Talk:Sonic Colors/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Spin Off?

Looking at the games template, it's listed under "Spin offs". Has it even been confirmed to be a spin off in the first place? Magiciandude (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved it under console and handheld. Following the template documentation "guidelines," it's definitely not a spinoff.--Claude (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Only Sonic Playable unconfirmed

Sonic being the the only playable character is only fan speculation so it should really say that or just not be mentioned DreamsDreams (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)DreamsDreams

Several Sonic Team employees have said that Sonic is the only playable character. Add links if you wish. MetaRyan 19:19, 10 August 2010 (PST)

Wrong Name

The Trailers and Announcement clearly say "Sonic Colours" NOT "Sonic Colors" so I would like to rename it or use both names.

DreamsDreams (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)User:DreamsDreams

The official American spelling is Colors - per the US blog entry and official website soniccolors.com - while outside of the US, it is Colours. Wikipedia pages tend to go off the American spelling as that is where the Wikipedia project is based. 212.225.118.10 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
INCORRECT - It may be that the US spelling of Colors should be used, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact WP servers are in the US - it is to do with what is the most appropriate version of English the page should be written in and that will depend on other things - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English since the US is the only major country that spells Colors that way (see Wikipedia:Spelling#English spelling comparison chart) then Colours might be better since the game if released will be available globally. Codf1977 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Best to discuss it now and establish consensus, or editors will end up moving this article backwards and forwards for the duration up until release. 212.225.118.10 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well if it is released - it will be available globally then it should be "Sonic Colours" with "Sonic Colors" as a re-direct. Codf1977 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It was announced as 'Sonic Colours' in Italy. Not as 'Colors' in the USA. Clyde1998 (talk · contribs)
Since Wikipedia has an international point of view, we should rename the word "colors" to "colours", since that's the international name. Titles are meant to have the the name that the game is most commonly known by. --Josh (Mephiles602) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay - but be prepared to undo future edits by American users who think Wikipedia editors have spelled the word "color" incorrectly. Could an editor with appropriate privileges do a move of this page over the Sonic Colours redirect? 212.225.118.10 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as we're using the logo with the "Color" spelling, I think it would be a poor choice to name the article with "Colour". That's going to lead to all sorts of people changing it back and forth. In general, I don't think anything should be changed yet, there doesn't seem to be consensus here ... Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Every single region site apart from the USA is using Colours as the spelling even when it's not a word in their own language. It's Colours - best to get it moved and for the ones complaining about the u to just get over it, frankly. Overlord11001001 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The official SEGA forum seems to be leading with the American spelling. Don't know if that matters. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is at "Colors" so it should use Colors. -76.120.128.166 (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The way the article continuously points out that the 'Colors' is only the US spelling when the article is at Sonic Colors in the first place feels like it's trying to correct the game. But what I came here to say is that the official Japanese site is also using the 'Colors' spelling.--Claude (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply display both the international and US version of the logo, to keep everyone happy? Diluted Dante —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

The article now links to a reference which shows it is Colors in Japan, so that ought to be the name used in the article, because that's where the game is being developed. 212.225.118.10 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I support that reasoning unless someone comes up with something that trumps it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I support using the "Colors" spelling, too. - 190.139.254.126 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Colors should be first and then specified that Colours is another name. It's Colors in America and Japan while it's colours in one place. It seems weird that Colors is being used primarily and it's taking a back seat and being mentioned second. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It's being used in Europe and the Commonwealth with Colours, and the United States and Japan with Colors, so what should it level up as. This also proves that Colour(s) is the common English spelling for the word. Clyde1998 (talk · contribs) Also see Sega Website
According to WP's Manual of Style: National Varieties of English:
"When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor."
Therefore since the topic does not have strong national ties, the first major contributor gets to choose - the editor who created this page, User:SynergyBlades, first made the page using both versions of the word, then made the choice to use "Colors" with the second edit to it. Since Synergy's choice, the article has clearly evolved to employ "Colors". CIGraphix (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone get a better source for "officially entitled Sonic Colours outside of Japan and the United States"? The only one now is a link to the official page with "colours" in the URL, but that simple shows up as the Colors site for people not in those countries. Maybe the various Sega Europe blogs [1] or the trailer from SegaEurope's youtube channel. - MK (t/c) 04:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What's happening is the link is redirecting to your nations site. Clyde1998 (talk · contribs)

Knuckles and Amy confirmed?

Can someone please confirm this, if this is is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaRyan (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Trailer Link Should Be Official

The link to the games trailer should be to the official Sega youtube channel and not somebody's private channel tying to gain views. The official channel also provides better quality.

SegaEurope Video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWS-9m1zlYM

SegaAmerica Video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys4PRXf0TYs --Kar91102 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the link to the E3 trailer should also be to the official Sega youtube channel.

SegaAmerica Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7bt49zGN8g

SegaEurope Video (Instrumental) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Y0lE3EpL4 82.43.137.19 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried editing the link so that it linked to the official SegaAmerica E3 trailer video, but my edit was reverted by the bot. 82.43.137.19 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Aquatic Park or Aquarium Park?

I've seen both used several times. Are this some sort of Europe/ North America thing or is there one name only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.145.75 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Violet Wisp

Is there any proof that the violet wisp turns Sonic into a spherical ghost that lets him float through walls, or should it be removed due to lacking a source? 75.91.54.235 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Orbot

People keep inferring that he may not be entirely new? What game was he in before? Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He was in Sonic Unleashed, but he was gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.136.190 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Character section deleted

I deleted the "character section" for a number of reasons:

  1. Many comparable Sonic game pages doesn't have just lists of the characters (like Sonic Unleashed), and if they do, there's usually some sort of description or purpose besides just listing their name (like Sonic Heroes).
  2. Wikipedia guidelines say you're supposed to avoid lists/bullet pointed sections.
  3. The list seemed to be a huge target for vandalism and unsourced material. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be mention of the DS Exclusive characters?

Maybe a section in the "Developement" section or something, we can mention Amy and Knuckles will be supporting characters in the DS version of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.227.163.70 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's a source for it, go for it. I just don't think we need a section that simply lists all characters. That sounds fine though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The only source I could find of Knuckles and Amy was a highly inaccurate blog post. Until an official source confirms them (if they are indeed in the game), leave them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaRyan (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Information on Multiplayer

The Gameplay section mentions that the multiplayer mode supports the use of Mii characters, but I have flat out never seen any information that confirms this. Should I remove the mentioning of it? MathMaven (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've searched it online, and evidently it is mentioned in NGamer's review of the game (many different pages assert this). I shall leave it alone, but there should be an official source for the fact that there is Mii support in multiplayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathMaven (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think a legit review is enough of a reference to support a small detail like this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. MathMaven (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Split into two articles?

The DS version and the Wii version are totally different games. We have different articles for Sonic 1 and Sonic 2 for the GG/Master System. It seems logical to do the same for this game as well. ScienceApe (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends if there's really enough information that talks about them separately. I personally don't think so, because, as of right now, the only part of the article that really differentiates is the reception section, and that there are exclusive wisps. Right now, I think the situation is more comparable to Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games: 2 different games amongst Wii and DS, but really only enough info for one article... Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It all depends on how different it is. If both articles would have around 75% the same content, then it isn't worth it to split. You can talk about the differences in the same article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
With the exception of the easily mentioned differences such as the special stages, multiplayer, both version's plots, zones and basic gameplay mechanics are more or less identical, and the differences are not a distinguishable as the aforementioned Mega Drive examples. Heck, there's a single article for all the versions of Aladdin. Wonchop (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
We can't use what other articles do define what we do. Being that they are two different development teams, they will have different development information. Being that one is a sidescroller and one is a 3D platformer, there will be a need to explain to readers what's different about this version versus that version. They're not cut-and-dry the same. Look at Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS). And finally, they clearly have different reception. All of that by itself more than makes for a strong article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We can't strictly use other articles define what we do, but most of us aren't really suggesting that we do, virtually everyone has mentioned that there has to be enough exclusive content between the two articles. I don't doubt that the games are different, they clearly are, but is the information available for 2 different articles, and is someone going to write them? Because if someone were to split it in two now, it'd go from 1 "okay article" to "2 poor ones"...Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Or go from one okay article that will inevitably have to be split as a result of the over-focus on the console game (for example, the development section never mentions the DS game if the comment is not in conjunction with the Wii game). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But that takes us back to what I was just saying, is the content, and interest to write it, out there? It's not just this wikipedia article that seems to shy away from the DS version. A vast majority of the media coverage, from my observation anyways, has been for the Wii version. If it is out there, then great, but I think we need to wait until its represented in this article...Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is that it will have to be split at some point if anyone wants to make this a GA. Better to do it now than to have to worry about remaking the article later. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is still start class and has all sorts of issues with it. I think its a little premature to be worrying about GA status. Not to mention consensus on this certainly isn't there...Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, we have to be forward-thinking. The worst thing is to develop a good article for the both of them and then have to redo everything to make it work. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Lets be real here. Are we really going to make Sonic Colors (Wii) and Sonic Colors (DS) articles? I have never seen the same game get split into two articles just because the different systems have system-exclusive content. Do you really think splitting them would create two GA's instead of one article with way too much content? I think if you put your mind to it, and figured out how to manage the content, you could make this a FA. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That statement is at worse ignorant, and at best silly. The gameplay is completely different, only similar due to the concepts found in them. It is much easier to explain the gameplay by reading Sonic Rush than this article. You make it seem like it's a hard idea to do, but it's been done and can be done with this without any trouble. There is no reason to keep them together; it's not as if the Wii version needs the DS version to work as an FA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think what he's getting at is, while different games, they're both speed-emphasized platformers with the same level themes using Wisp as a gameplay mechanic. Different games, but conceptually, very similar. Don't you think there's a reason why there aren't separate articles for the different versions of Sonic Unleashed, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, Mario and Sonic and the Olympic Winter Games, etc? Especially relevant are the M+S games, they feature some different sports, different gameplay modes, and different methods of control, and yet there's no separate article...Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Aren't most Sonic games speed-emphasized platformers? I think there's lots of information from reviews and such to warrant two articles, it's just the current article focuses mostly on the Wii version especially in the reception section. The whole article is mostly told from the Wii point of view, with very little DS info at all. If more DS info were to be added (which it should), it would make the whole thing rather confusing to readers I think. ScienceApe (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, you can't argue about what other articles do. Before you chime in on hypocrisy, I use articles in response to allegations that it wouldn't work. This is not about exclusive content, nor is it about anything else. Like ScienceApe said, the only thing worth noting in anything you listed is the Wisp abilities. All Sonic games are speed-based; and the fact that the levels are the same means nothing, because levels would not be discussed in the article either way. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Look at the Sonic template at the bottom of every sonic article. There's all sorts of spinoffs/non-platforming/non-speed based games out. That aspect of both your arguments is just not true. Other than that, we're really just recycling the same arguments, when it really just boils down to different in opinion, as to whether or not there is, or will be, enough to warrant a split. No point in more bickering, I'd rather just see what others have to say at this point...Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
How is it not true? Because there are exceptions? We are not comparing Sonic Spinball to Sonic Colors. Are Mario games not about jumping because Mario Pinball Land exists? You've not argued that Sonic Colors needs to be about both versions, or that the two versions aren't strong enough on their own. In fact, having them combined only demonstrates how damaging it is to the DS game's coverage. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
"Aren't most Sonic games speed-emphasized platformers?" -- Science Ape
"All Sonic games are speed-based" -- NARH
Those are the 2 comments I'm saying aren't true. That's all I said. Nothing more nothing less. I feel like you're going out of your way to prolong this argument. Again, let's see what others say...Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is that you're not refuting the poor representation of the DS game, which can be viewed as undue coverage. Even the Mario & Sonic article seems like the DS version plays a poor second fiddle. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep saying they are different games. They have the same title. They have mostly the same content. Just similar to many games which get put on Wii and DS, or PS3/PS2 and PSP, the portable system has differing content due to it being on a smaller system. I don't see why this is any different then any other game like Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. But like I said, if you feel they are different enough for two articles, and you pull it off and write quality articles, then go ahead. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
NARH, I've never disputed that the DS game is under-represented. I just don't think it takes a second article to fix that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
LEGO Star Wars II is scaled-down on handhelds, where Sonic Colors on DS has different controls, different physics, different gameplay. The "same content" that you refer to would not even be discussed and, as such, is irrelevant in this discussion. Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS) is in the exact same situation, and it's a GA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The point I was making by saying "Aren't most Sonic games speed-emphasized platformers?" was to counter the argument that there need not be a split because both versions of Sonic Colors are speed-emphasized platformers. But that's irrelevant. We don't lump all speed-emphasized platformers into one article. ScienceApe (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Reassessment

I suggest that this article be soon reassessed; I believe the criteria for being at least C-class nearly have been met.

Currently, the article is Start-class, which supposedly meets the following:

The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

Except for the citations, which in reality should be an easy fix, I think this article is past this level. Let us look at C-class:

The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.

I perceive not that this article fails C-class (except for some bare URLs); let us look at the B-class criteria:

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

I think that this article falls between the middle of B-class and C-class and thus should be given a C-class rating once the citations are fixed, followed by some work to get this article to B-class status. MathMaven (talk/contributions) 03:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article definitely meets C-class. I am not sure the article will be B-Class anytime soon. As you can see from the section above, they want to split the article. After the split, it may not be as close to B-class as it is now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Size is not the determining factor in quality. Most of the gameplay/development content for DS is added on, and the reception section will very likely have to be rewritten - besides the fact that listing the scores given is redundant in the prose, much of them only list prose, even when there is reception content to write. The reduction of content related to the DS version will provide changes so negligible that it will be inestimable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the people who bother to contribute in such discussions realize the generalities of "size=/=quality" and "What other articles do=/= what we should do here", you don't need to continue to remind us of such things. I think it's rather obvious to understand that if you split the content of this article into two, it's going to make it worse in this case, not due to the number of words per article, but because it will be lacking in information.Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I wasn't saying they will forever be bad articles because they are split. They will just have to be tidied up a bit, because splits/merges can be messy, and yes, may leave gaps. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. I clearly do, Serge, because you are determined to explain why Sonic Colors has the anomaly of being the only DS version that can't be a separate article. Clearly, the article neither relies on the DS content, nor makes good use of it. You have argued that it will lack in information. True. But the problem is that it's lack of information due to lack of effort, not due to lack of information that can be added to the Wii article. The generalizations fit perfectly because we cannot take other articles and say "oh they didn't do this so we cannot do this" and because size does not factor into the quality assessment of the article.
  2. Any major change would require that the article being tidied up a bit. Even the reception being repaired - because it's in a pretty sorry state - would require this. There are no gaps to be left - you remove the DS reception and it will be the same. It would probably take 10 minutes to split and cleanup the content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Rather than recycling your argument for the umpteenth time, why don't you provide some examples of information that would fill out this hypothetical DS version of Sonic Colors article? Perhaps you'd be more persusasive that way. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that someone who has been repeating his argument exactly as many times as I have repeated mine is criticizing me for repeating arguments that he obviously cannot refute, User:New Age Retro Hippie/Sonic Colors (Nintendo DS). The number of individual sources used for each article are almost exactly the same. The reception section makes it clear that the two games are not the same, and are in fact different. FA hopes have never been sufficient enough to warrant keeping two parts of an article together. If it was having trouble making GA, maybe. But the fact of the matter is that they are sufficiently different from each other. If it weren't for similar plot and levels - the latter not even warranting discussion since the only mention of levels would be that they are shared between both games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn't ask for a readily-available list of references already in this article. I'm talking about information you'd add to a hypothetical DS version article in addition to what's already listed. I'm well aware of what's already in the article...Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The gameplay, being particularly different from the Wii version, would be different and would require a separate paragraph. This article currently treats the DS version's gameplay as a footnote, where anyone trying to learn more about the DS version has to wade through information that may be irrelevant to them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

To me, it looks it's getting too detailed already, especially considering this game is platformer and not some sort of epic, detailed story-based game like Mass Effect or Xenosaga. Any thoughts on this? (Based on wikipedia standards, not the "Sonic-fanbase" standards...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an ISP account edited it way down, so nevermind. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bare URL's

I noticed that bare URLs are being used. Perhaps this should be improved.Railer-man (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I'm fixing bare URL's. They really are too much... Railer-man (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Bare URL's are FIXED!!! Check it out! Railer-man (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats kind of one of Hippie's trademarks. He finds lots of good sources, but doesn't take the time to use {{Cite web}}. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination

I nominated Sonic Colors for GA after I fixed all bare URLs. After I nominated it, I was asked to expand the lead section and merge the two paragraphs of the Plot section. Other than that, the refs appear to be verifiable, and I added alt text in the infobox illustration. Pleas take your time to review the page, and let me know. Thank you. Railer-man (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wisps list should be given in prose form, not list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 16 January 2011 (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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Colors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Ok, overall, pretty good, but it needs some work to get up to GA standards.
    • The lead should be an intro to all the major parts of an article, without going into unnecessary detail. Consequently, the block of text "In Sonic Colors, Sonic fights Dr. Eggman in his latest scheme, an intergalactic amusement park, in order to save an alien race known as Wisps. Gameplay is akin to the daytime stages of Sonic Unleashed, switching occasionally from third person to side-scrolling. During gameplay, Sonic is able to activate Wisp power-ups to increase his attack powers, as well as reach places he cannot do by himself. Sonic Colors was developed as part of an effort by Sega to rebrand the Sonic franchise by reintroducing basic features and powerup-driven attacks, and delisting several below-average games in the series, while developing the game to appeal both older, hardcore fans and younger players." is not that great. Who is Dr. Eggman? Why should any reader be familiar with Sonic Unleashed's gameplay? How are they "delisting" below-average games? (you've also got a comma splice there.)
      • The lead still needs to mention development.
    • Likewise, the body assumes too much familiarity with the subject. Wikilinks supplement knowledge, but you shouldn't force readers to click away to understand the basic gist; add "villain" before Dr. Eggman, for example, and I instantly know his role in the story rather than having to read through and figure it out for myself.
    • The last section of plot: "In the DS version..."—is that supplemental to the story or the entire story for the version?
    • As above, "Sonic Colors sees players playing as Sonic the Hedgehog, using a similar moveset to that featured in Sonic Unleashed, with the addition of a double jump, as he traverses each planet to rescue the Wisps from Dr. Eggman." is a horrible intro to the game. Rework it. You can mention the connection to Sonic Unleashed, but only after you've told me what kind of game it is, who you play as, and what your goals are.
      • it now reads "...with additions such as the double jump", but it's not clear what a double jump is. Is it really important for the understanding of the game?
    • "either alone to earn Chaos Emeralds"—and these emeralds are?
    • We don't need a blow-by-blow of wisp powers. Give me a prosified list integrated into the above section; if you can't source the wisp power, cut it entirely.
    • Reading through, I didn't see any mention of he delisting besides the lead (a big no-no); I had to link to another page to find a mention in Sonic and the Black Knight[2]
    • The reception section gives a lot of numbers but not many good comments. If they're mentioned in the template they're not that necessary for the body. Explain what elements of the game critics liked and disliked, not just generic pulls from the reviews.
    • You don't really need the explanation for Colours.
    • I don't see how File:Sonic Colours.jpg is defensible per WP:NFCC.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the gameplay does not adequately explain what the DS version is like. From the text, I have no idea that it's a sidescroller, or anything remotely different from the Wii version besides the relatively minor descriptions of the DS version. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Any progress being made on this by any interested party? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Railer-man seems to be doing some work, though I do not know how much of your list he has managed to fulfill. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can't just remove some sentences from the Reception section. I need help on how to reword it. Otherwise, I've managed to change the Wisps list into a paragraph section, and I reworded the other sections a bit. Railer-man (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at what you've got today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've struck the issues that have been addressed, but there's still the issues of a lack of clarity in the prose and the reception. Take a look at FA article's sections for an idea about how they should be written, e.g., Halo Wars, Giants: Citizen Kabuto. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can we get a reliable source for sales figures, like Gamasutra? « ₣M₣ » 07:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Any updates? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    I've noticed how long this review has been on hold, so let me see what I can do. Swarm X 03:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, I've started working on the remaining issues. I think I've addressed the first one by rewriting much of the lead to reflect an outside perspective. I'll try to work on body issues next. Swarm X 03:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Reworded the plot section. I don't know what to do with the DS bit. I'll try to review the rest of the body later, and rewrite as needed. It's pretty late here, so I can't do more right now, but I'll try to help in resolving all the points. Let me know if any of what I've done so far has actually helped. Swarm X 03:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was under the impression that the addition of the double jump wasn't terribly necessary in understanding the gameplay or development. How significant is it? Swarm X 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, fixing the reception section is a daunting task that I've admittedly been putting off, but I've decided that refactoring it in my userspace will be the easiest option. Bear with me for a little longer. Swarm X 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem. As long as progress is being made I'm satisfied. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What's the progress on fixing that section? We're near the two month mark on this review, so hopefully further issues can be quickly wrapped up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I expect the entire article will be done within the next few days. I picked up the work very late into this review, I think I'm the only one working on it and it's taking me awhile because, frankly, I couldn't care less about this game, and I'm sick of reading about the freaking Wisps. Still, I'm working on it, it's not abandoned, and I hope to see the article passed soon. Patience, dear boy, patience. Swarm X 20:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Given Swarm's apparent break, I'm going to fail this now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:59, 19 March 2011 (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.

Lead/intro

Despite this, Sonic Colors has been seen by numerous critics as one of the best games in the series since the 16-bit generation.

Alright, so there seems to be some dispute on whether or not this belongs in the lead/intro. Like someone else has suggested, this depends on how well the reviews reflect this. Everything in the lead must be represented in the reception, and everything in the reception must be reflected in reviews. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, as most of the reviews I haven't read personally, but while it seems like reception was mostly positive, I'm not sure how many reviews outright said "one of the best since the 16-bit days". By all means prove me wrong though... Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Users could reach a consensus for a semi-protection so that we don't have this problem in the future. Railer-man (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's necessary yet. If he refuses to discuss his point of view here on the discussion page, then maybe, but I feel like he may have a point if he explains what he means a little better than he has in his edit comments. I don't feel like he's just being difficult... Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Template...

I'm trying to use templates like this:

ref name="Game Rankings"

However, it isn't working out the way other articles with this template use it. How can I use the template to help fix the Reception section? Railer-man (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railer-man (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unresponsive controls?

According to IGN the controls are responsive. Doesn't seem fair to just have criticism that says they are unresponsive, but leave out criticism that says they are responsive. ScienceApe (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

GAR request

Hi, I suggest that you remove the incomplete GAR request as you have now requested a peer review. It is pointless have two simultaneous reviews going on, I think. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

New nomination.

The note is above. Railer-man (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The reception section is reeeeally light. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to reiterate the point that I've made fairly regularly: at some point, the Nintendo DS and Wii versions will need to be split apart. If this article were to ever go to FAC, I believe that questions would be raised about an unbalance between the two versions. As is, the reception is still fairly light, and I know that there is at least twice that amount for both versions. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The latest sales. [3] « ₣M₣ » 18:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review 2

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Colors/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've played a fair amount of Sonic (especially as a little kid...) but I haven't played this game. Taking a read through.

  • What's up with all the refs in the lead? The lead should summarise what is already found elsewhere. I don't really get why we need three references for the name of the game; that's perhaps going to be useful pre-release, but this game has existed for a long time.
  • Sonic the Hedgehog is a dablink
  • Why the commas after the years?
  • "The game is centered around the protagonist Sonic the Hedgehog and his fight against the main antagonist of the Sonic series, Dr. Eggman, who has taken an alien race hostage and is using them for his evil purposes. During the game, the camera perspective switches occasionally from third person to side-scrolling. During development, Sega explained that they were delisting sub-standard games in the Sonic series and developing new titles in order to increase the value of the brand." Choppy- three unrelated sentences
  • It would be good in the plot section if it was made more clear what the actual game is- presumably the bulk of the game is Sonic bouncing around multiple planets? (Also, are these the planets in the theme park?)
  • "As the place prepares to explode" What place?
  • "As the place prepares to explode, Sonic sends Tails back down the space elevator while he faces off against Dr. Eggman as he uses the Nega-Wisps for his final contraption." Long, overly complex sentence
  • "The contraption uses all the Wisps that Sonic has met against him, but as the machine gets weaker, the wisps are able to escape and help Sonic" So, he hadn't successfully liberated them?
  • "Sonic defeats Dr. Eggman and returns safely to his world, where Yacker thanks them" Sonic is not a plural
  • "In the DS version, they learn that the Mother Wisp had been infected by the negative energy and is transformed into the Nega-Mother Wisp, which Sonic defeats as Super Sonic." So the Wii version ends with the bidding goodbye?
  • "The Wii version can be played with the Wii Remote (either with or without the Nunchuk), the Classic Controller, or a GameCube controller; the DS version uses the button controls, with touchscreen control during Special Stages. During the game, the player can use the colored energy obtained from different types of Wisps as power-ups that enhance Sonic's ability to traverse the environments and explore new areas. There are a total of eight Wisps in the Wii version and six in the DS version; some Wisps are exclusive to each version." This is all unsourced. Also, I got the impression that there were many wisps? They're a pretty rare race?
  • "(or, once unlocked, Miis)" Once the Miis are unlocked, or once the mode that allows this is unlocked? If the ref outside the brackets is for this statement, stick it in the brackets?
  • "Special Rings" Why caps? "Rings" have not been explained yet.
  • "excluding bosses, Challenge Stages in the Egg Shuttle, and the Sonic Simulator)" Many of these have received little or no explanation
  • "It also features a Challenge mode in which players can play all levels continuously and upload their total score to online leaderboards." It's not clear what this means
  • "missions" ?
  • Rings or rings?
  • "Infinite Boost" ?
  • I don't really like the use of inverted commas... Why not just stick with quote marks?
  • "Takashi Iizuka said" Who's he?
  • "&" - and?
  • "The script for Sonic Colors was written by MadWorld and Happy Tree Friends writers, Ken Pontac & Warren Graff." I think there's more to be said about this
  • "The game, along with Sonic Free Riders, is also one of the first in the series to feature the new voice actors" Who are they?
  • "Another action figure was released by Jazwares that includes a 5-inch Sonic with two Wisps." Ref?
  • "who also commented" Who?
  • ""Best Wii game", but lost to Epic Mickey, "Best DS game", and "Best Platformer"" Did it win the other two?
  • "Arther Gies for IGN" Link IGN?
  • "78/100[41] and 79/100[42] on Metacritic and 79.03%[39] and 77.07%[40] on GameRankings;" Which score is which version?
  • IGN is not a person- attribute the reviews to the reviewer, not the publication
  • "Power's"Best Graphics of 2010"." You missed a space
  • "resulting from the poor stage design[65]" Full stop?
  • How come Dimps is mentioned for the first time in the reception section?
  • Cite for Nintendo Power scores?

Sources

I have some concern over the use of some sources; you've used a lot of rather publication/blogs. The references need a bit of a clean- everything should ideally have a publisher. Also, date formatting should be consistent, and remember to italicise the name of periodicals

  • "ArchangelUK (May 27, 2010). "Sonic Colors Update – Okay AAUK, Who Is Doing It?". Sonic City Blognik. Retrieved 2 January 2011." Who is the author, and why should we care what their blog says?
  • "Infernal Monkey (9 August 2010). "Australian Sonic Colours release date confirmed". Retrieved 2 January 2011." Again?
  • Why is Kotaku.com reliable?
    • WP:VG/RS came to the decision that articles made in 2010 and later are considered reliable sources, because their editorial standards were stronger and they had more independently reliable staff members. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Pintur (May 26, 2010). "Sega annuncia Sonic Colours". Retrieved January 6, 2011." Another pseudonymous blogger?
  • Why is tssznews.com reliable?
  • Why is totalvideogames.com reliable?
  • "RubyEclipse", "Kellie" and "Shadzter"- yet more pseudonymous bloggers
  • Those publishers which are notable (CVG, Destructoid, etc) could do with wikilinks.
  • Is Spong.com definitely reliable? 2D-X.com?
  • Anoop Gantayat (August 23, 2010). "Sonic Colors Date Set". Andriasang. Retrieved January 8, 2011. Another blog
    • Andriasang is considered a reliable source on WP:VG/RS, despite it having no editorial oversight (though there has been some discussion over whether single-person blog sites should be considered reliable). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sonic Stadium reliable? Looks like a fansite...
  • "RawmeatCowboy (November 9, 2010). "Famitsu - review scores". GoNintendo. Retrieved January 8, 2011." Reliable?
  • "Jason Ross (November 16, 2010). "Sonic Colors (Wii) Review". Pixlbit. Retrieved January 8, 2011.." Reliable?

Sorry, this may all come across as a rather critical review, especially when you've been waiting so long for it. I hope you're able to deal with any problems. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As there has been little response, I am failing this article at this time. I strongly recommend any interested parties work on my suggestions and then renominate the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

English-speaking markets

Are there separate English and Scottish markets? Are they and Ireland not part of the European market? —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Robotnik/Eggman

People are continuously changing the names back and forth between Robotnik and Eggman. Is there any way we can put a stop to this? Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The official site refers to him as "Eggman", so I suppose wikipedia should do the same? http://www.sega.com/games/sonic-colours/ Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I say keep it as Eggman, since everything official calls him Eggman. MetaRyan 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't gone by Robotnik since the comic days so its best to stick with Eggman. Pyrolord777 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to Sonic Colours discussion

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sonic Colors → Sonic Colours – Here's an interesting one. So we pretty much have a split; 2 proper regions got it as "Colours", and 2 proper regions got it as "Colors". Here's the thing... "Colours" was the first name, and that's really important. However, the US-centric nature of many game sites and Google means the US name is almost always going to be preferred. As always, I think that point 1 is what we really need to adhere to (as far as you'd be concerned, we can "reasonably" do so here), and that point 2 is a serious problem that needs to be addressed... but I'm going to be saying this forever. Your thoughts? (insert Oppose here) Despatche (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I see no reason to change this after 3+ years of being written in US-based English. This was settled years ago. In situations like this, either is acceptable, so we stick with the one it was created in, which is US-English. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the article started at the page "Sonic Colors" but used "Sonic Colours" in the text of the article, the game was first released in Australia, though only by a few days, and the first non-stub version of the article used "Sonic Colors"... -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RETAIN. Looking at the page history, the first non-stub version from 2010 used "Colors". The article was also apparently created under the "Colors" title despite using "Colours" in the lead sentence; the original "colors" title is supported by a lack of entries in the page move log,[4] and a premature AFD discussion that was started within a few hours after the article was created. As the OP mentioned, there is a roughly equal split between regions, so WP:TIES cannot apply here. The argument to switch to Australian or European English spelling because the game was first released in those areas (especially within only a few days before the US version) is an invalid reason under Wikipedia's National varieties of English guidelines. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current name is long standing and appears to have generated very little conflict so I see no reason to change it after all this time. Also, it appears quite clear that there are no nationalistic ties with this game so that argument is moot.--64.229.164.69 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:RETAIN only matters when there is no serious reason against having one that would justify it over others. WP:RETAIN also refers to varieties of English, not differing titles of a product. It does not apply to this case, for any reason. This is about differing names of a product or work among English-speaking countries, and consensus tells us to use the first of these to exist... "Sonic Colours".
Funny thing is, there are "strong national ties"; the game was released as "Sonic Colours" before any release of "Sonic Colors", and these "Colours" releases were in countries that would use such a spelling of the word. This does matter, and because ENGVAR doesn't apply to this situation to begin with, it doesn't somehow invalidate this point (not that it does normally). Despatche (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't you have something more constructive to do? You're making an issue out of nothing. You have not presented a compelling issue to warrant making your change. Let's drop this and move on to something more productive... Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
...What? No, seriously, what? Despatche (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. This article was created with a US-title, and there's no reason to change it - "being released as Colours first" is hardly an argument that the game has "national ties" to countries using that variant of English when SEGA is a Japanese company and the English spelling variations are roughly equal in usage. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, ENGVAR and RETAIN are completely invalid here because there are solid reasons to move with no other reason to keep the current title, and because this isn't about varieties of English. Announcing your game under a certain title and releasing it under that title first is completely valid as a "national tie", never mind that this was similarly irrelevant and a "fun fact"; I don't know how you can even argue that. Why is Sega being a Japanese company relevant? Why is ENGVAR relevant at all when this is about the title of a work, not about the spelling used for it? Yes, I'm saying that "Sonic Colours" is a completely different title than "Sonic Colors", because it is.
I've got people randomly accusing me of... something... and people attempting to destroy pure facts with pure opinions. You guys really don't want this article moved for some reason, and it doesn't seem like it's got anything to do with Wikipedia standards. What's going on? Despatche (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
What's going on here is that an overwhelming number of people are giving reasons why your position is weak, you reject them out of hand, and then you respond with bald assertions (e.g., "because there are solid reasons") and by using lots of italic and bold text. Seriously, good luck convincing anyone that "Sonic Colours" is a completely separate title, instead of just a spelling variation, when your best argument is "because it is". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You have blatantly ignored all of my points and have provided none of your own except--wait for it--"because". Hmm. I say "because there are solid reasons" and I have provided them; I say that "Sonic Colours" is a separate title because it physically is, because Sega decided to change the title for the purpose of releasing a game in a specific country; and don't get me started on this weak attempt at insulting my (necessary!) typing style. Despatche (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I'm afraid I simply cannot follow the suggestion that this is a case of a work with two different titles. The 51st State/Formula 51 is a case of a work with two titles. The first Harry Potter book is a case of a work with two titles. Sonic Colors/Sonic Colours is a case of a work with one title, albeit one title with two spellings. The entire difference in the titles is the word "colors" versus the word "colours", and the only reason for that difference is because Americans spell colo(u)r one way, and the British spell it another way. That would make this issue one of spelling, which means this should be covered by WP:ENGVAR, regardless of repeated objections that it should not. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
But where's your reasoning? This isn't about variations in English because "Colours" here isn't a basic word that is subject to variance; it's the official title of a work that was changed by those who have the power to do so for the reasons they have. "Sonic Colours" is a different physical title exactly like The 51st State and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, even if the actual change is smaller in scale. How am I supposed to "explain" a physical change? Despatche (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The only difference between Sonic Colors and Sonic Colours is the spelling of the second word. There's no different meaning, it's just a variation in the spelling of an English word. You do realize that's exactly where the term ENGVAR comes from, right? Variation of English, right? I don't understand how any one could think this wasn't relevant to ENGVAR. It's exactly what it was created for. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The actual physical difference (value) of the two titles means nothing, because we're talking about the official titles of works or products; the smallest change turns the title into something completely different because of that. ENGVAR was created for regular old words that are used in regular old articles, and are always subject to opinion-based debates. There is absolutely nothing in ENGVAR about titles, and there logically cannot be without contradictions or outright lying. Despatche (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Despatche, my reasoning that this is a spelling issue is right here: "The entire difference in the titles is the word 'colors' versus the word 'colours', and the only reason for that difference is because Americans spell colo(u)r one way, and the British spell it another way." Are you asking me for my reasoning in stating that "color" and "colour" are two spellings of the same word? At any rate, you are the one asserting that Sonic Colors/Sonic Colours is two titles, rather than one title spelled two ways, so, yes, please do explain.
As for how, it should be simple. For example, the Harry Potter book's name got changed because the US publisher thought kids wouldn't want to read a book with "philosopher" in the title. The play The Madness of George III became the movie The Madness of King George because the director thought that a country without royalty would better understand it was about a king if the word "king" was in the title. The article on The 51st State doesn't explicitly state why the title was changed for the US market, but if I had to guess, it'd be because that's an expression that Americans generally associate with Canada more than they do with the UK, but the movie's set in the UK and the title The 51st State is being used in reference to the UK, not Canada.
So, now that I have – as you requested – explained how to explain, please explain. Why did Sega give this game what you consider to be two separate titles? What is the reason for the change? I would remind you that you keep asserting this is not a spelling issue, so you should leave any mention of words being spelled differently in different variations of English out of your explanation. Also, please do not give the reason, as you did in your response to Prototime, that they're different... because they're different. Why are they different?
So... Sonic Colors and Sonic Colours – without mentioning spelling – why the change? Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Just like all of those cases, it's because Sega felt it would be more appropriate. Why are you even asking this? It's so obvious that it hurts. But why they made the change is irrelevant, and whatever meaning the titles may have is irrelevant. Reality dictates there are two (three, actually) different titles; we already abide by that as is, we just need to change the names around to fit the old "pick the first title if multiple titles are known in English-speaking regions". It is a complete mystery as to why there is so much opposition for this. Despatche (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but Sega only felt it was more appropriate because that's how the word is spelled in those regions. Because of the variations of English - ENGVAR. I'm sorry, I don't see how that response answered Egsan Bacon's question at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
But that isn't ENGVAR! Good God, man. The meaning behind a title means nothing; the reason behind adopting a title, or multiple titles, means nothing. The only thing that matters is the physical structure of the title. Despatche (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close - There's really no point in changing it. We who use the spelling 'Colour' still understand the word 'Color,' and the British English spelling is noted in the first sentence. Even though the title is different for different regions, the title is still means the same thing. We wouldn't separate it like "Sonic Colors, known in Europe and Australia as Sonic Colours and in Japan as Sonic Colo(u)rs (ソニックカラーズ, lit Sonic Colo(u)rs）" because that would be completely redundant, as they are all the same. All the names are the same, just in the different languages. It just so happens that the English English spelling is a little different. Even though it was released down here first, much of the sources use the US spelling, because basically everything is Americanised. If it is changed, there will probably be a bunch of people requesting moves back again, for various other reasons. The title really doesn't matter so much to have spent this much time arguing over one letter that doesn't even change the meaning at all. It would be much more productive to work on articles rather than continuing to debate over a matter as trivial as this. The article was written in US English for years, and on Wikipedia any variety is acceptable. This game has no ties to any particular English-speaking country, so just stick with the current variety, which happens to be US. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 12:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposecommon nomenclature for such things is 'color' heck even the image of the box has the term 'color' I'm shocked this is even an issue but mankind will always find innovative new ways to fight one another so why not this sad little example. They are in fact two distinct titles with their own huge litany of internal legal paperwork among the company and governing countries involved so should have two different articles (copywrite, royalties, etc.)....I'm betting nobody thought about these talking points and from the looks of things I'm not wasting my time to see if someone did.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 01:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for comment

As this RfC appears to be asking the same question as the above RM, and as consensus on this question appears quite clear, I'm closing the discussion. No action is necessary. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2013 (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.

Hey, figured I should do this sooner rather than later. Above, I've got a little army of people invoking ENGVAR for the name of a work and they're saying we should RETAIN the title because it was originally at something that has been shown to be out of place for Wikipedia standards and consensus with no reason for an exception presented. Aside from some of the other nonsense seen above, the problem is that these people are completely ignoring the points stated and continuing to press ENGVAR, despite the fact that ENGVAR doesn't cover situations like this at all, and the fact that this isn't even about varieties of English; "Sonic Colours" is a completely different title from "Sonic Colors", and the actual spelling of is irrelevant. I'm sorry, I just really don't know what to do, and I'm really tired of having to butt heads with these kinds of unhelpful and disruptive people. Despatche (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Speedy Close - There is already a requested move discussing this. The only "disruptive" aspect of it is the WP:FORUMSHOPPING coming from someone not finding any support for their argument. Lets keep discussion centralized in one location please. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close per Sergecross73. Just because a discussion isn't going your way doesn't mean you get to forum shop or canvass. And please assume good faith; just because other people disagree with you doesn't mean they are "unhelpful and disruptive people".–Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, real cute, guys. This isn't about "disagreeing", it's about people outright ignoring basic facts and other Wikipedia consensus... in order to create their own consensus... for God knows what. Don't you dare try to prattle on about "good faith" when you are physically disrupting the place like a vandal. You two, at least, obviously have some kind of hidden motive, and I'd like to know more about it, but that's not what this RfC is for. Despatche (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand, everyone has made policy based arguments, and you've some how taken it very personally, and now seem to think some unrelated group of random editors and IPs are out to get you or something? Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh... this is exactly what I'm talking about. You have not made any policy-based arguments; policy does not actually support your statements at all, you need to reread both. There's no "thinking" about any kind of malicious intent on my part; your actions are outright disruptive, which means the one performing those actions is as well, and it is simply foolish to assume good faith for someone who is outright lying and ignoring pure facts while pushing their own opinions forward. Despatche (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Reasonable minds can differ on how to interpret policies. I've made move requests myself before, and sometimes I have lost despite having a strong conviction that my position was correct. I didn't assume the people who disagreed with me had a nefarious "hidden motive" or that they were "lying" or "vandals", just that they had a different perspective. And I don't assume any of those things about you right now either, even though we are having a policy disagreement. I do wish you would do the same for me. Please, give everyone who disagrees with you the benefit of the doubt and continue the discussion in the move review section instead of assuming the worst and making a new discussion here. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you need to do way better than "I can't understand your interpretation of policy so you must be disruptive and out to get me." You'd better come up with some real proof of being "lying vandals" with conspiracy-based motivations, or this whole thing is just going to be ignored. You havent proven a single thing. (And very likely won't; if there's a conspiracy here, no one let me in on it...) Sergecross73 msg me 10:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about "interpreting" anything, except on your end; you cannot logically apply that concept here whatsoever. I really don't understand why this is so hard to get.
I've made my case, and proven enough; I'm talking about reality here. It is this "little army" that needs to show why something that's obviously not an ENGVAR case somehow is anyway just because they say so. Despatche (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm just going to quote what I wrote back in 2010, so ENGVAR / RETAIN page has changed slightly since then to be written clearer but the actual spirit of the Wikipedia rules has not...
According to WP's Manual of Style: National Varieties of English:
"When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor."
Therefore since the topic does not have strong national ties, the first major contributor gets to choose - the editor who created this page, User:SynergyBlades, first made the page using both versions of the word, then made the choice to use "Colors" with the second edit to it. Since Synergy's choice, the article has clearly evolved to employ "Colors". (original quote:User:Cigraphix|CIGraphix 04:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)) CIGraphix (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Greetings, Despatche, I was asked by the RFC'Bot to take a look at the contention here. I see that others have pointed out that the initial Editor who created the page usually has the final say when it comes to differences of opinion which are so trivial, and I have to agree with that. "The first major contributor gets to choose" is exactly correct when the issue is this trivial.
Also if you don't mind my pointing it out, Despatche, your comments above have been just a bit... um... paranoid in assuming that other Editors have "some kind of hidden motive" which was rather a strange comment to see coming from a volunteer Editor. Everyone is a volunteer here, and while there are always going to be differences of opinion, nobody gets paid to pick whether the word Color or Colors is used. It's a damn shame we're not paid, alas. :)
The RFC should be closed. In fact it should not have been opened in the first place. Damotclese (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
No, this is a pretty clear observation based on some pretty clear behavior. Just recently Sergecross tried to tell me that a problem with user behavior was entirely a content thing and that I should try to "discuss" with the user, despite the fact that user refused to do so (reverting all messages without discussion). I wish I was just being paranoid, I really do. Despatche (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... This has nothing to do with ENGVAR; you cannot apply this concept here! The titles do not have any "meaning" by themselves--there are at least three distinct titles here--this is about multiple titles being used in any English-based region. How many times do I have to say this? Despatche (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not a single person has agreed with you. I'm just afraid you're not understanding/interpretting ENGVAR correctly. I don't know what else to tell you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that everyone else isn't just misunderstanding ENGVAR, but the nature of the names of works. This isn't about ENGVAR, and this isn't about opinion. What part of that do you not understand? I'm tired of repeating the facts and tired of getting ignored for the sake of opinion. Despatche (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the point is, it doesn't really matter anymore. Yes, if the article was created today, then you would be able to make it at "Colours" and keep it there under policy. However, the article was created with American English, and has stayed that way for a long time. It is literally more work then it is worth to move it. It isn't like the game was released in America months afterwards, it was a couple days. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It. Isn't. ENGVAR. ENGVAR cannot possibly apply here. Any discussion of English variations is completely irrelevant. The nationality of the user who started the page is completely irrelevant. The number of days between releases is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the fact that there are multiple titles within multiple English speaking countries, and that one was used first. That's it! That's all. There is absolutely nothing more to say about it, and it is something we have always done. This game is no different, not for any reason. I feel like I'm talking to the wall here. Why doesn't anyone understand what ENGVAR actually is? Despatche (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but when consensus is unanimously against you like this, I think its time to reflect upon your knowledge of naming policy. Sergecross73 msg me 10:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:RETAIN. Changing an article from one spelling to another is discouraged when it really doesn't matter. Sure, the European version was released first. But it was a couple of days. Woopdeedoo. Just drop it please. In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (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.

Notability

Why is it so important and notable to mention in the lead sentence that "color" is spelled with a "U" in Europe? Is it really that much of a difference that its notable to include in the article at all?--JOJ Hutton 12:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, there have been many disputes over which spelling the article name should use, so it's best to mention it as a compromise of sorts to those who are unhappy with the current name. That being said, I see no harm in it either. There seems to be plenty who are still ignorant of spelling variations between English spellings. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In the RM above I was in support of keeping the article at the spelling without a U, because it means the same thing with or without the U. However, I still support its inclusion in the lead. A reason for this is that it should be noted that they localised the title spelling, because this doesn't always actually happen, even in titles. (Obscure example: Trauma Center.) I also support Serge's reasoning above. DarkToonLink 10:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the Trauma Center example. Good to know for the future, that's a good reason too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Handling of a direct quote

This shouldn't really require discussion, as it's less about editorial discretion, and more about "Writing 101", but here we are, since I've been reverted multiple times by the same user. Hard fact: You cannot change a direct quote. A user keeps on changing "God" to "god", despite the fact that the direct quote clearly shows it as "God". I have no stance on the difference in meanings, I'm just saying, you can't alter a direct quote. Any input? See here for reference. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

well, it was written incorrectly. the correct word is "god" Valehd (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
How do you know? Who are you to tell the author they are wrong with their writing? It's not the type of thing you can find objectively wrong, like "1+1=3". Sergecross73 msg me 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
the quote was written/typed the wrong way Valehd (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you keep saying that, but what is your proof? How do you know what the author intended? And even if you have proof, again, it doesn't mean you can alter a direct quote. Even if the direct quote said "The sky is purple", you cannot just change it so "blue" is in there instead. I mean, this is basic, High School English class type stuff. How have you never heard of this? Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
it was a capitalization error. made by the writer. IT'S LOWERCASE GOD NOT UPPERCASE! Valehd (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't address a single one of my concerns. Are you really not able to explain your stance any better than saying the same thing over and over without any actual reasoning? Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
the correct way to write it is lowercase if you're referring to a god not God Valehd (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
You still can't alter direct quotes on writing. That's not your writing to alter. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, it's written like "God" on other articles on the same context as well, like all across this CNET article with Steven Hawking. I understand the concept that there are times where's it's not capitalized. You are wrong with your current application of that concept in this instance though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
i was using the correct grammar and so is that article Valehd (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you read my example article very closely. The source I gave above quoting Steven Hawking literally says "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist. Same wording, yet the G is capitalized. Do you truly believe that Steven Hawking, and/or a journalist of the caliber of meeting with him, would get this wrong? No way. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
He typed it correctly because he's talking about the true God. Valehd (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
How do you know the Sonic source writer wasn't? And again, what gives you the right to break the rules and alter a direct quote? Again, that is a basic rule of writing, and you are overtly breaking it. "Knowing what he meant" or "Fixing it" is not a valid answer. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
i wasn't breaking any rules of writing. you need to learn about writing the word God/god. Valehd (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Capitalization rules do not overrule the need to being faithful to the source material. Direct quotes cannot be altered, end of story. Please point me to any rule that says "It's okay to change direct quotes if you find them to be wrong. Provide one example to prove what you say for once, or we're done here." Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valehd: You cannot change a quote just because the quote has a grammatical, spelling, or punctuation error, at least not without giving an indication of the change. But there isn't even a clear error here. What is or is not a "true God" depends on your point of view, and editors should not insert their own interpretation about what someone was saying--that's called original research and is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please, Valehd, this is a battle you will not win; I encourage you to drop this matter and move on to other, more productive editing efforts. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Colors/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


If I'm not back in a few days with a review, please ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Review

Gameplay
  • "third-person perspectives.[4][2]" - Citations need switching round.
    • Done.
  • "An alternate version of Sonic Colors was developed by Dimps and published by Sega for the Nintendo DS. Unlike the Wii version, the DS version uses the same engine used in Sonic Rush (2005) and its sequel,[7] and is a side-scroller that takes advantage of the system's dual-screen.[12]" - I think the piece about its developer and engine should be moved down to the development section. Perhaps rephrase it as "Unlike the Wii version, the DS verion is a side-scroller that takes advantage of the system's dual-screen." Also, is there any source anywhere that compares the DS version to Genesis-era Sonic titles?
    • Yep. I've moved the Dimps/engine info to development.
Plot
  • "sending him hurtling helplessly off into space." - I'd cut "helplessly off".
    • Done.
Development
  • "One of the first ideas was the decision that the setting should be an amusement park" - A little long-winded. Maybe rephrase this as "One of the first ideas was the setting should be an amusement park".
    • Done.
  • "Another goal was to encourage players to revisit already-played levels" - I think rephrase this as "completed levels".
    • Done.
  • "The game also makes use of the PhysX physics engine,[21] previously used with Sonic and the Secret Rings (2007).[22]" - Cut the "also". As the sentence stands, it feels like it's been lifted from the previous paragraph or something.
    • I've removed "also" and added it to the previous paragraph.
Reception
  • "jazzy, high-energy" soundtrack as fitting for all levels.[3][2][3]" - Repetition.
    • Fixed.
  • "Keast criticized the game's high difficulty level,[1][3][4][46][11]" - Shift the last citation across one.
    • Done.
Legacy
  • All good.
Images
  • All okay, no issues with the licensing.
Sources
  • All links check out A-Okay.
  • Could you link to websites/journals in the citations? Not essencial.
    • Also not essential, but I'd advise archiving all links you can archive ASAP, so they're not lost forever (happening way too often these days).
      • Archived the URLs; I'll get to the website links another time.
Other
  • Sonic Unleashed is only linked once in the lead. It should also be linked in the development prose.
    • It's linked in the "controls" section of gameplay; linking it in development would be WP:OLINK.
  • Minor note. Having read the previous GA review, I must confess to feeling slightly iffy about including bracketed dates next to game titles. It's a minor quibble that I won't let influence the quality of the rest of the article, but it's still there.
    • I'm only leaving the ones in "legacy", since this tells the reader that those games came out after Colors.

Comments

@ProtoDrake: You asked for this. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 08:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@P*h3i: Thanks for the reminder. Having gone through the article, I've left my thoughts and comments above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Whoops, slight mistake on my part. I didn't see who'd nominated it. The message above was meant for you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Adding onto the whole years in brackets thing, I would be for it if it were a widespread thing, but one of the major things in Wikipedia is consistency in language, and I can't find a single featured article that has this rule. It's a gripe that is pretty minor, but it exists nonetheless. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 09:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sonic '06 just became an FA, and one of the first things the reviewers made me do was put the years in brackets. I'm still keeping the years, I just reworked most of them into prose.

@ProtoDrake: I think I've resolved everything. Responded above. JOEBRO64 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Alright. I don't see any reason to hold this up now. It's an official Pass! --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

Just wanted to let everyone know: Template:Did you know nominations/Sonic Colors JOEBRO64 23:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool! You picked the best you could from the article. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 22:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_Colors/Archive_1&oldid=1136232680"