoid articles dedicated entirely to them. Any thoughts? JOEBRO64 01:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to say, since you really only showed one source (though that one does look good.) but I'd recommend having a really strong case if you go for it - in the last few years, there's been a real trend of cutting down on articles for side Sonic characters (there's been like 8-10 merged I think now) and there's been a bunch of recent Sonic mergers lately too. Fictions video game characters are generally pretty difficult - sources commonly don't provide significant coverage, and there's a number of experienced editors who patrol the area and redirect/merge them. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, here we go. I've started a draft here to create a page for 'em. JOEBRO64 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability of the Wisps

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since 2010, Wisps have been recurring characters in the series, like 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 this discussion. There's consensus that the Wisps aren't independently notable enough for their own article. JOEBRO64 10:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. They can just be discussed here at this page. Sergecross73 msg me 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)
Which sources indicated dedicated, independent notability? Also, the draft looks pretty similar to the merged version. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that 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. Red Phoenix talk 12:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rouge merger

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems there have been some undiscussed efforts to restore the Rouge the Bat article. The most recent consensus, 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... Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters/Archive_3&oldid=1142343385"