Template talk:Sonic the Hedgehog/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Should we categorize Sonic 3D Blast as a spinoff?

All participants of one side of the argument (including the discussion starter) have been blocked for violating Wikipedia's policy of abusing multiple accounts per an investigation here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 19 July 2017 (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.

A debate regarding the game's categorization has been going on for days regarding the game's status as mainline or spinoff. As there has been no agreement between the two sides, the only way of settling the debate seems to be reaching a consensus. Should it be categorized as a spinoff in the template?

  • Support. I agree it's a spinoff for all the reasons given in the discussion: its gameplay is a big departure from the standard Sonic formula, being isometric, taking away the speed, and replacing the objective of reaching the goal with an item hunting centric gameplay. Another argument made was that its Genesis and PC versions were unreleased in Japan, and the Saturn version was delayed three years, leading to the conclusion that Sega didn't consider it an important title, unlike mainline games. Yet another point is that it was mainly developed by Traveller's Tales, with Sonic Team's participation being rather minor compared to nearly every mainline console Sonic game. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No sources not the creators call it a spinoff. Like all mainline Sonic games, it's a Sonic game that 1) controls Sonic as the main (and only) character, was developed by Sonic Team, and is a platform game. Upon the templates creation, it was not put as a spinoff, and been listed as a main game for pretty much the entirety of the last 5 years without a consensus for its removal. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The original template didn't distinguish between mainline and spinoff games. When the distinction was made, Sonic 3D Blast was briefly placed in main series, but it was moved to spinoffs right away (1 hour after the original edit was made), and it stayed like that for the most part of the next 8 years without issues. It wasn't until it was added without any sources or prior debate to Main series in 2013 that the debates started, with many people deeming it a spinoff. Since then, there have been plenty of edits that reverted it back to spinoffs, with a single editor (the one that put it in main series in the first place) moving it back every single time. I would also like to point out that there's no source labeling it as mainline either, but there's evidence (as mentioned above) of Sega treating it as a spinoff. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
      • The first time the template split off to a "spinoff" section was here. 3D Blast is not classified as a spinoff here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral but leaning towards status quo. Some of the arguments the OP made shouldn't be considered valid, such as who the developer was. We consider Sonic Mania a mainline title despite it not being developed by Sonic Team. And even despite that, Sonic Team did most of the level, game/concept, and audio design, so I wouldn't state their contributions as minor. And I don't see most of their claims as "evidence" as valid either. Just because it was delayed and/or not released on certain platforms doesn't make it a spinoff just for those decisions, that is 100% original research. Now what I do see as support for it being a spinoff is the fact that newer (and older I guess) articles never seem to mention the game when discussing the classic Sonic era; they go right from Sonic & Knuckles to Adventure 1 with only minor mentions to 3D Blast and Sonic Jam as prototypes for what Sonic Team wanted to do in 3D. Can a game be considered mainline but skipped over when discussing the series retroactively? If we can find an answer to that, then this debate can be put to rest. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: The gameplay sets it apart from main titles. The fast-paced gameplay is the main characteristic of Sonic games. This game skewed that altogether in favor of the Flicky collecting. No other game listed in the main series section uses an isometric perspective or puts such a strong emphasis on collecting. - ESE150 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Graphical perspective shouldn't be used as a case for either argument, and while collecting Flicky's is a feature that makes the game stand out, it's still a platformer at heart. Sonic Adventure 1 had a whole gameplay section devoted to fishing, but nobody is debating that game's status. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Sonic games aren't just generic platformers. The speed is their trademark element, and even Sonic Adventure provided that. It wasn't 100% about fishing or item hunting, the main play style (ie: Sonic's) was still about speed. If they made a Sonic game that was entirely about fishing, would you label it as main series? And the isometric perspective changed the way it plays, so I don't see why it shouldn't count. - ESE150 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
No I wouldn't, but this argument doesn't hold when you compare it to something like Lost World, which is considered a mainline title despite being criticized for its overall lack of speed and other unconventional for the series gameplay features. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope, even Sonic Lost World had a lot of speed, especially compared with regular platformers. It's only "slow" compared with other modern Sonic games like Generations or Unleashed, but still pretty fast on its own right. Show a playthrough of a Lost World level to someone who isn't familiar with the crazy fast gameplay of modern Sonic games and they'll tell you it's a pretty damn fast game. And need I point out that it had levels completely made up of autorunning sections? - ESE150 (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
No game series classifies games as "main" or "spinoff" based off of camera view/perspective. I can't help but notice that 2-3 inexperienced editors hinge so much of their arguments on this. It's both flawed and suspicious. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Non-conventional gameplay is a valid criteria for labeling games as spin-offs, so as long as people feel that the isometric angle affects significantly the gameplay, it's a valid opinion. And besides, your statement of "No game series classifies games as main or spinoff based off of camera view/perspective" is incorrect. Banjo-Kazooie does exactly that, labeling Grunty's Revenge a spin-off based on its isometric gameplay, and the King of Fighters and Senran Kagura series classify their 3d games as spin-offs based on official word. Those are just the examples on top of my head. And just for the record, I would still label it as a spin-off if it didn't have the isometric view, given its lack of the series' trademark speed, which is the one thing consistently separating main Sonic games from other platforming series. - ESE150 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

Re-add Lego Dimensions under Related -> Video Games. It was removed from the entry for being "one of a large number of characters", but that's no different than his appearances in Smash Bros. or Segagaga, which are also listed. Given the amount of Sonic content being added next month, it's a notable appearance.

Also, should Sega Hard Girls be added to the template as well, since Sonic and Eggman make appearances in multiple episodes? (6, 7, 13, and the upcoming DVD-only 14th, to be specific)

136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully supported the Lego Dimensions inclusion, and do not opposed that addition. The SHG connection is pretty weak though, I don't believe that warrants a spot on the template. Let's see if there's any more input on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
If it helps illustrate the argument any, the SHG appearance is more substantial than that of Wreck-It Ralph (which was also on the template until removed by whoever pulled Dimensions). Quick rundown: Eggman shows up in the last 2 minutes of episode 6 to cause trouble; Sonic appearing is the "To be continued" moment. Episode 7 is wholly focused on Sonic and the main cast fighting Eggman (including footage of StH1 and SA1). Episode 13 ends with Sonic leading all the other Sega characters in saying goodbye to the cast. And trailers for 14 show Sonic and Eggman involved, though not in what capacity. Aside from that, there's Sonic statues and memorabilia scattered throughout the show in every episode.
I can take or leave its inclusion, but at the very least, it's a fairly meaty appearance in a Sega-produced product (compared to, say Green Hill's cameo as an arena in Dengeki Bunko Fighting Climax or a sketch on Robot Chicken), so it's probably worth at least a discussion IMO. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's been a week and no one else has chimed in, so...re-add Dimensions and leave SeHa Girls off, then? (Your call whether Wreck-It Ralph needs to be restored too.) -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I've added both Dimensions and SHG. I believe Dimensions belongs on there. With SHG, I could go either way. The connection is stronger than I thought, but still off on a bit of a tangent. I've added it for now...though I probably personally wouldn't restore SHG if someone removes it down the line... Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Sonic" in title?

How should the titles be displayed? I notice some spin-off games have the "Sonic" part omitted (e.g. "Drift", "Drift 2", and even simply "R") but a lot of other games do not (e.g. "Sonic Unleashed" instead of just "Unleashed").

Shouldn't there be some consistency here, and which way should it go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.186.13 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The full name should be preferred, however for larger navboxes such as this, normally the redundant parts are omitted, which in this case would be "Sonic". And I don't see where it says just "Sonic Unleashed". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sonic 1 Game Gear?

Where is Sonic 1 GG? Sonic 2 GG is on here but not the first one? I know both the 8-bit ports of Sonic 1&2 were also released on the Sega Master System as well. (216.252.26.36 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC))

  • The article was merged into Sonic 16 bit due to the lack of independent notability. Since a standalone article doesn't exist for it anymore, it doesn't belong in the navbox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the same will likely happen to Sonic 2 (8-bit) as well, as it's also been in a perpetual terrible state since it existence. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Sonic 2 GG is actually safe as its own article, it just needs a major (!) cleanup. It's almost an entirely different game (plot, levels, etc), unlike Sonic 1 GG. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Its been a while since I've played both games, but isn't Sonic 1 8 bit and 16 bit equally different from each other as Sonic 2 8 bit and 16 bit are? Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sonic 1 GG is more of a loose port of the Genesis version, adapted to the less powerful 8-bit system; it's easily recognizable as the original game, though. But Sonic 2 GG is more "Sonic 2 in Name Only". ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Combining mobile and handheld

Might make this template a bit smaller, since both are technically "handheld". Thoughts? JOEBRO64 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Do you mean rename the mobile group in the spin-off section as heldheld? They shouldn't be merged with the mainline handheld games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really think they should be merged either. Most of the redundancies are between console and handheld, not mobile and handheld. Also, conceptually, many of the handheld entries are significantly different than the mobile games (Paid platformers vs free to play endless runners, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Storybook series

  • Dissident93 - FYI, in regards to this, yes, the official name of the subseries is Storybook, (see the box art itself) but that being said, I didn't revert you because there was a consensus that it's not really worth splitting out that subsection when it only has 2 entries, and is unlikely to ever expand. (The second title was a critical and commercial bust.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I had heard of it before, but wasn't sure if it was just a fan nickname or not. That being said however, I do agree that it might not be helpful to have yet another group for just two games. Using that logic, we could have more subgroup series in the racing part with "Sonic Drift", "Sonic Riders", and "Sonic All-Stars Racing". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Agreed. However, that makes me wonder one thing. What criteria do we use to decide which subseries should be separated into their own groups? Notability? It doesn't seem to be the quantity of installments, as the Sonic Riders subseries has as many games as Sonic Boom, yet it's not listed in its own category. SonicManiac (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
        • While this editor has been blocked, to answer for future reference - it all comes down to context and prior discussions. In a general sense, with such a huge template, we don't want a ton of small subsections. So, it doesn't make sense subsections for Sonic Riders and Sonic Drift games when we can just consolidate both small series into a bigger "racing" section. We also try to future-proof things - Sega has indicated that Sonic Boom is going to be a separate, on-going entity, its been split into its own section, while the Storybook ones, once having their own subsection, had it merged in because Sega indicated that there aren't really any more planned entries coming. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'm the first one to make suggestions about splitting the Spin-off section into subsections (reference), the intention was to prevent a load of game titles from putting there without categorization. My original proposal was to group under "gameplay genres" so that games in the same genre can be referred together in one navigation row. However, as more platformer spin-offs are released, this categorization become ineffective. Although I'm not the one who split Sonic Boom series into a subsection, I quite like the results. --Explorer09 (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • If I were able to make rules, I would make the criteria for splitting spin-off titles under subsections, only if: (1) the original subsection was too long to navigate, i.e. it spans more than one line on a desktop/tablet computer display; (2) the sub-series (or genre) has 3 or more titles already, and SEGA is likely to release more titles for that. So, in these criteria, Sonic Riders is not ready to split into a subsection yet, but Mario and Sonic got its own subsection because there're too many titles already for the party game genre. --Explorer09 (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Mania and the "main series" debate

This debate has been discussed before with Sonic 3D Blast on why it is part of the Sonic main series and the answer was "A main series Sonic game is only eligible if it has an involvement with Sonic Team developing the game." Sonic Mania does NOT fall under that category. Any objections? Neverrainy (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, being developed by Sonic Team was a factor, yes, but there were a number of other things - how sources define it (for example, they frequently call Shadow the Hedgehog a spinoff, so we go with that) the game's genre, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm literally unsure - but I thought the concern about Sonic Mania was also about how much of the game was original content versus old/rehashed content. Do we have any idea on that now that its out? Regardless, I'm neutral at the moment, but I've read a number of articles with comments about "it being a return to form for the series" and "it having the highest metacritic" average in 10-15 years - it kind of sounds more like sources are treating it like a main series entry. I could be wrong though, I haven't looked into it that much yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I've yet to play the game myself and have been trying to avoid spoilers due to the PC delay, but a friend told me there are 12 total stages, and only 4 of them are completely original. Not sure if this would matter for its mainline status, but I'm pretty sure the majority of sources consider it one, so who are we to argue? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There is another Sonic game coming out this year called Sonic Forces, which is eligible for a main series entry as it's completely original and is entirely developed by Sonic Team with an original story line that continues on from Sonic Lost World. Sonic Mania doesn't really have a story and it does rehash old levels from other Sonic games and is considered more of a "compilation spin-off" entry than a main series entry. Review scores are not going to help confirm the fact that Sonic Mania is a main series entry as they're not very clear on the fact that is a main entry game or not because they're using words to trick you into thinking that. Neverrainy (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't so much the review scores themselves that is of value, it was more the point that they were discussing it in the context of other mainline series entries, as if they considered it one themselves. But it was just a passing thought, not meant to be hard evidence or anything. I guess we should start digging through previews and reviews and see what sources are generally calling it, as we should go by the label/classifications that reliable sources use when possible. It helped a lot with Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) years back - people had debated Shadow's status for years, but ever since a number of editors compiled a list of how many sources call it a spinoff, it really put the issue to rest. Sergecross73 msg me
I would lean towards main series, but I agree it's a tough call. Frankly, I think the essence of a "main series" is hard to define across Sonic history: 3D Blast and Labyrinth are debatable, Secret Rings and Black Knight seem much closer to Unleashed and Colors than Sonic 4, Generations and Mania are more of an homage to older games than a new entry in the series. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see sources calling out these games concretely as main or spin-off. Could there be better ways to organize the table? Full disclosure: I fell away from the series after Heroes so I'm only familiar at a high level with last 15 years of the series. TarkusABtalk 20:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's one of those things where restructures have been proposed in the past, but they never seem to gain a consensus to change. (It doesn't help that most end up being more convoluted than the current system.) Generations really hasn't been questioned much in the past though - and really, historically, being a rehash really hasn't been all that much of a deciding point. (No one truly proposes, even as devils advocate, that something like Sonic Jam be a mainline entry though, so it mostly hasn't been an issue.) I only threw that point out there because I think someone mentioned that when they moved Mania in the past, and I think so little was known about the game at the time, I didn't quite know how much of the game was original versus compilation to argue back. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there any more evidence to prove that Sonic Mania is either a main series entry or spin-off entry? It's been 2 months since its release now and I think it's a good time to revisit this. Neverrainy (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

From what I've read, it's still a bit hard to tell. As far as sources go in the most literal, direct sense, very few literally call it "main" or "spinoff", though, for obvious reasons, many articles spend a lot of time comparing it to the original mainline Sonic games on the Genesis. Reviews like this one from Game Informer really talk about it as if its a mainline series. And historically, games that are spinoffs, usually have sources stating as such. (Do a search for "Shadow the Hedgehog spinoff" and right away you get reliable sources like GamesRadar stating it outright. So, I'm leaning towards mainline, but it's not a strong support, its hard to say. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at other spin-offs in the series, they all either feature remarkably different gameplay from the main series, a side-character as a main character, or are explicitly labeled a side-series like Sonic Boom. Mania features typical action/platforming gameplay seen in the main series and most of the essential elements and characters. It is clearly comparable to the 90s era games, the Advance games, and Sonic 4, all of which are mainline. When paired with the fact that reliable sources are not calling it a spin-off, I believe mainline is the appropriate tag. TarkusABtalk 17:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Within the last month or so, there looks to be a number of argument related to consistency in inclusion of items in the template. It looks a number of editors (Times, Dissident, Joebro) have recently done some partial removals of titles, leading to questions about overall inclusion on the template. I'd usually do a deeper revert and discuss them all, but a number of the changes have intermittently been appropriate as well. (Removal of redirects like Tails Skypatrol, the inclusion of Chaotix for as long as that continues to exist as a stand alone article, etc.) So lets hash this out here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

To start with my thoughts:

  • Nights - Include - Sonic is playable in the game, and the game as close development ties to Sonic. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. If Sonic is playable in a game, that seems to be a very reasonable and non-arbitrary basis for inclusion here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ristar - Include - Again, close development ties with Sonic. Its also very small and take up very little space on the template, so removal does very little to unclutter this large template, which I assume would be the overall reason for trying to trim the template in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I would argue for removing that whole line of tangibly related games. There are more games that are missing like Rad Mobile (Sonic's first appearance) and Shenmue (in-game Sonic gashapon collectibles). TarkusABtalk 14:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Really? Most of the games there have Sonic as a playable character (Smash) and/or obvious strong ties (games like Sega All-Stars, which is pretty heavily based in the Sonic franchise.) I could see removing something like Flicky - the article is about the game, which has little connection to Sonic other than the bird character sometimes winds up in the background of Sonic games. Rad Mobile seems like a poor choice for inclusion, it's literally just a racing game that has a Sonic air-freshener in it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Removal of non-exclusive handheld games - I think it needs to be better defined before implementation, if implemented at all. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • If we're going to remove Colors et al., then we need to be consistent. Sonic 2 is obviously not a "handheld exclusive" game.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree. And that's why I was saying we needed to discuss this in better detail. The page history shows it looks like JoeBro made that choice without any discussion or inclusion criteria/plan for the future, as far as I can tell. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

I suggest you include "sonic colors", "sonic generations" and "sonic lost world" in "handheld main series games" because they have handheld versions and are part of the main series as well. 173.179.241.58 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

They were not the primary versions of the game, and were removed for being redundant. The handheld section should only be used for handheld-only games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Technically, they were one of the moves Joebro made without any discussion, and caused issues mentioned on the discussion above. There's a valid argument to restore them. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 Not done. This discussion already happened and the current version is in place accordingly. CityOfSilver 20:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
This is fundamentally incorrect. Not an accurate summation of what happened. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Could SegaSonic the Hedgehog be considered a mainline entry?

I've been doing a bit more research on SegaSonic the Hedgehog lately, and I've noticed with the criteria here, it could be considered a mainline entry. I'm not too sure, though, so I'm seeking other opinions. Here's my observations:

  1. "The game references other games directly before or later games make reference to it". Sonic Generations references the game (as an easter egg, but still a reference), and Mighty and Ray (both from the game) are playable in Sonic Mania Plus.
  2. "The game does not have "odd gameplay" for a Sonic game". SegaSonic the Hedgehog plays pretty similarly to other games—it actually plays much closer to traditional Sonic gameplay than Sonic 3D Blast, which is also isometric (I still consider 3D a main entry since it still maintains most traditional elements and doesn't go in Sonic Chronicles territory). I guess it could be argued the trackball makes it odd, but if you controlled Sonic Adventure with a trackball it would still play exactly the same, in my opinion.
  3. "Sonic is the main character or a prominent playable character in the game". Yep.
  4. "The plot ties in with other games". Well, no, but no other game references Sonic Blast, 3D Blast, or Sonic Pocket Adventure, which are listed as mainline (maybe we should remove this requirement entirely, because Sonic games aren't plot-based).
  5. "SEGA or other developers have not explicitly designated the game as being outside the main series". No, actually. The other SegaSonic games are clearly spin-offs, but I've looked around and, from what I can tell, no reliable sources say SegaSonic the Hedgehog a spin-off, nor does Sega.

JOEBRO64 19:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  1. Those are extremely weak examples. One is an extremely minor easter egg, and the other is basis on...having recurring characters being present? That sort of argument would include almost any game ever created.
  2. 3 player trackball arcade game is extremely "odd gameplay".
  3. This one is true.
  4. No, and probably the least important aspect anyways. This hasn't been a factor in any of the discussions in recent year, nor do I feel it should have ever been really.
  5. No one calls it a spinoff because no one really calls it anything due to its extreme rarity. Also, in any game series, you'll noticed that it's much more rare for sources to call a game "main" or "spinoff" when there's very few entries in existence yet. In 1993, there was hardly any titles at all, let alone subseries.
Overall, I'm very Oposed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
While I get what you're saying, you control three characters in Sonic Heroes, so I don't see how it's "extremely" odd. JOEBRO64 20:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
My point is that most Sonic games don't allow for 3 player multiplayer. Also, more emphasis on the extremely rare "trackball controls" and "arcade" parts. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it being and arcade game controlled with a track ball is far enough out there to disqualify it for mainline. I also would like to point out the gameplay being more like a straightforward gauntlet and lacking the exploration elements common in other Sonic games. TarkusABtalk 21:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Serge. Does even a single source consider it a main entry in the series? It's a textbook spin-off. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Uh, no it's not, but whatever. JOEBRO64 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

Add Super Smash Bros. Ultimate to Related >> Videogames Ddraco12 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

8-bit Sonic 1 and 2

Are these really considered mainline titles? You almost never see them mentioned alongside the other "classic era" Sonic games, so I personally don't see them as anything more than spinoffs that only happen to be included in the main series grouping due to their namesake. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, they’re not really spinoffs, they play almost exactly the same as their Genesis counterparts. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
But so does Sonic Chaos. I don't think the gameplay is in question here, just its relation to being considered a main series game by the media. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
They’re numbered entries in a series with the exact name as the series itself, with no discernible difference between other numbered entries in the series. Its not “spinning off” of anything by definition of the concept. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, Sonic Chaos is also considered a mainline entry, and I think has been for as long as I can remember, so I’m not sure what you’re driving at there either. Chaos used to be in the handheld section until the end of 2017, but it was still in the main series, where it belongs. It does seem like it’d be better suited for handheld though, they’re more widely released and known as Game Gear games Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We must have different definitions of "mainline" then, because I personally don't consider these games (do sources?) to be on the same level as Sonic 1, 2, and 3. But either way, I think listing these 8-bit games in the handheld section would just look the cleanest. I think somebody argued against that in the past because they both have Master System versions, but Sonic 1 8-bit released for the Game Gear first, and Sonic 2 8-bit only released for the Master System in a single region (PAL), making the Game Gear version the one with more official support. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the part related to listing them in the handheld section. They’re much more associated to the GG than the SMS. Sergecross73 msg me 22:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I do consider the 8-bit platformers mainline entries, but they should be moved to handheld because the SMS versions weren't the primary versions of the games (Triple Trouble wasn't even released for it and Blast was only released on it in Brazil). Each is a traditional Sonic platformer (Sonic is the primary character and they don't have tethering mechanics, guns, or swearing :P) and they were all released to coincide with a Genesis Sonic game. JOEBRO64 00:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The way you’ve changed it declutters it a bit too. I support it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Storybook games

Are these really considered spinoffs? They're developed by Sonic Team and are (more or less) traditional platformers with Sonic as the main character. As I'm currently researching Black Knight, I've noticed that sources (both primary and secondary) don't actually label them spinoffs, just a subseries, and seemed to treat them the way they do with other mainline games. Adventure, Advance, and Rush are also subseries but are considered mainline games. JOEBRO64 01:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources do call them a spinoff series. For example:
And while Secret Rings is pretty similar, all the sword-fighting stuff on Black Knight makes it a bit different from most of the platform games. And characters being different...other fictional characters in classic literature...is pretty different...from any other games in the series. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New game

Just wanted to let template watchers know I've started a draft for the new game, so we can build it until enough details exist for a separate article. JOEBRO64 19:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice. I’ve got it watchlisted. I’ll add anything I read on it if you don’t beat me to it first. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
So little is known that I don't even see the point in starting a draft now, but I guess it doesn't hurt anything either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

it seems a little early to already have an article for the next game when literally know next to nothing about it. Bill cage (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's why it's in draftspace. JOEBRO64 17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
ah i see. so i assume you plan on continuing the article once new information arrives? Bill cage (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll be moved to mainspace when there's more, like a title and a release date. JOEBRO64 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
And virtually anything is okay for the WP:DRAFT space as long as it’s working towards something with potential to be a notable article someday. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sonic 4

not techinacly about the template itself, but should'nt sonic 4 episode 1 and 2 be just one article? Bill cage (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't really oppose merging them into a single article. I think they were split back then when a third episode was still expected/likely. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I’d be opposed. Despite the name, they’re both fully-fledged games, complete with different art styles and mechanics. I think if they just would have named the second one “Sonic 5” or something, it wouldn’t even be a discussion point really... Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Right, but I'm just saying that a properly merged article could exist without much issue. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

well, 4 levels is'nt exactly a fully fledged game. and if were going by that logic, then shouldn't episode metal also be it's own article? Bill cage (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I'd support a merger. IMO the games aren't really that distinct enough to have separate articles, and it'd be better to have one bigger article rather than two smaller ones. Episode II had updated graphics, Tails, and different special stages, sure, but those are minor if you ask me. JOEBRO64 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • great! now uh, how exactly is an article merged? Bill cage (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Hold your horses! We still need to gain consensus via a merger discussion. We'll need to open it at one of the Sonic 4 talk pages. JOEBRO64 01:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

wait....articles have their own talk pages? Bill cage (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Did you think templates had them but articles didn’t? Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sonic 3D

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but doesn't the game fail to meet some of the "Main series" inclusion criteria? Specifically, conditions 1 (it doesn't reference previous games nor is referenced by later games), 4 (the plot has no ties with other games), and arguably 2 (Flicky collecting being the main focus, by contrast with other mainline games). -- Bluest Bird (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t have to do with the plot, which is not really a focus of the series, but rather that, like most core Sonic games, it’s focused around platforming and item collection. And it had development input from Sonic Team. And most people who have argued otherwise were traced back to just being alternate accounts of the same person... Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The template documentation currently states that a game's plot does have to tie in with other games for it to be part of the main series. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
So? Sonic is not a plot-driven game. I mean, it has more plot than your average Mario platformer, sure, but they all basically boil down to Eggman doing something and Sonic intervening. 3D Blast is a platformer, Sega has never explicitly said it's a spin-off, and it was Sonic Team's idea, so I don't really see a compelling reason not to call it a main series game. JOEBRO64 00:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The documentation needs updating according to more recent discussions. The template also mentions that Shadow the Hedgehog would be considered a main series game, where there was a very strong consensus to call it a spinoff in more recent discussions. Story hasn’t been used as and argument in any recent discussions. Nor should it. Per WP:INU and WP:WAF, we shouldn’t generally write from an in-universe perspective. Which would include organizing according to fictional story content like that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. In that case, what would be the criteria we're currently going by? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Generally, it’s based around
  1. Is Sonic a primary playable character?
  2. Is the gameplay focus generally around the Sonic gameplay - platforming, exploring levels, item collection, etc?
  3. Do sources generally designate it as Spinoff or Mainline?
  4. Other factors, such as if Sonic Team was involved with it development, may also factor in. Sergecross73 msg me 10:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that having a focus on speed should be considered a requirement. I mean, that's what the series is known for for pity's sake.
Going back to Sonic 3D, wouldn't the fact it was developed by Traveller's Tales suggest it's a spinoff? Or the fact that unlike every other mainline game, the whole game is centered on item collecting, uses an isometric perspective, and lacks the focus on speed? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Something as subjective as “speed” doesn’t make for good inclusion criteria. It’s too vague. In this context, how would it be measured? What would cut off points be for “fast” and “not fast enough”. It wouldn’t work in practice. As far as Sonic 3D Blast goes, it still has all the staples of a mainline Sonic games. There’s platforming. Running through levels. Item collecting. A life system based around having/not having rings. Enemies that are jumped on or spun through. Big bosses to take on after clearing levels. The only difference is the camera at a different perspective. We don’t classify between 2D and 3D, so I’m not sure why we would here with isometric either. And while Travelers Tales programmer it, the design documents were created by Sonic Team, as we’re done if it’s special stages. The differences are splitting hairs. Sergecross73 msg me 10:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
How about something like this: if at least one third of the game's levels can be cleared by running to the goal, it can be said that the game puts a focus on speed.
Back to Sonic 3D. There are a number of spin-offs that have most of those elements, though. Chaotix, Shadow, Sonic Boom, the Storybook series. Most of those examples were confirmed to be spin-offs, but what about Chaotix? Does that make it a main game?
I wouldn't say Sonic 3D plays like a mainline game. Can you name another main game that revolves around item collecting, as opposed to having it as just one of its aspects? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
These criteria are ridiculous. You expect editors to map out percentages of gameplay aspects of levels before placing games on the template? That would be a argument and maintenance nightmare. You need to change your approach. You need to come up with workable and practical criteria to be applied to all games, not just try to devise ways to move particular games like Blast to your chosen spot on the template. Anyways, the current criteria take care of all of those games. Knuckles and Shadow are spinoffs because you don’t play as Sonic, the title character, one of the standards. Boom are Storybook are literally called Spinoffs by Sega. Sergecross73 msg me 11:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The Genesis required the collection of emeralds to see the true endings and/or play final levels/bosses. The emerald collecting required ring collection as well. The Sonic Adventure 2 required emblem collection to play the remade Green Hill Zone. And item collection was required for progression in the Chao related stuff as well. Various modern Sonic games required collection of red rings to unlock content. Required item collection has always been a centerpiece of the series. Arguing about the “degrees of required-ness” or the fact that this one involves digital birdies, is again getting to splitting hairs territory. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about the Sonic being a primary character rule.
Those examples still didn't revolve around collecting. You could ignore the collecting for the most part and still clear the story in those games. If you say that arguing about the "degrees of required-ness" is splitting hairs, then would you label Super Mario Bros. as a collect-a-thon because it had coins and powerups that could be collected? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
So, do you still have a problem with my labeling of Sonic 3D as a spin-off with unconventional gameplay based on its greater focus on collecting? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course I do. I just didn’t bother responding to your irrelevant example about Mario and collectathons. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
So you just ignore people's questions when you think they're irrelevant, not even bothering with a reply to tell them that you feel like that? That's not very polite you know, I would expect better from an admin. If I asked a seemingly irrelevant question, it was obviously done for the sake of the argument. I could alter the question to apply to a Sonic game if you prefer: Would you call Sonic 1 a collect-a-thon? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I already addressed the crux of your argument though. As I already stated, the core Sonic games have always revolved around item collections, and trying to get into little details like "degree of required-ness of collecting items" minutiae is getting into splitting hairs territory, and all you're doing is trying to force us down that road with questions like that. Furthermore, it does not matter what I, or anyone else, calls a "collectathon". Wikipedia doesn't even acknowledge that as a genre. Or a thing at all. It's irrelevant. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
That's the thing, core Sonic games have never revolved around item collecting, any more than they revolved around the bosses. The collecting was just one aspect, just like the boss fights, not the central focus.
You say that it's splitting hairs, but it's really not, when what you call "degree of required-ness" determines the way the game plays on a fundamental level and dictates its genre classification. Would you say that Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 revolved around kart racing (as they had kart sections) and were thus racing games? Or would you say that they're digital pet games because they had Chao raising as an optional activity?
Sonic Forces didn't even have the Chaos Emerald collecting. Does that mean it's not a core game? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
No, because Forces includes playing as Sonic, as a platformer, collecting rings, etc etc. You seem to have a really hard time looking at the big picture here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting that publishers rarely need to clarify that a certain game is a spin-off unless it isn't obvious. For instance, Sonic and the Secret Rings and Sonic and the Black Knight could easily be called mainline entries, except that Sega has explicitly identified them as part of the Sonic Storybook subseries and not the main series. 3D Blast isn't obviously a spin-off (it was a major game in the series and stars Sonic himself), so if it were a spin-off, Sega would need to clarify that. Yet they never have, so it's a mainline entry. It's as simple as that. JOEBRO64 20:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Same with the Sonic Boom games, they were clearly outlined as spinoffs too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
SegaSonic the Hedgehog, Sonic Rivals, Sonic Jam (game.com), Sonic the Hedgehog (2001 Sonic Cafe game) and Sonic X (Leapster game) are also platformers where you play as Sonic and collect rings. So are they core games too?
If Sonic 3D is so obviously a core game, then why do most Sonic fans consider it a spin-off? This is literally the only place in the web where I've seen people call it a mainline game. Most Sonic fans I know deem it a spin-off based on its isometric gameplay and greater focus on item collecting, elements that set it apart from your standard Sonic game and this place chooses to ignore for some reason. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
1. SegaSonic is an obscure arcade game that Sega rarely acknowledges even exists. If it was a mainline entry in the series, it'd probably be on every modern platform and continually referenced in new games.
2. Sonic Rivals has been called a spin-off and isn't a true platformer. It's a side-scrolling racing game.
3. Sonic Jam is a compilation of existing Sonic games. Not a true entry.
4. That's also an obscure game that Sega rarely acknowledges even exists. It's hardly even a game at all; it was a minigame released on a short-lived mobile game service.
5. Sonic X is part of a spin-off franchise and is an educational game. All the other educational Sonic games are spin-offs as well.
This is getting to the point of WP:IDHT. "Most other Sonic fans consider it a spin-off"? That's your personal interpretation. Also, notice how most, if not all the games you mentioned (A) are obscure games that most people aren't even aware exist and (B) aren't true platformers. 3D Blast is (A) pretty well-known since it was treated as a mainline Sonic title by Sega and (B) a traditional Sonic platformer, sans Flicky collecting. In fact, if there wasn't Flicky collecting I doubt this would even be a debate. JOEBRO64 01:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
1.Sonic '06 was never ported to later systems, and was even de-listed by Sega. Doesn't make it a spin-off.
3.I said Sonic Jam (game.com). A whole different game.
4 and 5.The inclusion criteria makes no mention of your reasoning for excluding them.
You saying that "Sonic 3D isn't obviously a spin-off" is just your personal interpretation. That's why I brought up the common fan view on the game. Sonic 3D being obviously a core game is just your opinion, not a universal view. I would even say that it's a minority view from my experience.
As for Sonic 3D being treated as a core title by Sega, the fact it was delayed for 3 years in Japan and the Genesis and Windows versions weren't even released there says otherwise. There's also the fact that none of its levels appeared in Generations, Mania or Forces, when every other classic era game listed in the console mainline section got at least one level represented in them. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Sonic '06 is still treated by Sega as a mainline game. Sonic Jam for the game.com is still just a (very dumbed down) port of existing Sonic games. 4 and 5 aren't really platformers. And it not being released in Japan has nothing to do with it being a mainline game. The Genesis was dead in Japan at the time and the Saturn was doing fine, so Sega didn't see a need for it at the time. I'm pretty sure that's not the only time it's happened. In fact, the same argument about the Japanese release came up during the last discussion about this, and all the accounts arguing that 3D Blast was a spin-off turned out to be run by the same guy. I'm starting to feel like this is where this discussion is heading again. JOEBRO64 01:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
So why did they delay the Saturn version in Japan? The Saturn was doing well there, better than in the rest of the world. And no, I'm pretty sure no other mainline Sonic game was delayed for nearly three years. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I went through the archives, so I'm well-versed on the arguments used by both sides. And I only mentioned the Japanese releases because you claimed that Sega treated Sonic 3D as mainline.
So let me ask, in what way did Sega treat Sonic 3D as a core game? You claimed that Sega did but provided nothing to back this claim. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
It’s a comment back or so now, but to clarify, “it’s what fans say” is absolutely not a valid argument on Wikipedia, full stop. That stuff is going to violate all sorts of things - WP:USERG, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. Trying to go down that road just shows your inexperience and lack of understanding in how Wikipedia works. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, I only brought that up because JOEBRO64 claimed that Sonic 3D is obviously a mainline title, as if that were a universal view. I wasn't implying that it should be treated as an argument for it being a spin-off. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe his point, as has mine been, is that Sega has not called it a spinoff. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure his point was that Sonic 3D isn't obviously a spin-off, and that Sega treated it as mainline. So I contested that it not being obviously a spin-off is just his personal view, and asked him to back his claim about Sega treating it as a core title. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The evidence that they treated it as a core title is that they didn’t call it a spinoff. Unlike other platform games, like the storybook series, Boom, etc, where they clearly described it as a spinoff. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I mentioned a number of platformers that were never called spin-offs by Sega yet are treated as such. Most of these examples haven't been discredited yet. Sorry JOEBRO64, 4 and 5 are by definition platformers. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
It is in cases like this, when phrases like “main series” are rarely used. And there haven’t been any discussions about these weird obscure entries in the past. But they still have no bearing on 3D Blast. If you’ve somehow got a good-faith argument as to why some obscure edutainment game should be considered a mainline game, then please start a separate discussion up about getting it moved. (Be mindful of WP:POINT too though, which you’re already starting to veer into.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for that. Before starting a separate discussion for some of the titles mentioned, however, I would like to make sure that we're on the same page regarding the mainline criteria. Should the points you mentioned above be treated as the current and only inclusion criteria? Or would it be better for people to further discuss it and reach a consensus before updating the points in the Template documentation? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, its been in effect for years, and outside of you making every effort to move 3D Blast, there’s very little in the way of any actual disputes or problems in handling it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Going back to Sonic 3D. You said that I fail to see the big picture. I say the same to you. You've been arguing that since all core Sonic games have collecting to some extent, the fact that Sonic 3D puts a greater focus on it isn't enough to set it apart from other games. But I would counter that you're going by a technicality and ignoring that this significantly changes the way its levels play on a fundamental level, especially compared to core games. "Get to the goal" and "collect all birds in this level" are two wholly different objectives and play styles. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You’re cherry-picking though, the games aren’t just that. Compare 3D Blast to any of the other Genesis mainline games. They’re all controlling Sonic, maneuvering him to run through levels, platforming, collecting rings, defeating enemies through jumping on them or using the spin move, collecting rings because of a life system of dying if you’re hit without them, collecting them for the ability to play special/bonus stages, needing to defeat at least a boss per level, collecting emeralds beng required to see the true ending. And they all require you to run to the end point of the level. The fact that one of them requires the player to find some birds throughout the level is but a minor difference in the overall scheme of things. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Is it really cherry-picking when these "get to the goal" objectives make up the majority of the game in the other titles listed in Main series?
Sure, the game has the same general structure and common elements as core games, but so do many spin-offs. So we know that these elements aren't enough to qualify as mainline. Sonic Rivals has them too, but is a spin-off, as the fact it replaced the "get to the goal" objective with "beat your opponent to the goal" disqualifies it as a core title. By the same token, wouldn't Sonic 3D be a spin-off? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know any other ways to say “stop proposing things that neither you nor anyone else in good faith believe in an effort to make a point about a viewpoint you’re trying to push”. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to read my reply again. I'm not arguing against Rivals being a spin-off, nor am I trying to start a debate on its status. I'm going by the current stance on it being a spin-off and comparing it to Sonic 3D in order to support my point, in the same way that you compared S3D to various core games to support you stance on it being mainline. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I understood you just fine. You’re taking something that no one is debating (Rivals) and attempting to use it as a reason to push your POV on 3D Blast. Sergecross73 msg me 04:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
How is that any different from you drawing comparisons to other core games? And how did I propose something that I don't believe in? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that Rivals should be a mainline game? Sergecross73 msg me 04:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
No I don't, nor did I that imply it should be in my previous response. Like I said, read my response again. I said that Rivals is a spin-off despite having all those elements that mainline games have, with the only thing setting it apart from core games being the fact that it replaced the "get to the goal" objective with "beat your opponent to the goal". So, since that's enough to make it a spin-off, Sonic 3D --another game that replaced the "get to the goal" objective with something else-- is also a spin-off by the same logic. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
If you're still confused, I'm not saying that Rivals should be moved to Main games. I'm saying that Rivals shows that replacing the "get to the goal" objective with something else in all levels is enough for a game to be deemed a spin-off. So, since Sonic 3D did the exactly same thing, it's also a spin-off. It's inconsistent to treat it as a core game. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, I hear you loud and clear. It is exactly as I just said. No one has any concerns about Rivals, and yet you’re trying to use it as a reason to change how we classify 3D Blast. I mean, you, unprovoked, started talking about Rivals in the section about 3D Blast. It’s pretty clear cut. Sergecross73 msg me 05:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, you did the same thing, bringing Sonic Adventure 2 into the discussion about Sonic 3D and comparing the two games in order to back your stance. I still fail to see how what I did was any different. I wasn't trying to start a debate about Rivals any more than you were trying to start one about SA2.
In fact, you had made another comparison just before I posted the response about Rivals. You basically said "Compare S3D to the Genesis games. They're like it in that they have similar elements and structure, and they're mainline", so I responded "Compare it to Rivals. It's closer to S3D than the games you mentioned in that it also has those elements but it replaced the levels' main objective with something else, and it's a spin-off". Don't see how you could get that I was trying to divert the discussion or argue in favor of Rivals being mainline from that. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, earlier in the very same day, you were asking why Rivals and some edutainment/Leapster/Sonic X games weren’t mainline... Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
When I asked that, I was trying to say that the inclusion criteria was too broad. Afterwards I apologized for it and moved to the "Suggestion on main series inclusion criteria" section for discussing the inclusion criteria more directly, while better wording my comment so that didn't sound like I was trying to push for bad faith changes. I decidedly wasn't trying to debate Rivals' placement in my later response to you. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion on main series inclusion criteria

Here is my suggestion on the inclusion criteria for main series:

1. The game must have a console release or handheld release or both. (Otherwise it's difficult to put the title in either of the table row. E.g. SegaSonic the Hedgehog is an arcade exclusive title and have to be excluded.)

2. The game must feature platforming as primary gameplay.

3. The game must feature Sonic as a primary playable character. (Most game websites and media use this criterion for Sonic games already. Any title that does not feature Sonic would be considered a spin-off. E.g. Knuckles' Chaotix, Shadow the Hedgehog)

4. The game must be published by Sega. (This is quite obvious but mentioned here for completeness. Currently there is no Sonic platformer title published by a "licensed third-party" and it would be unlikely in the future.)

5. Sega and the developers did not announce it as a spin-off title in any way. (Spin-off story, "alternate universe", "sub-series", etc.)

Yes, unlike Mario, Sonic games tend to have a linked story line and titles are not completely "standalone" in terms of story canon, but using the story as an inclusion criterion would generate a lot of debate in Wikipedia and would miss the points. Instead of discussing on the story, I think Sega's official statement would be more reliable. If Sega did not say it's a spin-off, and it meets other criteria, we may just assume it's a main. This would make discussion easier. --Explorer09 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean, you’re not wrong, but most of this is either pretty similar to what we’re already using, or unnecessary to add. #4 for example - all Sonic games are published by Sega, and no one is trying to add fan games to the main series template, so it doesn’t especially need to be stated. Nor does #1 - as weird as it would be, if Sega made the next Sonic game PC or Google Stadia exclusive, wed likely rearrange things, not keep it off because it’s not on a console. While it’s generally good to create thorough inclusion criteria, we don’t need to create conditions for situations that aren’t ever a point of contention. My list above covers most of the common areas of debate. Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read your argument when I write mine, but in the current template documentation there is a lot of subjective points, and I have seen numerous debates on this template already. I just wish to finish the debate once and for all if we update the doc for a more objective set of criteria. Sonic 3D, SegaSonic the Hedgehog, Sonic Mania are the key debate points. --Explorer09 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
* Sonic 3D - Plot not strongly tied to other Sonic games; some consider isometric platformer as "odd gameplay".
* SegaSonic the Hedgehog - Ray and Mighty are only reintroduced recently, in Sonic Mania, so the characters now became canon and this brings the argument on whether this should become main (through retcon).
* Sonic Mania - Not developed by Sonic Team; was originally meant to be a fan game but became official later.
Explorer09 (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Skim through the talk pages. Most of these have been resolved relatively quickly and easily with what we’ve been using. Prior to this discussion, there wasn’t a single discussion/dispute in the last 6 months. That’s not exactly the sign of a template with organization issues. Sergecross73 msg me 11:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, that this template is currently organized well enough. My point is the "main series inclusion criteria" needs some clarification. --118.163.30.15 (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to elaborate, but also be aware of WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET. The last time this talk page was inactive for 6 months, and then all of a sudden all of these accounts came out of long bouts of inactivity to talk on the same days on the same viewpoint, it was discovered that it was all the same person/people. I can’t help but get the same vibe here now... Sergecross73 msg me 10:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the current inclusion criteria is too broad. Going by it, wouldn't Sonic Jump and Sonic Runners be considered mainline games? They feature Sonic as a primary playable character, have elements common to core games like platforming, item collecting, etc., and the latter was even developed by Sonic Team. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I really think people are thinking too hard about this. Would even the most rabid Sonic fan consider either of those a main series game? There are only a few games in the series (mainly Sonic 3D) that are really debatable. But in those cases, we just need a common sense consensus and not one by following a strict five point guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. We just need the inclusion criteria to work for realistic concerns, we don’t need to factor in every single unlikely scenario that no one is seriously proposing. The current criteria have handled virtually every actual, good faith situation of the last few years just fine. It doesn’t need to work for every bad faith hypothetical being thrown out there... Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

5.45.132.211 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Move "Shadow the Hedgehog" from "Spin-Offs" to "Main Series" (between Heroes and 2006). The game, while not starring Sonic, is not a spin-off. It is a main series title that concludes the story arc from Adventure 2 and Heroes. It's developed by Sonic Team and is in every way (story, gameplay, concepts) an evolution to Heroes and precursor to 2006. Calling it a spin-off is misleading as anyone going through the main series would be missing a significant entry from both a gameplay and story perspective to skip this. Furthermore, since Adventure, Heroes, and 2006 featured a large cast of characters and less emphasis on Sonic, him being only a supporting character here does not make it any less of a main series entry. Though the series is named after Sonic, there's never been a rule that a title character must appear in a series for it to be a main series title. We consider Zelda games where Zelda does not appear to be main titles. Metal Gear Solid 2 isn't a spin-off because you don't play as Snake. The arguments to consider Shadow a spin-off are ridiculous. 24.228.93.130 (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Currently Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) lists the game as a spin-off. Achieve consensus there first. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You’re only addressing some of the reasons why it’s considered a spinoff. A major one, is that reliable third party sources commonly call it one. Per the rules and policies of Wikipedia (like (WP:V), that’s the sort of thing we need to adhere to. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fan game template

I believe this has been suggested? I’d support it. The template is huge and that really would be the best thing to strip away. TheJoebro64. Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, yeah, this is what I was thinking. It'd be small but I think it'd have enough articles to meet the standards for a standalone template. JOEBRO64 23:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I’d be fine with that. There’s probably a few we’ve cut due to size reasons we could re-add to it too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sonic 3D Blast redux

This is the exact same conversation we've had like ten times by now. No new points or compelling arguments have been brought up. JOEBRO64 17:56, 2 February 2021 (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.

Regarding the game's categorization, it seems its isometric formula was specifically chosen to set it apart from the core games: "Given that the production of Sega’s forthcoming Sonic title was being outsourced, a decision was made to give the project an isometric rather than side-on viewpoint in order to distinguish it from Sega’s core Sonic The Hedgehog games, as Sato discloses."

Source: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/retro-gamer/20180712/281578061413865 Endianer (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Distinguish", in this context, sounds more like they just didn't want to make it redundant to prior entries. Much in the same way spraying water in Super Mario Sunshine sets it apart from the rest of the Super Mario series. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Fascinating read though. I don't think I've ever read that they tried to do a 2 player mode, or that they tried playable loops. I'll add it to its articles talk page to be added. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually it says that they wanted it to be different because it was made by TT, not because of fear it would be redundant to previous games: "I think Sonic Team wanted something different from the standard Sonic 2D platform game because they were using a new development team: Traveller’s Tales."
It sounds like they didn't want it to be grouped with their core games. Endianer (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ehhh I think you're extrapolating a little more than what they're actually saying there. And I think it's telling that the article doesn't use the term "spinoff" at any point. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
What part of my interpretation was extrapolating? The quote I posted specifically said that they did it "because they were using a new development team: Traveller’s Tales".
They use the term "core Sonic The Hedgehog games" to refer to the Sega-developed entries, which they specifically wanted 3D Blast to be different from. Isn't the whole criteria for a game being a spin-off based on the fact that it's different from the core games? Endianer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, distinguish =/= spin-off. Super Mario Sunshine uses water spraying as a way to distinguish it from the rest of the series. That doesn't make it a spin-off. I'm a little confused as to what revelation you think you uncovered here. Did you think we've been waiting for decades on a source to reveal it to be an isometric title programmed by Travekers Tales? Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 2 February 2021 (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.

Compilations

The compilation section was removed as covered by Template:Sega video game compilations, but I think they should be restored. One, it aids navigation; I was wondering where the devil Sonic Jam was just now. Two, the articles themselves still have the templates, though this is easily surmountable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

As the remover, I don't think it should be restored. This template is already massive and if there's another template that easily suffices, we should use that instead. JOEBRO64 01:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
We should really split the navbox, maybe then it could return. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
We've discussed splitting the unofficial media off into its own template in the past. I could also get behind splitting the non-video game media (printed, movies, and animation) into its own template. We could use Template:Mario franchise as a model. (Though I still don't think the compilations should be added because, again, Template:Sega video game compilations covers them) JOEBRO64 21:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how "it's covered by another template" applies, nor have I ever heard of this. I couldn't find anything on overlapping navboxes at WP:NAVBOX or WP:NAV, unless there's something I'm missing (such as another page that discusses this). (Contrast, say, WP:OC, especially WP:OVERLAPCAT.) I'm pretty sure, however, this sort of thing happens frequently and uncontroversially; look at Template:Toy Story and Template:Pixar, for instance - all of the Toy Story films are listed in the first row of both templates, but no one's calling that setup redundant. The goal is to serve the WP:READER, and in my capacity as a reader, I want to able to go from this game about Sonic to that game about Sonic. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2022

The game Tails' Skypatrol is listed twice on this template. Once in Spin-offs > Platformers > Other, and once more in Spin-offs > Other. One should be removed because of duplication. I like the look of its placement beside Tails Adventure alongside Knuckles Chaotix and Shadow the Hedgehog; having a grouping of games starring Sonic's other heroic characters together makes sense. 107.190.8.16 (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Already done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Freedom Planet's inclusion

On some level I do understand why the game is included in the template as it may be of interest to those familiar with the Sonic series. However, I'm concerned about the precedent this is setting for games of a similar nature. Spark the Electric Jester, though it hasn't received as much media coverage, is similar to Freedom Planet in inspiration and isn't listed. I am a major contributor to Spark's article but I really am impartial to its inclusion and am raising this concern in good faith. Freedom Planet 2 is also slated for release later this year and will no doubt receive Wikipedia coverage. What does Freedom Planet's inclusion mean for these titles and any other potential Sonic inspired games? LBWP (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Freedom Planet is here because it began as a Sonic fangame, unlike Spark. JOEBRO64 12:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I've always been against the fan games listed, Freedom Planet included, just because if the already massive size of the template with all the official Sonic stuff listed. But I believe I've been out-voted in the past. Seems like there was a little traction for making a separate "Sonic Fan Game" template, which I'd also support. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah based on my understanding of the template guidelines, the characters, other media, and unofficial media sections have enough content to be split into their own templates. I could draft up some templates in a sandbox to see how they would look if split. JOEBRO64 14:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't remember the alphabet-soup link to it at the moment, but I think there being 5 linked items is considered enough to warrant a template. And there's got to be at least that many out there. Freedom Planet and Somari come to mind. EDIT: Yeah, there's like 5-6 on the template right now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I've drafted up some split templates JOEBRO64 14:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay after having conducted some more research on the topic it turns out that Spark is powered by a fanmade engine named Sonic Worlds, the same one that Freedom Planet was created with. It didn't necessarily begin as a Sonic fangame but it was heavily inspired by and coded atop Sonic fangames like After the Sequel. It's strongly rooted in the fangame scene, and I'd argue it's relevant in the same way that Freedom Planet is. LBWP (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I got back to splitting up the template and here's what they'd all look like. Any opposition to mainspacing the split? JOEBRO64 19:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I like it. Fully support it. It's only going to get bigger over time anyways, so I think this is a good option. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the template now, the Mario & Sonic games could probably be split into their own template too. There are six games (more than enough to justify a separate template) and it's more or less it's own thing rather than a spin-off from the main series. JOEBRO64 14:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog/Archive_4&oldid=1204162228"