Wikipedia

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 5

< Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sergecross73 in topic Dark Sonic
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Proposal to de-merge Amy Rose from here

Latest comment: 2 years ago83 comments14 people in discussion
There is a clear consensus against a de-merge. The two main arguments against were that the subject is unlikely to meet the notability threshold, and that the draft article relies too much on primary and unsuitable sources. The (possibly unintended) canvassing did not impact the overall consensus. Femke (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2022 (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.


Back in 2019, there was consensus to merge Amy Rose back here for the time being. Many editors expressed that they were open her to be de-merged from here should someone work on the article, as the main concern was the article's state, rather than notability, or so it seems. I was going to try and work on it back in 2019 right after the merge, but kind of got burned out of Wikipedia for a while, so I didn't get around to it, until now. Therefor, I am proposing a de-merge after some improvements I've made at User:MoonJet/Amy Rose.

I've removed a large number of the primary sources, replacing some of them with third-party sources, added more third-party sourcing in general (such as publications wishing her to be in future Sonic films), removed some unnecessary stuff, re-worded some things and the like. While the article still needs work (the reception section could probably use a little trimming, for example), I'm sure many of you could at least agree that it's in a better state now than it was when the decision was to merge it.

I'll tag @Sergecross73: and @TheJoebro64: for now to see what they think, since they both restored the merged after previous de-merge attempts. Compare the version that it was initially merged at to the version on my draft page now: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:MoonJet/Amy_Rose&diff=1080658444&oldid=883849152 MoonJet (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe one of the problems before was that she was lacking in significant coverage in reliable sources. The reception still largely reads like a collection of every time someone cherry-picked any inconsequential passing mention of her from a game review. It's primarily based around this repetitive and pointless IGN called her "cute with nice shoes" while GamesRadar called her "good but also kinda bad". That's not noteworthy reception. It reads like it was cultivated by a bot that can't understand what noteworthy commentary is. Which is not entirely you fault, it's how the source material. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, looking at the last merge proposal, some of those in support of merging the article here still agreed that she passed WP:GNG, but thought that because of the article's poor state, it should be merged here. That said, I agree that the reception section could use a little trimming, particularly the one-sentence or so discussions of her like you mentioned. And even if we're talking about "significant coverage" part, I've also added two sources to my draft that are entirely about Amy. MoonJet (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not supporting a de-merge at the moment. While it's an improvement, the proposed draft doesn't address the major, perhaps fundamental, issues that were brought up during the merge discussion: (1) it's written from a primarily in-universe perspective, and (2) it relies too much on passing mentions, listicles, and primary sources without significant coverage. The coverage that is there is... not great. ("In 2019, Robert Workman from Comicbook.com listed her as a character they wish to see in the then-upcoming 2020 Sonic the Hedgehog film, stating..." is far from what I'd call noteworthy reception.)
I think if we're going to de-merge, the article is going to need to be blown up and started all over. I'd look to articles like Shadow the Hedgehog, Doomfist, and Wrecking Ball (Overwatch) as examples of how character articles should be written. JOEBRO64 02:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The whole "in-universe" thing has always been confusing to me. Maybe elaborate on that part, @TheJoebro64:?
Regardless, it's more of a WP:MOS thing, not dictating whether an article can exist. If anything, all the "appearances" section needs is some trimming. Maybe I haven't addressed all the issues brought up in the last discussion, but I've definitely addressed some of them.
I think comparing it to GA articles is unfair. The question isn't whether she can pass GA, but if she can have an article. I said yes then, and now, I stand by that, and even more strongly so. As I've mentioned, I've removed many of the primary sources. Some sources I've added too go way beyond "passing mentions." And I should that there's no policy or guideline against relying "too much" on passing mentions, as long as there's at least a couple sources that give significant coverage. WP:TNT should be reserved for the most extreme of cases. MoonJet (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Update: I've trimmed out a bit of the "Appearances" and "Reception" sections in my draft for now. I removed a couple one-sentence opinions on Amy from there. MoonJet (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to ask the Wikiproject for more input, but I'm against de-merging too. Outside of the brief bit about female representation, the reception section is entirely bloated fluff. You've got a whole paragraph about these fringe blogs wanting her to be voiced by certain actresses. That's not reception. You've got commentary from Tyson Heese. That's not a third party account. I don't think "Lootcrate" is a reliable source. No one's saying it needs to be a GA. We're saying the issues that caused the merge are still present, and that the GAs are some examples that managed to avoid these same pitfalls. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
If you read the whole paragraph, it also discusses why she should be in upcoming Sonic films, not just what actresses she should be voiced by. Also, did you look at the sources outside the "reception" section? There's one entirely about Amy: https://www.cbr.com/sonic-free-comic-book-day-amy-rose-cartoonist/
There's also a source in the "reception" section itself like that, where it lists off the actresses. Even if you don't consider it reception, it's still something. There's more to the article than the (unfairly) condemned listicles.
I just made a post at the Wikiproject about this. MoonJet (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is currently at User:MoonJet/Amy Rose suffers from heavy WP:REFBOMB and relies far too much on trivial mentions, as well as an entire paragraph of movie speculation that violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Substantive commentary, I do not see it. We also have an article about Smurfette principle which the article merely restates. Maintain the merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Zxcvbnm::
    "relies far too much on trivial mentions"
    And like I said before, where does it say or suggest that we can't rely on this so long as sources with significant coverage are also in the article? That's certainly not a requirement for WP:GNG or anything like that.
    It's not "speculation," it's publications wishing her to be in upcoming films. Also, I've already remove many of the citations that were there before, mainly primary ones. Actually, I agree that even more can be removed. MoonJet (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Without WP:SIGCOV that shows why the character is important, the article is a failure of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should be merged, as there is nothing additional that a separate article will provide in terms of value. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    If you look, I do have sources in the draft discussing her importance, like how Sonic is her (one-sided) love-interest, how she's the aforementioned Smurfette principle of the series, and the like. MoonJet (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    This is quite frankly bludgeoning the process - Wikipedia is not just about which video game hedgehog crush you want to have an article and the reliable, significant sources just aren't there. It has already gone past the point of disruptive. Amy Rose is simply such a minor character that she did not receive much critical discussion - that was the case before and is still the case now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

:*Support. The character in question of this article is important to the Sonic series as a whole, and passes notability, I cnannot see any reason to oppose this decision. While im aware that WP:SAUCE, Due to the existance of Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Ect articles. I believe that amy is notable enough for their own article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose - per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Opposed I'm struggling a bit with the draft, because it's so full of unreliable sources and primary sources, refbombbed in. What sources there are, Amy is a secondary mention at best. For example, there's several articles that are about Amy's voice actress quitting. They don't actually go into depth about Amy as a character though, talking primarily about the voice actresses. At least 4 sources I checked, Amy is mentioned in a list of names of characters then never mentioned or discussed again. If all the primary sources, unreliable sources, and "single mention" sources were removed, I believe the draft would have at most 4 sources left. Secondary nitpick on the draft's current state: Many citations that are still live are set url-status=dead, presenting their URLs. This should only be done if they are dead links. I'd love for PerryPerryD to explain which sources present significant in-depth coverage of the character. -- ferret (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Which four sources of significant coverage still passes WP:GNG. MoonJet (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    It takes more than 4 sources that merely mention her name... Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know what sources you're looking at, but there's multiple sources in there that go way beyond mentioning her name. MoonJet (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not in the camp of "3 sources is enough," but even then, I just said four sources would be left, not four that show significant in-depth coverage. 3REF is only an essay, to start, and so many people forget that GNG sets out guidelines for presumed notability, still allowing that a discussion will find otherwise. -- ferret (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Regardless, the essay makes a good point. You shouldn't disregard something, just because it's an essay.
    As for "presumed notability," I do see that. That's why we have discussions like this one in the first place, as it's not something set in stone. MoonJet (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't disregard it, I simply pointed out it is in fact an essay, and stated that I don't agree with the view. -- ferret (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I said earlier, if this article is to be de-merged, it needs to be completely restarted. The current draft doesn't address the central reason why the article got merged: it provides no sources, no commentary demonstrating Amy's real-world significance. The stuff that gets closest, the gender representation paragraph, cites examples that aren't specifically about Amy but rather female video game characters in general. The rest is trivial mentions and paragraphs of in-universe plot regurgitation. JOEBRO64 19:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Yeah, I know I'm the one who started this proposal in the first place. I just want to re-iterate that I'm still in support of a de-merge. Anyway, everything I've said above still applies here. I have not one, but two sources that are entirely devoted to Amy in the draft, something that the vast majority of video game characters don't even get (which is not even a requirement, but that's another discussion). I'm not saying the article is perfect or anything, because after all, WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, but I'm more than convinced that Amy having an article here is completely appropriate. MoonJet (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Let's make this a little easier to judge for everyone, as the draft is full of sourcing that doesn't help WP:N. Can you provide the exact sources you feel are in-depth and push the article over the line for GNG? -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, @Ferret:. Here's some to take a look at:
    https://movieweb.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-future-movie-characters/
    https://www.cbr.com/sonic-free-comic-book-day-amy-rose-cartoonist/
    https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/sonic-mania-adventures-new-episode-amy-rose-sega-shop/
    https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/sonic-the-hedgehog-movie-characters-we-need-sega/
    https://gamerant.com/sonic-movies-amy-rose-voice-actors-anna-kendrick-ellie-kemper/
    The 2nd and 3rd ones are about Amy. The 2nd one, in particular discusses her role in the series. The 1st and 4th ones, while listicles, discusses why she would be a good fit for future Sonic films. The 5th is entirely about Amy too, discussing who she can be voiced by and why.
    I mean, at this point if the article was at AFD, it would likely be kept. MoonJet (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Movieweb is a single paragraph in a listicle. I'd oppose it's use at AFD. CBR is a retelling of a comic story, with very little and almost no discussion about Amy specifically. 80% of it is literally retelling the plot. The first Comicbook sources is the same, it explains what happens in an episode, mentioning Amy purely within that context, with no specific discussion of her and her character. Second comicbook source is like Movieweb, a listicle with one paragraph and no real meat. Gamerant is a situational source, and its use would probably be questioned at FA. It does have a little background about Amy, but the rest of the article discussions the voice actresses in a listicle format, not even really explaining why they would be good for Amy. For example, read Schaal's section. Amy's only mentioned in one sentence. No, these sources are not significant in-depth coverage. -- ferret (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Still, the Movieweb source does offer some discussion, as I've mentioned. The CBR source is definitely not a "trivial" mention. Though it retells the plot, it also discusses Amy as a character.
    "Gamerant is a situational source, and its use would probably be questioned at FA." So? This is not an FA or even GA candidate.
    The actress listicle might not explain why all of them would be a good fit for Amy, but if you look, at least a couple do.
    "No, these sources are not significant in-depth coverage." I completely disagree, and I'm certain I wouldn't be alone here.
    The point is, the article at least passes the minimal requirements for WP:GNG. Disregarding listicle articles without taking into context is just nitpicking at this point. MoonJet (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    I would also like to add that the main reason notability guidelines even exist is so that there's enough coverage to write a reasonably detailed article, which my draft does. See WP:WHYN. MoonJet (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, but that doesn't mean a discussion won't judge the sourcing to be less than adequate. At the time, the various editors here seem to be in agreement that these sources aren't sufficient. I think it's clear I don't agree GNG is met, especially not off these 5 sources. I would like to see this draft if only these five sources were used and all of the content tied to primary sources, unreliable sources, interviews, etc, were pulled out. There wouldn't be much remaining. I won't hammer the topic further. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Why remove all primary sources though? Primary sources are fine, so long as the article isn't over-reliant on them. Also, @Ferret:, I've found a new source for Amy that was just posted days ago: https://screenrant.com/sonic-amy-rose-worthless-most-archie-comics-better/
    This discusses her role in the Archie comics. I'll add it to my draft soon. MoonJet (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    There's a reason why you haven't persuaded a single person yet. You're setting the bar way way too low. Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I think people are way too strict with video game character articles, and I have thought that for several years now, (in stark contrast to character articles from any other medium) and I'm definitely not alone in this mindset. The fact that the Amy article even had consensus to be merged in the first place only reinforces this mindset for me. And even more so now with the additional sourcing I've dug up. There's probably even more out there. MoonJet (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    To be clear, the current consensus at WP:VG/S is Gamerant is marked as situational and "not a high quality source", and ComicBook.com is marked as "inconclusive", so that extremely weak argument if that is part of the best 4 you can come up with. Along with CBR, that some of the worst "churnalism" type sourcing you can get. Which again, would explain why the reception section itself is so weak. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still missing significant coverage. Listicles do not constitute sig cov and any content worth citing in the aforementioned situational sources can easily fit into the existing section of this list article. Cover the character proportionate to the character's coverage in reliable, secondary sources, i.e., they cover as ensemble cast, ergo we cover as ensemble cast. czar 04:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Well. Im not entirely sure. Thats the problem. I feel as there are sources out there that could resolve the notability issue, but where the article stands now, i'd say its not notable enough quite yet. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it is usually better off keeping an article merged until said sources can be outright found and incorporated into it. "There are probably sources" is a common argument but one that is often wrong, because perhaps all those sources may actually be primary, disseminated by a character's creators, and not evidence of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
If you look, I have quite a few sources in the draft that are not primary. I plan to add more soon too. MoonJet (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2022
  • Oppose - I’m sorry to basically pile-on here, but I can’t support this at this time. I was involved to an extent when about 20 articles were merged to this list in 2008, and Amy Rose I believe was the most disputed of those at that time as well. That being said, if nothing else the suggested draft illustrates the problem with the subject, and that’s the lack of significant coverage. With all due respect, no amount of writing will save an article that lacks true significant coverage. It fails points 3 and 4 in the application methodology I apply in my essay on appropriate coverage in Wikipedia - the article reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. When it comes to fictional characters, that significant coverage needs to include plenty that is not in-universe and a list of appearances. What I may suggest is simply to wait - I had to wait 12 years to undo a redirect on one article because it took that long for significant coverage to be written about the subject. If it happens, it happens, but it hasn’t happened yet. Red Phoenix talk 16:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    Can you link me to that discussion? I can't seem to find it. Because interestingly enough, in the 2014 merge proposal (Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 2#Amy Rose), no one supported it (except the proposer), a complete contrast to the current de-merge proposal, despite the improvements made, compared to how it was in 2014. MoonJet (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    And another thing, point to me a guideline that state that fictional characters (or fictional elements in general) need significant coverage that is out-of-universe, because WP:UNIVERSE is a MOS issue, not a notability issue. Notability is not once mentioned there. So all I'm seeing here is just your opinion, rather than any actual guideline or consensus. MoonJet (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    1. No, I’m not digging up conversations from 2008, when Wikipedia was a far different place than it is now. At this point it is irrelevant, especially given that I think you have an idea where consensus is at this time.
    2a. From WP:NOTPLOT: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.
    2b. From WP:GAMECRUFT #5: “Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception.” Red Phoenix talk 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    In that case, all it needs is a more concise "appearances" section, which I do want to try and revamp. MoonJet (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Being concise with the appearances is a start. What we’re really missing is significant coverage on real-world elements like creation and reception, as well as cultural impact. Basically, the kinds of things that someone who knew nothing about the Sonic the Hedgehog universe would take interest in. I understand you have some references there, but consider the volume and focus of said sources. The amount of sourced content there that is focused directly on the character is thin. Could sources exist? Possibly. But we can’t speculate on that.
    I’m not saying you should totally abandon your draft; you’ve clearly done a lot of work with it. However, maybe it would be best to put it on the back burner for a while, trim out the fluff that is more relevant to a Fandom page than it is to an encyclopedia article (you could even take some of that to a Fandom page if you want to make some good use of it), and periodically check to see if more of these kind of sources come to light while you work on other projects. Red Phoenix talk 15:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Addressing some of the arguments

So far, it seems I've only one in support of a de-merge. Which I don't understand, because I addressed most of the issues people brought up in the last merge discussion. I'm pretty confused actually. If we're really looking over the "Rosenberg solution" argument, then I quote this: "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." @TheJoebro64: brought up in the last merge discussion that Amy only satisfied the first one. Well, she satisfies two of these points now. Having to satisfy all three is mere recommendation, hence the words "or" and "ideally". Two should be fine. Note that the "criteria" there doesn't note exactly how they should be covered in sources discussing them specifically, just they should be discussing them specifically, period (something which was used as a argument against the de-merge). I've posted some of these sources in the discussion above. And even if you still think the draft as it stands still isn't a good state in terms of structure, see WP:POORLY.

Also, you said Lootcrate.com is unreliable, @Sergecross73:? To be fair, there doesn't seem to be a staff page, which isn't a good sign. I guess I'll have to remove that. And @Ferret:, you mentioned some sources are unreliable there. Like which ones? CinemaBlend? I actually just realized it's under unreliable sources on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, though, the past discussions indicated that it should not be cited for facts, so maybe it's still fine to use for opinions?

I know Joebro suggested we should just TNT the article, which is not my preference, but I'll take it if nothing else works. If anything, the whole "Appearances" section could be reworked, and the rest be left alone, aside from some fixes. MoonJet (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you've got some serious tunnel vision. The concerns of the last merge have absolutely not been addressed, and it feels like you're completely ignoring how, in recent years, so many Sonic character articles have been merged for the exactly same reasons you're seeing here. Unreliable sources, passing mentions, inconsequential and pointless commentary. There's nothing surprising here beyond the fact that we're still having these discussions. This is nearing WP:IDHT territory. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
What I was doing was making some counter-arguments to the arguments against the article in this discussion and the last merge discussion.
I just removed two of the unreliable sources we were talking about from my draft. As for "inconsequential and pointless commentary," I've removed some of those too, such the whole "pink dog thing." However, I also added a couple that discusses her relationship with Sonic.
Yeah, I know several Sonic characters have been merged in recent years. Some I agree with, others I don't, with Amy being the one I disagree with the most strongly. MoonJet (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I advised you the other day about my position when you reached out to me. Nothing has changed. The consensus appears to be clearly against de-merge. The stick needs to be set down. It's unfortunately that you did not get the outcome you desired but it's unlikely that continuing to dredge the discussion backup will result in a change. As for unreliable sources in the draft, as you already found CinemaBlend, and also Forbes contributor and Lootcrate. Although not strictly unreliable, a significant portion of the remaining sources are situational sources being heavily leaned on, most of them Valnet properties: Screenrant, GameRant, TheGamer, CBr. All of those are owned by the same company and operate in the nearly identical fashion to the point that both WP:VG and the wider project treat them as situational and weak sources. The coverage you're claiming simply doesn't actually exist. -- ferret (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm citing these situational sources mostly for opinions, not facts. MoonJet (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
That's not the issue, but you seem determined not to listen to my argument. It's the content that matters, and I've explained that I don't see indepth coverage in any of these. -- ferret (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
While I have no personal opinion on whether we should have an article on this character or not (we have articles on politicians with less real-world impact), I think you are missing the obvious point of the text you quote. That Amy has a major role in multiple works may indicate her potential importance, but you have not really found sources specifically discussing the character's reception. Some of these "sources" are passing mentions in texts which discuss a specific game or the entire franchise. (And some of these sources are almost 30 years old, so they seem outdated). Some are so-called listicles which rank characters by personal preference of the author, and his/her opinion does not seem to indicate wider views on the character. Two of the meatier sources are simply discussing tokenism and stereotyping in the design and depiction of female video game characters, and see the girly-girl hedgehog as a prime example. (Although I do not get why they complain of shallow characterization. Sonic himself does not seem to have much of a personality.) None of these texts are devoted primarily to Amy, and none discuss the character's long-term impact. Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
But I do have a few sources in my draft devoted entirely to Amy. That's where I was trying to get at. MoonJet (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • We're at 8 opposes, a couple others who point out shortcomings, (Dimadick), and no one in support outside of the initial proposer. It's time to wrap this up and move on. Its not even a close call. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    As much as I disagree with the merge being upheld, I would have to say that the consensus is pretty clear against a de-merge right now. But hey, I gave it my best shot. That said, I'm still hoping for a de-merge in the future, even though it's not happening right now. I am willing to do an article re-write, though I would like some help, seeing as one of the main issues brought up is that article and my draft leans too much on an in-universe perspective. Rather than dragging this discussion on, I'll try and take TheJoeBro64's suggestion. MoonJet (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. There's also what RedPhoenix said at some point too I believe - you never know when more sourcing may pop up. I think if a few people reliable sources did a deep dive on Amy, a lot of the opposition would fall away. It's a popular, ongoing franchise, and she's still actively part of it, so it's totally plausible that that could happen down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    I mean, I would surprised if there were no books out there that significantly discusses Amy. It's just that those kinds of sources are often not easy to obtain. The same goes for sources in other languages. MoonJet (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Honestly, originally, me too. That's why I !voted keep back in 2014. But the fact that we're still talking in hypotheticals many years later has deteriorated my faith in that hunch. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Sergecross73: Well, I've found a couple different language sources for Amy, as well as a book source.
    • https://24smi.org/person/8582-emi-rouz.html - This goes in-depth about his creation and biography. The place appears to be reliable, going by the "about us" page.
    • https://ovicio.com.br/sonic-10-fatos-sobre-amy-rose/ - This is another article that gives significant coverage on her. Though, the reliability of this one is uncertain right now. Its currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Ovicio.com
    • Sonic: The Ultimate Character Guide (https://sonic.fandom.com/wiki/Sonic:_The_Ultimate_Character_Guide) apparently has a whole page about Amy, but I haven't been able to gain access to it.
    • Plus, I've added three sources to the draft that discusses the progressive moment in Sonic Boom that involved her and Knuckles.
    • I know the last discussion just ended, but in light of these sources, it's worth another look. For what its worth, I was talking with @Haleth: on Discord the other day, and he agreed that it should be de-merged now.
    • On a side-note, I also plan to try and get Metal Sonic de-merged. MoonJet (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
      I, like everyone else, am exhausted by these discussions, but I'll bite. What about that first Russian site "24smi.org" is supposed to make me believe it's reliable in the Wikipedia sense? It's written in the style of a wiki... Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
      @MoonJet: Since you've pinged me, I should clarify my position from our private discussion. I did not actually say that it should be de-merged now. In our conversations I actually reminded you, on more then one occasion, that the current consensus is firmly against de-merging Amy Rose as a standalone page. While consensus can and do change with the passage of time, the implication of such a firm consensus, which you yourself have acknowledged and seemingly accepted last week, is that it is pointless to revisit it until a substantial amount of time has passed. However, if you insist on pushing the issue and start another round of discussions about de-merging based on the current draft you have, I said I am not opposed to voting keep in such a scenario, but it's on you to persuade the majority of the other participating editors to change their stance from the last discussion. Haleth (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
      I know what you mean, @Sergecross73, but it doesn't appear to be a page that just anyone can edit. Also, here's the English-translated version: https://24smi-org.translate.goog/person/8582-emi-rouz.html
      And the author, Anna Myklina, is a staff member of the site: https://web.archive.org/web/20211202040330/https://24smi.org/editors/19-anna-myklina.html
      I wasn't particularly planning to have another discussion about a de-merge right now, @Haleth. I really just wanted to show these sources I found for some thoughts. MoonJet (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Instead of the "if": the "why?"

There's been plenty of talk about whether Amy Rose as a topic meets the threshold for a standalone article; at best, that is debatable, and at worst, there is extensive consensus against it. But even if she did meet the threshold for a standalone article, that is not an obligation that she must have one. Why could the topic of Amy Rose not be appropriately covered within the context of the character list, perhaps with an extra paragraph or two, to be of similar length to Blaze, Cream and Metal Sonic? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Salvidrim I do think that Amy Rose and even other Sonic characters like Metal Sonic not only should have an article, but quite frankly, needs one. Character lists are meant for minor characters or characters that are otherwise not notable enough for their own article, not characters that have plenty to write about, which is one of the main purposes of notability. Amy (and by extension, Metal Sonic, which I'm currently working on) do have that, and keeping them confined to a list article when they have so much potential for their own article for expand and perhaps even earn a GA status, is disserviceable, to say the least. Amy Rose was once a GA, but got a later got a demotion, before being merge altogether. Who's to say she can't regain the GA status, especially now that she has a lot more sourcing available, compared to back then? I think it's more accurate to compare Amy to Doctor Eggman and Shadow than Blaze and Cream in terms of article worthiness. She and Metal Sonic both have a lot more potential than Blaze or Cream, both of whom are sufficiently covered here. Even the Wisps may have potential for a restoration, but that's a different discussion for a different day.
Let's keep in mind that this article's readable prose is at least exceeds 60KB, with still more potential to expand. While it's not over 100KB, where splits are a must, it's still highly recommendable for a split, adding in the factor that Amy is more than an appropriate split from here.
Even so, we split off articles all the time, even if they could technically fit into the parent article, so long as they have the notability. Over in the music area, for example, articles for all kinds of songs are kept, even if they could perfectly fit into the album article. Why can't we apply the same mentality for video game characters? MoonJet (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
How are you claiming the article has 60KB of readable prose with only 38K of wikitext? Wikitext always exceeds the readable prose. Let's pick one section to start. "Personality and appearance" is almost entirely primary sources or churnalism brief mentions. You are even using a fan wiki as a source, which is 100% unreliable. Let's look at the Character Biography section. This is 745 or so words, and not a single reliable in-depth source is used. Huge swathes are completely unsourced. I'm not going to go further right now, but any GA or even Peer Review should delete nearly all of the above mentioned content. -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Which fan wiki? You're not talking about this, are you? This is not a fan wiki. The author is paid editor on the site. Now whether we can determine if the source is actually reliable or not is another matter, but the point is, this is not a fan wiki.
So what is certain sections are weaker on significant coverage? Nowhere does it state that all sections need significant, just that there should be some somewhere in the article.
By the way, I was referring to this very article when I was talking about the size, not Amy Rose. MoonJet (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
You just argued that a size split was a reason to split out your article. How can you concurrently be confused when someone points out all the junk that could be trimmed from your proposed article as a counterpoint? Seriously, how are you not following what he's getting at? Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest to me what should be cut in either mine or Oinker42's draft. I've already cut out plenty of content I previously had in there. I'm open to doing more.
As for what Ferret said about the character biography section, citing trivial mentions is perfectly fine, so long as you're not using them to establish notability. Those are not I'm using to represent the article's notability. Also, while the section does benefit from sources, it doesn't need them, because plot details are assumed to be cited to the work itself. That's why we usually don't cite plot in film articles. That's I wasn't as focused on citing that section. Even so, I'm sure it can easily be cited if it came down to that. MoonJet (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2022 (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.

September 2022 RfD Nominatuons

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

"Auto-Automatons" listed at Redirects for discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Auto-Automatons and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Auto-Automatons until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Crocbot" listed at Redirects for discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Crocbot and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Crocbot until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Pseudo-Sonic" listed at Redirects for discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pseudo-Sonic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Pseudo-Sonic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Expanding the list

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am currently working on expanding this list with characters from other media (TV/Comics). you may join me at User:Pizzaplayer219/sandbox. DO NOT MERGE UNTIL READY!! Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdraw Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters → List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters – According to Sergecross73 “the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games.” If this is true then this list article can only include Sonic characters from the video games. As such I request that this be moved. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering that article was deleted under TNT I'd say just be bold and add in some of the more notable ones, though with proper sourcing and encyclopedic prose this time round of course. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I’ll probably make a draft in my sandbox later. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sure @Sergecross73:'s comment (pinging in case I'm wrong!) was made in the context of stating only the most notable important characters in Sonic deserve inclusion, and being predominantly a video game franchise, multiple appearances in the games is the best way of demonstrating this - as opposed to, say, a minor character in a some obscure Sonic comic. Otherwise the list quickly descends into listcruft. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, that is correct, and more or less the (apparently unofficial) inclusion criteria that was put into effect like a decade ago. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Withdraw Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:45, 28 September 2022 (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.

Criteria for top of talk page

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Since there's no stated criteria at the top of the talk page, I drafted up a proposal for one:

Because there are so many Sonic characters both in video games and other media, a set of criteria to determine characters' inclusion on this list has been developed based on Wikipedia's standard for notability.

  1. 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.
    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.
    An example of a character who does not meet this criteria is Princess Elise, whose only substantial appearance is in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006). Unless she makes another non-cameo appearance in the future, she fails the inclusion criteria.
  2. 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.
    An example of a character who meets this criteria is Princess Sally, who made substantial appearances in the Saturday morning Sonic cartoon and the Archie Comics Sonic the Hedgehog series. Therefore, she can be listed, even though she has never made a substantial appearance in a Sonic game.
    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.
  3. All entries on this list should be backed with secondary, reliable sources. No entries should be sourced entirely to primary sources, and any such entries will be removed.

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 notable enough to stand as their own article.

If anyone has objections or suggestions, just let me know. JOEBRO64 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Approved. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I concur with ferret. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't particularly wanting to go in the direction of adding non-game characters, but if that's what we're doing, this is the best way to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I have a draft for non game characters in User:Pizzaplayer219/sandbox if you want to help. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Quick question, should Sticks be moved to the other media section? (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Not sure. Technically she does appear in the games. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The "other media" section was created for non-game characters, wasn't it? Sticks has appeared in multiple games, so I wouldn't think she belongs there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, Sticks originated in Sonic Boom, and a grand majority of their appearances in games (including all mainline game appearances) are connected to that subseries. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. For the record, this set up was just newly created. The old inclusion criteria didn't allow for non-game characters at all, but that was recently overwritten. Pizzaplayer has been the only person to add a non-game character so far, and that was just days ago, so the honest answer is that it's yet to be defined anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sticks the Badger

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should Sticks the Badger be in the “Characters” subsection or in the “Characters in other media” section. In my opinion I think Stick should be in the “Characters” section since she has mostly appeared in the video games. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sticks has made multiple substantial video game appearances, so I think it makes more sense to situate her in the main section where she already was. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Sticks should be in the other media section. She might've appeared in some games, but she was created for and introduced in the Sonic Boom TV show, and that's where the vast majority of her substantial appearances lie. JOEBRO64 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Should Tangle, Whisper and Sage get added to the page?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

SPOILERS FOR FRONTIERS

Should Tangle the Lemur, Whisper the Wolf and Sage get added to the page? I only ask as for Tangle & Whisper, even though they're in the IDW comics they both are in Sonic Forces Speed Battle and Sonic Dash. And Tangle also gets mentioned in Sonic Frontiers.

And with Sage, although she's only been in Frontiers game-wise, she was in the Prologue Animation (which is canon too), and Frontiers' mid-credits scene has shown she's to have been restored by Eggman (with it being possible she'll return). Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Read the inclusion criteria higher up on the talk page. If they pass, yes. If they don't, no. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The appearances you mention are only minor appearances so no they don’t pass the inclusion criteria. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Tribal-Mand0 Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. My read on the situation was also that none of these would meet the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Cosmo

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't Cosmo be there too? She had a major roll in the final season of Sonic X, of course that was it and she only had one cameo outside of that but still? Haji kiluu (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

See the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing some characters.

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

As said in the criteria, in order to be an entry, the character must have 2 major appearances in either the games or other media. Two entries on this list stand out to me as they’ve only had one major appearance in the games. Those two entrees are the Deadly Six (besides Zavok) and the E-100 Series. I suggest converting the Deadly Six section into Zavok’s own section while deleting the E-100 Series entirely. I also have the same concerns with Tikal, Tangle the Lemur, and the Wisps. Feel free to object. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally supportive of this, though I believe the E-100 Series and Deadly six stuff is going to be a constant maintenance headache because every casual editor is going to assume it was an accidental omission and try to add it in. But then again, this article has really always been one giant maintenance headache, so maybe it's not that big of a factor...
The Wisps were here as a compromise from some heated debates years back from an overzealous editor who tried to create their own article that consensus found did not meet our notability requirements. The truth though is that they're hardly "characters" at all - they're really just gameplay mechanics. They're as much "characters" as if someone drew some eyeballs on a chaos emerald... Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I think "E-100 series" can stay basically as it is now, as a subheader to group together the recurring E-100 characters, i.e. Gamma, Omega and (maybe) Zero. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The Wisps are fine, Deadly Six and E-100 series should be reduced to only the recurring characters, and Tikal and Tangle can go. JOEBRO64 22:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Dark Sonic

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

¿¡Why is there no DARK SONİC?! 78.182.138.237 (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters/Archive_5&oldid=1154861999"