Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog/Archive 1

Sonic Pinball Party Chronology?
Thanks for the chronology, people! That really came in handy. But where does Sonic Pinball Party fit in?

It wouldn't fit in anywhere, there is no storyline that would continue/advance the series, it is just a game, released by SEGA for "the fun of it." Tails0600 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for Sonic Pinball Party states that: "Sonic Pinball Party takes place before Sonic Heroes, as Metal Sonic still works for Dr. Eggman." Can anyone confirm or refute this? BTW, how do I sign my comments like I am supposed to? 205.250.222.77 08:32 25 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I don't think Metal Sonic does work for Eggman, I mean, in Sonic Heroes, he defied his master, and took plans into his own hands (or claws). But, always something to look into.  And to sign your name, you'll type four tildes (They look like this: ~), or there is a squiggly button above. Don't worry, when you start talking more, you'll remember. In the meantime, I'll add your signiture for you. Tails0600 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonic's Name
Shouldn't it be Sonic the Hedgehog? (note the capital T) I read that "The" was his middle name


 * No, Sonics full name offically has never been discosed by SEGA itself. The only time Sonic's been given an actual name is in the Archie comics and that name in it self is not considered cannon. Jennytablina 10:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anime/Movie References
Should there be a page about all the Anime and Movie references in Sonic games. Sonic's ability to turn into a faster, yellow "Super Sonic" mirrors the Super Saiyan ideas from Dragonball Z. The Death Egg seems to be directly ripped from Star Wars. Knuckles' Angel Island's ability to float also seems to be borrowed from Laputa: Castle in the Sky.87th 18:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We know the Super Sonic idea is in fact a homage to Dragonball Z but the other References cant really be confirmed. Jennytablina 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? The Death Egg/Star seems extremely obvious. 87th 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chronological order of Sonic Games
Should the chronological order of the Sonic Games be displayed somewhere in the article? I read somewhere that the games' stories are not in order of release. Perhaps someone could clear it up. Rim-Fire 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There isnt much story to speak of, besides this the newer games are in order, the only place the timeline gets confusing is around the Mega Drive, Game Gear and Master System releases. Though no offical time line has even been given by SEGA Jennytablina 09:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How can Sonic Rush be canon? If it was, it would contradict the events of both Sonic the Hedgehog on Playstation 3 and X-Box 360(in Sonic the Hedgehog, Blaze is from the future, not from an alternate world) and Sonic Rivals(in Sonic Rivals, Eggman Nega is also from the future, not from an alternate world).Michael Mad 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Since time was restarted AND altered in SONIC the Hedgehog, Blaze never knew Sonic. Eggman Nega travels to the past to conquer it, which makes sense since it is basically what he does in Sonic Rivals. Blaze goes with him, and sees a world so radically different, she thinks it's a new dimension. Possibly, the Sol Emeralds are the Chaos Emeralds with a new name, but this emerald thing is too much of fanon. The rest... not so much, as it makes perfect sense.195.23.133.154 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should either remove the chronology section altogether or make it to somewhat like the Legend of Zelda series article, we just can't confirm anything the order, and since we have no confirmation of what is canon; we cannot leave out games.The Conscience 10:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * True, the chronology section is mostly made up of rumors, opinions and ideas. As for now though, I suppose that Sonic Rush be removed, as it would probably be non-canon.Michael Mad 11:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonic and the Secret Rings and Sonic Riders isn't on the list. Ryu Ematsu 16:05, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt this section is needed. The statements about what is "canon" or not is based ENTIRELY on speculation alone. No official statements have been made by the people who created the series and cannot be defined simply due to references in recent games. Neofcon


 * Alright, I can see there is a lot of doubt, I'll contact SEGA and find out from them what is and isn't CANON. Right now, let's leave the article the way it is, just to make future edits more constructive. As soon as I get a response, I'll post it 9on the talk page. Tails0600 23:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

wiki
I think there should be a sonic wiki. It would be so cool -User StrongCool from hrwiki.org


 * There is. http://info.sonicretro.org/ ~  Keiji (iNVERTED)  ( Talk  |  Contribs )  11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Things needing attention
This article can eventually be a good article or feature article after we have expanded it. However, the following needs to be taken into account: List by DavidHOzAu 08:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As an overview of the series, this page should be far more comprehensive. For example, The Legend of Zelda series (WP:GA) and Link (Legend of Zelda) (WP:FA) have much larger summary sections for subarticles. The character section needs an overhaul.
 * We also need more references, but we can't do that without more content.
 * It has to be an example of good prose; at the moment it is only average.
 * The article should let people know why the series is notable and compelling.

Meh, I'm going to expand this article myself. I think however I'll have to reshuffle a few sections once I'm done: for instance, I suspect that the list of characters will at least be after the "Common Features" section. Got to keep a smooth flow of the article. --DavidHOzAu 11:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, added the table you can see to your left above. Feel free to update you guys. --DavidHOzAu 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I previously posted a suggested layout here. You can find it in the page history. I removed it because we should wait until the article is more comprehensive before we decide where everything should go. --DavidHOzAu 07:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article; it is much more logical now, especially in regards to WP:WAF. --DavidHOzAu 11:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The "to do" box has been moved to the top of the talk page, as is the case with all other Wikipedia articles. --DavidHOzAu 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Why do we need a page about rings as used in the Sonic games? There's not much you can say. Shouldn't that be handled on this page? Ace of Sevens 20:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose No, that would give us too much information to put on this page, notably the section In other media does not belong on this page. I have reverted the merge. Please wait longer and met consensus first. --DavidHOzAu 08:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to revert this, but Randall Brackett quoted WP:FICT and WP:BOLD in its merge, so my hand is forced. However, as stated above, In other media does not belong on this page at all, it belongs on the relevant pages about the spin offs. It will therefore be removed from the article. --DavidHOzAu 08:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'll have to revise that statement: Randall Brackett knows what he's talking about. The article definitely is much better for it. Also, check out his edit to Amy's article; he fixed that nagging problem about her article that I couldn't pin down. --DavidHOzAu 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chaotix isn't main characters!
Whoever has put the Chaotix as the main characters, they're not! So I'm moving it back to where it belongs; in the other characters section! And whats worse, when I put them back there somebody changed them to be the main characters and I don't know who it was! And as If I wasn't angry enough, somebody rearranged the other character section in no particular order and it took me some time to fix this! Now the reason Chaotix aren't the main characters is that they haven't had enough information and appearence to be main characters! If you were the one who put Chaotix as the main characters or were the on that screwed up the other character section, I'd like your feedback, please! And once again somebody has scrambled my effort again! That's it!!!!!! It's edit war! I'M NOT GONNA TOLERATE THIS ANYMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I have evidence it could have been Starionwolf! In fact, before he/she edited that it was normal so it is YOU, Starionwolf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Said 13 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, calm down. Chaotix are minor characters, true, but also make many appearances throughout the Sonic series. At least they play a larger role than Big the Cat. Plus, they have key roles in two Sonic games, so they should remain in the Main Characters section. Just get over it. It's just a website. Shadoman 22:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What the devil is wrong with you? More appearances dont really = Main character quality. In the starwars universe, yoda is considered a main character but has the least amount of appearances in all the movies combined. Yet his importance to the over all story is not nullified due to this. Same with the chaotix (heck, they practically saved the world in both heroes and shadow by thwarting Metal Sonic's plans and giving shadow the ability to fight back and reveal how to destroy the black comet) so I DOUBT they can be excluded as main characters. You see Metal Sonic included by he's the only villain from robotnik that is recurring but still has less appearances than the cast people care about. Heck the "main cast" doesn't really contribute that much to the actual stories besides being "cameo fodder".--Neofcon 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it's "Chaotix "aren't" main characters".

rings once more
purpose of rings is obvious in games. what about their reason of existance in anime (especially sonic x)? it gives a high-speed power to sonic (funny that only sonic is using them) - somebody, who knows sth about details? how could they be found in world of chris, etc.?

83.24.231.247 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed that because it wasn't relevant to the article about the video games. Try putting it in the appropriate articles, where each paragraph can likely be further expanded in the new context. --DavidHOzAu 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Idea for the character section
As "Main characters" and "other characters" is ambiguous, especially from an out-of-universe perspective it makes more sense to try something different. Here's some suggestions for renaming the current "character" sections to something more appropriate:

First section
Playable characters This would give an overview of all characters who are playable in the 16-bit and 3D games. This is the first title that came to my mind was, namely, if a character is a player character or non-player character. The only thing about this is that Metal Sonic wouldn't qualify.

Central characters This would give an overview of all central characters in the 16-bit and 3D games. Note that playable characters are by definition central characters. Dr. Eggman and Metal Sonic would therefore be in this list.

Second section
Non playable characters

Minor or non-playable characters

Other characters

All of these sections would give an overview of all characters who are non playable characters or who were only playable in spinoffs. By defintion, if a character is not in the first character section, they are in the second. Of the three possible headers, I'm not really sure which one I prefer.

Comments? --DavidHOzAu 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So it was YOU who scambled the other character section!Said 13 (UTC)

Nope; check the page history, it wasn't me. However, I have been improving other sections of the article. I haven't touched the content of the character section yet. --DavidHOzAu 11:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Said 13, Stop it! Are you one of those fans who complain about other characters being playable in the series. If so, then you need to get over it! The Chaotix maybe minor, but they still have a big role so don't you dare blame people for this. Leave them alone! - B. Anonymous

Criticism
I added a Criticism section

When I read it, I saw the most PAINFUL spelling and grammar I have seen in my life. People know how Shadow returned, one of Eggman's robots rescued him (it's explained in Shadow the Hedgehog). Sonic Team tries to fill in plotholes, so I think they were oversights. As for the games getting easy, by now, people who used to be total n00bs are now experts. It may be easy for experts, but quite difficult for newcomers. I, for one, am thankful it was removed. Shadoman 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to metion, it was a an opinion, not a statment supported by facts. UnDeRsCoRe 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Jump
I keep seeing on Wikipedia in a list of upcoming Sonic games the game Sonic Jump. Originally, it had its own article, but now just links to the List of Sonic Games article, when it is never referenced there. Plus, I've never even heard anything about it until reading it here. Should it be removed? And, considering I'm not terribly experienced with editing here, how can I remove it? I.M.Fearless 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a cellphone game. And, as agreed on it's disscusion page, it was un notable and no other sonic cell game has it's own article, and shouldn't. So, it was redirected here. (I was actually the one who redirected it). UnDeRsCoRe 22:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, okay, I was just wondering why it was still important enough to have in that listing that they have at the bottom of each game page:


 * See? It's still there, and it appears to also be the only cellphone game on the list. (Sorry I posted the entire thing; it was the only thing I could think of.)
 * I see, I'll remove it from the list. UnDeRsCoRe 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonic CD placement.
Hello all!

I've recently added the story of Sonic CD to the "plot" section, as it is the game which introduces Amy Rose, and is referenced in a few of the new games (so I decided that it is important enough to be placed). However, I understand that this game, which, while Canon, does not have an exact place in the timeline at this moment in time, as there has been no official confirmation by Sega OR Sonic Team. It is because of this that I have added it to the story BEFORE Sonic the Hedgehog 2's events take place. Listed Below are a few reasons as to why.


 * Sonic CD was originally supposed to be released before Sonic 2, according to a few sources I have looked at (Secrets of Sonic Team - Emulation Zone, Magazines, various websites)


 * Sonic sports his Sonic the Hedgehog look, and among his moves are what appears to be an early or alternative Spindash.


 * An secret game image shows a picture of Tails with the Phrase "See you next game", possibly reffering to Tails in Sonic 2. The Car and Sunglasses are most likely an artists choice.


 * Sonic 3 takes place during the Sonic 2 ark, and Eggman was building/fixing the Death Egg again so couldn't have been in Sonic CD thus making Sonic CD inbetween 2 and 3 illogical.


 * Sonic CD could have come after 1, 2, 3 and K, but then most of the evidence stated above is then insignificant.

And I realize that originally magazines were calling it "Sonic 2 CD" and calling it a remake, but I don't ever remember this being officially being stated that it would be a remake. As this was done by a different team, it doesn't mean it should be placed after the others on the Megadrive, I suggest placing it before Sonic 2, as many elements suggest it should be. Tquinnathome1 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Um, actually, Sonic CD was handled by a separate development team, headed by Sonic creator Naoto Ohshima. Initially, as revealed in interviews and magazine clippings, Sonic CD, and Sonic 2 for the Mega Drive/Genesis, Master System and Game Gear were all supposed to be the same game. However, during development, Sonic CD evolved into a vastly different type of game. Eventually, the gameplay of Sonic 2 would be favoured for the future games, but this explains why the theme and handling of Sonic CD are different, as well as the use of Sonic 1's sprites for Sonic. The time posts also had pseudo-3D sprites similar to the Knuckles' Chaotix title screen.

It wasn't because it was to be released before sonic 2. It was supposed to be the same game altogether.
 * (If I may responde that) Sonic CD WAS (technically) developed by Sonic Team. Many of the people who worked on this title later became a part of Sonic Team. It even (supposedly) says on the back of the Japanese Packaging.Dragon DASH 03:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Sonic Team had nothing to do with Sonic CD, so thanx for the waste of breath.--Neofcon 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sonic CD most likely takes place after Sonic & Knuckles. But that's irrevelanet, because I'm going to remove the Classic Plot section. The plot details of individual games are best left to those games own articles. It's not like the Sonic series has an overall plot arc other than "beat Eggman." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.166.205 (talk)


 * Remove the summaries? I wouldn't recommend doing that.  There is a progressive plot in the games because games make explicit references to previous games. (If you ignore me and remove "Classic Plot" anyway, then at least consider moving the material to each game article &mdash; writing concise summaries of S1, S2, S3, and S&K was not an easy task for me.)  Besides, when I wrote that section I called it "Plot" because it wasn't meant to be just about the classic series; I have yet to get around to expanding the last paragraph of that section to include summaries about say SA, SA2 and SH.  If you want to improve the article, feel free to add the needed information to make the article a more complete overview, but please don't brazenly delete content I slaved over for three days. :) (For the record, "Other gameplay styles" and "Super Sonic" need far more attention in the article than the plot section.) --DavidHOzAu 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ring Picture
That picture of a ring looks nothing like a ring I've seen in a Sonic game, and doesn't really look too good in the article, in my opinion. Perhaps a picture something like this image could be used? It shows a more "Sonicy" style ring. --Someone Else&#39;s Problem 21:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe even an in-game screenshot, perhaps? --Tails0600 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not unless it is free. commons:Image:SonicRing.jpg is subject to a Creative Commons License, specifically CC-BY-SA-2.5. We can't use fair-use images when there is a free alternative.  Fair-use implies that there are no free images available, and in this case we do have a free image.  Besides, that animation is too small... we need a 3D one if possible.  To improve it we'd need to make our own.
 * I have made an animation of a ring in POVRay once; I'll work on it today and upload it to commons either tonight or in a day or so. Yes, I'll make sure it has anti-aliasing enabled. :) --DavidHOzAu 03:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did it! I think I'll go update the article... --DavidHOzAu 11:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An Idea
Does anyone think that we should make a timeline of Sonic events? Just curious. DeathGodDragon EDGE 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like this? Yeah, that's what I've been trying to do in the plot section. --DavidHOzAu 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A good idea. I'm guessing only the "main" games of the series would be included. The Sonic series has way more spin-offs and such than Zelda. 81.172.223.197 11:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Although my suggestion of a timeline seems like a good idea, the problem with it is two things: 1. Sonic CD's place in the timeline is still unspecified and could go in 1 of 2 places (before 2 or after S3&K) and 2. Some of the spinoffs are canon as they have references from canon games in them or are referenced by canon games. However...to include these games (Battle, Riders, Rush, Rivals, the Advance series) would prove difficult due to retcons and the time of the games being unspecified. ChromeWulf ZX 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is one now, apparently. It would do good with some clean-up though. Gurko 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for that to happen, there needs to be OFFICIAL statements and not fancruft.--Neofcon 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Power-up
I tried to create a Sonic-style powerup which may be used in this article. Here is the result. It's not great, but it's svg, so somebody can improve it. BeŻet pl 14:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Chracters???
Some of the characters in the main character section arn't really very main. Like the babylon Rouges. Some of them should be in a minor character section.

Thats the case for the ones people still consider main, because they have lesser roles in the new games, like 06.--Neofcon 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So i that case why isnt mighty and Ray in that section. So if there not main anymore shouldnt they be taken off. Even Cream and Big arnt really main character anymore.

That would be simple if fans weren't so determined to feed their ego's of who is/isn't important.--Neofcon 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the Babylon Rogues and Tikal from the list. They are certainly NOT major characters in the series as a whole. (90.224.69.82 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

What came first
im pretty sure Sonic The Hedgehog came after Sonic Rush. One because Blazes says the iblis trigger, a blue hedgehog can it be true? whitch suggest she does remeber Sonic. This is also suggested when Blaze says Blue Hedgehog?????.

That's what I think also, but there would be some plot holes to work out... ChromeWulf ZX 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean, but if its that Blaze comes from a different dimension in Sonic rush, it could be that Sonic and Blaze just THOUGHT they were from different dimensions.

I dont recall the "could it be true" line in blaze's dialog AT ALL. So I DOUBT you can work around this as proof. And also Sonic Team has had a habit of changing character's roles. The Chaotix are a good example of this. As well as knuckles who went from a natural guardian to idiot. Also Their lack of consistency skills dont help the matter and arguing about what is and not canon is a waste of time. Just enjoy the games. --Neofcon 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sonic the Hedgehog (series)" vs "Sonic the Hedgehog series"
I think this page should be moved back. It is about the Sonic the Hedgehog series of games, not about some particular thing that happens to be called "Sonic the Hedgehog" and is a series. ~  Keiji (iNVERTED)  ( Talk  |  Contribs )  11:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that reasoning regarding the difference between the two - the same thing happened to The Matrix series recently, which was also a bit annoying. Presumably there's some manual of style guideline somewhere. -- Nick RTalk 13:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reorganising article
In the summary of this edit, I noted that related sections should be grouped together: the article should begin with descriptions of the nature of the games themselves ("Overview", "History", "Common features" and "Music"), then continue into sections about in-universe information ("Plot", "Characters, "Canon", "Chronology"). I think that this grouping of the article into two broad sections (along with that final bit summarising spin-off comics, books and cartoons) is the most logical way to organise it, because it presents a clear distinction between those two ways of looking at the games (as videogames, and as stories).

The section on the gameplay is reasonably good. However, the parts about the in-universe information need a lot of work: they are overly detailed regarding fan debates on what's "canon", and are very repetitive (compare the game summaries under "Chronology" and those under "Plot"). Condensing all this will require some effort. So, for the time being, I've grouped all the in-universe information into a large section entitled "Continuity" (for want of a better term; "Setting" or "Fictional universe" aren't really appropriate because plots and characters are described more than environments). It's very basic at the moment (hence the template messages), but hopefully it'll give a clearer direction for improving the article. -- Nick RTalk 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is interesting that the layout reorganization is more-or-less what it used to be:
 * {|width='50%' cellspacing='4' class='diff'

!colspan='2' width='50%' align='center' class='diff-otitle'|Old layout !colspan='2' width='50%' align='center' class='diff-otitle'|New layout
 * class="diff-addedline"|*Continuity
 * class="diff-deletedline"|*Plot
 * class="diff-addedline"|* * Plot
 * class="diff-deletedline"|*Characters
 * class="diff-addedline"|* * Characters
 * class="diff-addedline"|**Canon
 * class="diff-deletedline"|* Regional v ariations
 * class="diff-addedline"|* **V ariations
 * class="diff-addedline" |***Chronology
 * class="diff-context"|*Spin-offs
 * class="diff-context"|*Spin-offs
 * }
 * I'll have a go at performing the needed reorganizing. Speaking of which, what do you think about "Spin-offs"?  Is it in-universe or out-of-universe information? &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. The entire plot section had to go, though I'm not sure if the article is better off for it.  &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * class="diff-addedline"|**Canon
 * class="diff-deletedline"|* Regional v ariations
 * class="diff-addedline"|* **V ariations
 * class="diff-addedline" |***Chronology
 * class="diff-context"|*Spin-offs
 * class="diff-context"|*Spin-offs
 * }
 * I'll have a go at performing the needed reorganizing. Speaking of which, what do you think about "Spin-offs"?  Is it in-universe or out-of-universe information? &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. The entire plot section had to go, though I'm not sure if the article is better off for it.  &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * class="diff-addedline" |***Chronology
 * class="diff-context"|*Spin-offs
 * class="diff-context"|*Spin-offs
 * }
 * I'll have a go at performing the needed reorganizing. Speaking of which, what do you think about "Spin-offs"?  Is it in-universe or out-of-universe information? &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. The entire plot section had to go, though I'm not sure if the article is better off for it.  &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * }
 * I'll have a go at performing the needed reorganizing. Speaking of which, what do you think about "Spin-offs"?  Is it in-universe or out-of-universe information? &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. The entire plot section had to go, though I'm not sure if the article is better off for it.  &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonic 2 in the Chronology
It took a little bit of work to find this one, but in the chronolgy, it states that the Sonic 2 "instruction booklet..." and later talks about Sonic 2 coming directly after the events of Sonic 1. I was thinking, shouldn't we put part of the story, and reference page 4, where it is actually referenced indirectly with "This time..."? Tails0600 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly! However, the reason why CD has to come before Sonic 2 is because of the new sprites, which 3 & K kept &mdash; Sonic actually looks older in Sonic 2 than in CD and 1.  So 'directly after' might not be as direct as one might think.  Besides, there's so many discrepancies between the instruction booklets and the games that it might not be worth mentioning.  So while I'm leaning towards only citing the instruction booklets only when they aren't in conflict with the games, I'm still open to discussion about this. --DavidHOzAu 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonic 3 didn't really keep Sonic 2's sprites when it comes to Sonic, they're very different from one another. Tails is the same though. Sonic 2 sprites and Sonic 1 sprites of Sonic aren't all that different, 2 just has a clearer blue pallette. Gurko 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But the sprites should have nothing to do with story, and where a game is put, Somebody should take the stories from each booklet, and see how they match up. Yes, Sonic CD is based after Sonic 1, and I understand that, but we need more evidence that the sprites to show that. That's why I looked in the booklet, because of these changes in storyline. So my next question is: How are we going to prove that Sonic CD comes AFTER the story of Sonic 1? And, while I'm debating things, in the chronology, It states that Sonic Adventure 2 is the sequel to Sonic Adventure 1. That's true. BUT, it is not a sequel in terms of the story, actually, it is a brad new storyline, about Gerald, Maria, and the ARK. AND, It also states that Shadow the Hedgehog follows Sonic Heroes' storyline. However, if I remember correctly, Shadow the Hedghog was produced in order to answer questins about Snic Adventure 2, and not necessarily a sequel, per se. Tails0600 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I don't even know why I'm replying to this. The absence of Tails should be enough to convince you that Sonic CD comes before Sonic 2, but noooo.... I have to make sure you're convinced while the article is in an inaccurate state.
 * Re: Sonic 1
 * Sonic 1 is the first game because I say so! As well as every other fan who says so.  As well as Sega who has said so.  Naka left Sonic Team for Sega Technical Institute, and thus Sonic 2's development split in two.  Secrets of Sonic Team has some relevant magazine scans you might want to read up on.
 * Re: Sonic CD + Sonic 2
 * CD used Sonic 1's sprites with little modification, if there were any. Sonic has longer legs in Sonic 2 and thus looks older, although his face isn't that different.  In Sonic 3 they got around to updating his face so that he stands erect/poised, and they added more frames to his animations.  Anyway, there are of course other differences, which need to be taken into account. The double jumping code introduced in Sonic 2 was extended in S3&K to include shield actions, Tails, and (if memory serves) was heavily exploited by level design and additional boxes.  In Sonic CD double-jumping code is conspicuously absent.  If Sonic 1 were as closely connected to 3 as 2 is, S&K would've been able to work on it.  Everything is pointing towards Sonic CD coming first, I'm afraid.
 * Re: Sonic Adventure 1 + 2
 * Yes, SA2 has a different story from SA... but every Sonic game out there is different from each other, or else the series would get old really fast!
 * Re: Heroes + Shadow the Hedgehog
 * SA2 ends with Shadow falling to Earth, presumably dead; Team Dark's opening cut-scene in Heroes shows that Shadow survived the fall but lost his memory in the process.  ShTH is all about Shadow recovering his memories.  Thus, we have SA2 → Heroes → ShTH.
 * &mdash;DavidHOzAu 04:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well, you got me in some points, and I've always agreed Sonic CD came before Sonic 2, I didn't, and won't change that, my point is, is that we need some sort of evidence that it is based before Sonic 2, Yes, I do agree about the sprites, and Yes, I do agree with Tails not being there, but, don't you think we should have more evidence? I mean, when people come to Wikipedia, they want facts, as far as I'm concerned, this is just an opinion, I hate to be rude, or to start an argument, but I just think we need more, to back up the point. One major thing is that Sonic CD was MADE after Sonic 2, and possibly Sonic 3. The story is what I'm trying to get at, though.  Yes, I realize Sonic 1 came first, and the two comments I made about SA2 and StH were for disscussion purposes, just ideas. Tails0600 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How about:
 * The April 1993 issue of Sega Force reported that Sonic CD was originally slated for release in March of that year as a remake of Sonic 2 without Tails and with full motion video sequences, but was put back due to Sonic 2's success. The June 1993 issue of Megazone reported that the game had redesigned levels from Sonic 2 and featured a time attack option.  The time attack feature never made it to stores.

...or something. Last sentence doesn't sound right. I suppose it could be placed in a or worked into the article. &mdash;DavidHOzAu 07:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * update to the article. &mdash;DavidHOzAu 08:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the discussion has moved past it already, and that it never mattered much anyway, but here's a comparisment of sprites. Just for kicks, I guess. Gurko 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

THERE WE GO! That's what I was getting at! We need to put that into the article, proving the fact that Sonic CD comes before Sonic 2. You're brilliant, DavidHOzAu!! And, thanks for the comparison sheet, Gurko, something neat to look at!  And, while I'm thinking of it, the top of the page says that we need to tidy-up the "Other gameplay types" area. I was thinking, maybe the different styles of gameplay should be put under the Spin-offs section, and have a mini-chronology JUST for that section, maybe that will give visitors a little more of an insight about the games. I want to see what the community thinks about this. Tails0600 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) However, if you have an idea for the article, or have identified an area where the article might be lacking, I'm all ears. &mdash;DavidHOzAu 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By 'tidy-up "Other gameplay types"', I meant amalgamate those six paragraphs into three without losing information. I've been meaning to do it for a while, I just haven't had the time or inspiration.


 * I've done some thinking about what you suggested. "Spin-offs" is intended to be about things which are spin-offs to the entire series: i.e. things that have Sonic in them that aren't even video games.  "Other gameplay styles" on the other hand is about games where Sonic Team was being adventurous with the gameplay.  I'm not that sure that the two go together.  Trying to work out some sort of chronology for the spin off games would be interesting however. (has anyone tried it before?) &mdash;davidh.oz.au 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that, it shouldn't go into the "Spin-Offs Section." For the chronology, just make it like the main section, but it would be ONLY spin off games. You get what I'm saying, just make it like the Main Chronology. Tails0600 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose that could fit into a subsection of chronology. And I'll take this moment to give a gentle warning: I wouldn't know how they fit though because I haven't played most of them; I could however do some copy-editing to whatever gets added. &mdash;davidh.oz.au 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've played MOST of them, and we can even use info from some of the articles. If we need, I can find more information, andput in my 2 cents worth. Just ASK! Tails0600 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Be bold! &mdash;davidh.oz.au 07:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll edit the chronicles section to include a subsection, which will detail the Other gameplay styles, and then delete that section. Take a look at it, and see what you think. Tails0600 01:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, with the character section, maybe we should get rid of all the characters except Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Cream, Shadow, and Eggman. These are the MAIN characters. Most of the others appear in only one or two games, or have just been created. What do you think? Tails0600 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... that is a very good idea and I think the article would benefit from it, provided the remaining characters are eventually discussed in more detail. (hopefully it would focus our edits in the right direction.) However, that section has been a source of contention in the past,[1][2][3] and the current version is pretty much of a compromise.  (Note: I am sure there have been other edit wars in the article's page history which I have forgotten.)  So if you are feeling braver than I and you really want to touch it, go right ahead. &mdash;davidh.oz.au 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, well, how about splitting it into 2 subsections then, one for main characters, and one for minor characters, which is easier than talking about the side characters later on? Tails0600 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

DDR: Sonic Mix
There's already been a Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix, so not doing it for Sonic is kind of unfair. However, I think Sonic would probably die of embarassment if he had to go searching for "Music Keys"... So, instead, Dr. Eggman could stage a dancing tournament, and pretty much all of the Sonic characters would be participating. Your character would have to defeat the others in dance-offs until he or she could finally confront Dr. Eggman and, in one last dance-off, defeat the mad scientist... but then someone else (like Black Doom, Mephiles, Chaos, Metal Sonic, or some other villain) could crash the party... Sounds like a good idea, huh? Luigifan 12:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but unfortunately, Sega won't take your idea. It would be fun to see, however! And please not that you should sign your comments with four tildes. Tails0600 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or press that handy squiggly button ([[Image:Signature icon.png]]). I'd also like to add that leaving some sort of siggy is a good habit to get into when leaving messages on talk pages, lest someone tag you with the dreaded {{subst:unsigned}}. &mdash;davidh.oz.au 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Definately a good point, didn't even see that there! Guess you DO learn something new everyday! Tails0600 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You must remember that Mario and Sonic are not rivals anymore, so whatever Mario comes out with doesn't mean Sonic will need to come out with it, too. Another thing about that is that in a Sonic Riders interview, they said that spin-offs that have nothing to do with speed are likely not going to happen. Some fans whine about certain games lacking speed, look what happened to Shadow the Hedgehog. The game focused too much on missions and third-person shooting as opposed to just running, and then it gets criticised. - B.J.

Whether or not Mario and Sonic are rivals has never been a factor for what type of games each other have. Secondly, Shadow had plenty of speed imo (most fans lack the capacity to look past what is presented to see that it still plays like sonic to some degree). Also if spinoffs that have nothing to do with speed are never going to happen, then someone needs to explain Tail's Adventure/Sky Patrol, Spinball, Pinball Party, Sonic Battle, and Mario and Sonic AT THE OLYMPICS (Meter Dash excluded)--Neofcon 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. Why has Sega made game that have nothing to do with speed? They're also making an RPG game and I wonder how that has anything to do with Sonic's speed. That's weird. But anyway, I couldn't understand what you meant by "Whether or not Mario and Sonic are rivals has never been a factor for what type of games each other have" comment, though. - B.J.

"Mario and Sonic are not rivals anymore, so whatever Mario comes out with doesn't mean Sonic will need to come out with it, too." Sonic has never come out with the same types of games around the same time that mario has. Im not counting Sonic Drift as that game plays more like Pole Position rather than Mario Kart. --Neofcon 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Rush IS canon!
Duh! In Sonic the Hedgehog, Blaze knew Sonic! How could this be in SR isn't canon!!!!!?


 * First of, please sign your post with four tildes, I'll know who I'm embarrassing then. Now, Sonic Rush may not be considered canon because it focuses on a completely different story, which is the two worlds colliding. Now, in Sonic the Hedgehog 2006, it isn't stated by Blaze that the two worlds were merging, she just remembers Sonic. In terms of being canon, more than likely not. But, give me some proof, give me a line from the game, or even part of a cut scene in which Blaze talks about Sonic Rush's story. (I've never played STH06, so I wouldn't know.) Then we'll talk about it being canon.
 *  By the way, what does the community think? Tails0600 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't played STH06 either, but from the sound of things, Rush got retconned. Might be worth a note.


 * Alright, sounds good to me. Tails0600 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reason that it IS canon: Let's say that Sonic Rush isn't canon. In STH06, when Mephiles informs Silver and Blaze that a blue hedgehog named Sonic is the Iblis Trigger, Blaze mutters 'blue hedgehog...... as if she is trying to recall something. Later, when Blaze is lost in the past, she says, ''Iblis Trigger.... blue hedgehog? Can it be?-'' If she never met Sonic in SR, she wouldn't have said any of that, would she have? :P Also, Sonic appears to know Blaze too, as she is there with Sonic and Silver witnessing the Egg Carrier's explosion, and Sonic never asks her, "who are you? I'm Sonic!" So, now we can talk about it being canon, shall we? ^_^


 * Alright, that's proof enough to me. We'll put it back into the main Chronology, but, we'll add a note to it saying why it is Canon, sound good? Tails0600 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thnx!

But that still doesan't explain how in Sonic Rush Eggman Nega and Blaze are from an alternate world while in Sonic the Hedgehog(2006) Blaze is from the future while in Sonic Rivals Eggman Nega is actually Dr. Robotnik's decendent and also from the future. And don't tell me that "Blaze just thought she was in an alternate world in Sonic Rush but was really in the past" as Eggman Nega himself said he was from an alternate universe in Sonic Rush. As for Blaze going "blue hedgehog...." in Sonic the Hedgehog(2006). Well, seeing how Sonic is portrayed as a world-reknowned hero, it is possible that Blaze may just heard about Sonic, thinking of him as little more than a myth until Mephiles told her and Silver about him being the Iblis Trigger. Also, about Sonic say nothing to her in Sonic the Hedgehog(2006), well why didn't he say "hello" to her or ask her how she got back to the past. Michael Mad 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your statement on Blaze thinking about Sonic as a hero would be original research. Since Rush was released before Next-Gen, it's more likely that Sonic Team didn't decide to make Blaze from the future. I don't think that Sonic Team realized that they made a retcon. Of course, to settle this matter though, I'm just going to go ahead and e-mail Sega. magiciandude 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG! I am tired of this! Sonic Rush IS Canon! It is very obvious!! Whoever typed up the previous response obviously has NOT played through STH06. If you have, it is fairly- no, completely - obvious! Here's my advice- play through STH06 and see why Sonic Rush is canon. And how do you know that Eggman Nega KNEW exactly where he was? Think about it. -_-

I have played through it. If Eggman Nega didn't come from an alternate universe, then it would contradict the storyline of Sonic Rush. Eggman Nega and Dr. Robotnik's plan was built around making the two parallel universes collapse using the Chaos and Sol emeralds, so that they could make their own. If he came from the future, then that would make the storyline total nonsense(which it is even without the continuity error). Eggman Nega being from an alternate universe would contradict the events of Sonic the Hegdehog(2006) aand Sonic Rivals, which are more than likely canon, making Sonic Rush non-canon. So, what can you say about that? Michael Mad 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Story: Eggman Nega wants to destroy Sonic in past (EN from future) screws up goes to another dimension. From there he makes contact with Eggman and Eggman comes to that dimension. The Eggmans steal Sol Emeralds from Blaze and go back into the past (in Sonic's dimension.) SONIC RUSH HAPPENS. Blaze soon goes back to her home dimension and EN goes back to future. For whatever reason, Blaze follows EN, which is not uncommon. (For a good guy to chase a bad guy to see what the bg is up to.) That is why Blaze appears in the future in STH06. The end.

You're just creating your own story there, which you can't use to justify your repeated edits to ensure that Sonic Rush appears canon. Face it, Sonic Rush is non-canon. As for my idea of Sonic being a hero being original research, you may be right, but everything this user before has been saying is original research. In fact, how does he know Blaze is remembering Sonic in Sonic the Hedgehog as she goes 'blue hedgehog....'? Michael Mad 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Mad is MAD! He needs a little stay at the asylum. Here's something- if the reason Blaze recognized the blue hedgehog because Sonic was famous in the future, why didn't Silver?

I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING! What if 'Blaze's dimension' and 'the future' are the same thing? I mean, where Blaze comes from is an alternate timeline, or you could just say it is an alternate dimension! YAY!

Until Sega announces that it is a spin-off, it cannot be considered a spin-off either. And another thing, Sonic Rush is still in the Main Series Template. And the above user is right(but please don't insult other users, there is no excuse), wouldn't Silver have known as well? magiciandude 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I found that offensive, non-user. As for Silver, I don't know, but he may just never have heard of Sonic, or perhaps he never really thought of 'the Iblis Trigger' being a world-reknowned hero. Also, even if this non-user's theories to link Sonic the Hedgehog(2006) and Sonic Rush together were plausable, they still do not explain why Blaze wasn't looking after the Sol Emeralds in Sonic the Hedgehog(2006). Michael Mad 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael, perhaps it would be better off not to mention these plot holes in the first place? &mdash;davidh.oz.au 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Here's a thought, guys... the section on Sonic Rush would be better off if it talked about the story that was developed in the actual game, which can be verified.  Y'know, like it originally did?  I'd say that the reason why it keeps on being removed is because somebody wants to put their own interpretation of what happened in Sonic Rush.  That is not what Wikipedia's job.  Rather, Wikipedia's job is to report the facts, not opinion. &mdash;davidh.oz.au 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just put Sonic Rush in the section. I couldn't be bothered to continue arguing. Oh, and I might as well apologise to the unregistered user who started this discussion, as I have been somewhat cruel in my attempts to prove my point. Sorry. Michael Mad 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. I'm just a huge fan of Sonic Rush and would hate to see it non-canon, for I believe it is canon. ^_^

Does it really MATTER if its canon or not!? Sonic Team =/= Capcom. They dont make any official statements about what is and isn't "canon" AT ALL! So here's a tip. Stop trying to piece everything together and ENJOY THE GAMES FOR WHAT THEY ARE! Sonic isn't some long drawn out anime gaming series like Street Fighter, it's supposed to be a platformer like Mario and story should not be treated as a first priority in enjoying the experience as stories in sonic games are poorly done. besides that, if it isn't canon, who cares? That doesn't mean you have to forget the stories that occured in that particular game. If you enjoyed the story (and half the world has) then good for you, but dont think it clearly DESERVES to be true to the entire storyline at all. IMO the story is very cliche and terrible, centering around "friendship" as it's major focus, while trying to create two Robotnik's? I'd be happy if it weren't true, but on the same case I wont care. Official "story" statements haven't stopped me from playing Street Fighter (whose story is the most ridiculous piece of garbage ive ever read) and as wacky as the sonic universe is, I expect bad stories but thats not what got people in the franchise in 91, it shouldn't start now.

Also USE IT!!--Neofcon 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Other gameplay styles" section
I noticed that the "other gameplay styles" section has been converted into a bulleted list with brief summaries of the plots. I agree with the move to a separate section further down the page, but not with the conversion to a list. There's nothing that wrong with it, but I think the information better as prose, because it's consistent with the overview of the the main 2D/3D platform games.

If it's kept as a list, something needs to be done about the summaries: judging by the name of the section and the focus of the article, they should really describe the games' gameplay rather than their plots! I've done that for Spinball, adapting the description from the old one in that previous version, but not for any of the others.

The other alternative is to keep it as a list, but change it to a list of genres, rather than game titles ("Racing games" for Sonic Drift/Sonic R/Sonic Riders; "Pinball games" for Spinball and Pinball Party). If it's not changed to prose, I'd much prefer a list of genres than one of games.

What do you think? -- Nick RTalk 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very, very good points, and now, looking back on it, the small 1 or 2 paragraphs we had were better than the list, but I also like the list as well. Tell you what. Why don't we recreate the small paragraphs, but, have JUST release dates and names of the games, like this:

Blah Blah Blah Blah... *Sonic R (1996) (Saturn) *Sonic 3d blast --- And so on, see what I mean? Tails0600 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Music
So, are Sega's in-house musicians called Wavemaster or Wave Master. It's in the article both ways.Sparticuz 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

POV?
Just reading the article, and was wondering if the below section i have Ctrl+V'ed is POV?

"In November 14, 2006, Sonic the Hedgehog, the first Sonic game for the seventh console generation, was released for the Xbox 360 with a PlayStation 3 version in January. Even though Blaze the Cat was brought back and introduced newcomer Silver the Hedgehog it too got mixed views with an average of 46% and it sold only 38,000 copies in its first two weeks. Its main controversies are long loading times, uninteresting mission systems and a few glitches.

In February 2007, Sonic debuted on the Nintendo Wii in a separate entry called Sonic and the Secret Rings. The game was praised for supposedly "returning the series to its roots", however it has been criticised for high difficulty, and a somewhat unappealing story (a loose retelling of the Arabian Nights)."

They are not referenced from any reviews, and mostly I am meaning about the "high diffculty and unappealing story". Sure, it may be tricky, and the stroy aint usual Sonic style, but this seems to be somes opinion? It would be better to reference a site that says this, and then say "that some sources have the opinion of...". Sheeldz 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is mostly opinion, although maybe looking at websites such as GameSpot may help. Tails0600 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that critical reactions shouldn't be mentioned in this article at all - this is an overview article, and there are so many games in the series it's only practical to give very general summaries. Leave more detailed descriptions of specific elements such as plot, credits and minor gameplay variations to the games' own articles. -- Nick RTalk 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you're saying, but for right now, let's leave the article the way it is, it will help us with future edits.
 * However, if you feel that you can edit out the sections without losing any important information, then go for it! Tails0600 00:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Golf?
Here is some news fopr sonic next appearence http://www.sonicstadium.org/sonicnews/287/

Sonic pinball party
I believe that it is a canon title because of Amys lines in Casino park in Heroes


 * I think that line was a reference to Sonic Adventure, not Sonic Pinball Party. 206.66.217.140 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But Amy never went to Casinopolis in adventure but she does in pinball party but I believe it is non canon now too because Station square was destory

Um...WRONG! I seem to remember Amy in Casinopolis in Sonic Adventure DX.

And you can't say something is non-canon because a place is destroyed. It happened. It is canon. Angry Sun 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can only get Amy into Casinopolis via a glitch or the Action Replay. -- RattleMan 04:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, it was a glitch, no matter how you try to spin it, a glitch will not constitute as a piece of canon because she is originally not supposed to be in that specific zone. Thats a fact. Neofcon

In my opinion all games occur in the story

Cold War
Why is there no reference to how Sonic was a Cold War propaganda tactic? (I realize that the game came out after the cold war, but it was in production during the cold war...just listen to my logic) Sonic is blue=America, Dr. Robotnik is red=Communist. American is fast, and beats up bad guy who turns cute woodland creatures into robots.... it's quite obvious imho...
 * Because that would be Original Research. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True, however, there is nothing to suggest that the game is propaganda. This may just be opinion, but I am not calling you a liar, either. Find some evidence, either from Sega, or a magazine, and we'll consider adding it. Tails0600 23:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To add, Sonic was created in Japan and all that. Why would he symbolize America? Gurko 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting... but stupid... *snort snort* Cheeky monkey! --Luigifan 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only symbolizes America because when Japan sent it over here, We screwed it up. Like I said, you can always contact Sega and find out exactly, and I'll let you do that, because if it is true, YOU should get the credit. Tails0600 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You will most likely be wrong no hard feelings

Sonic riders
I thought that it was in the main seriesSonicrules2 02:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Sonicrules2


 * In the broadest sense, yes it is in the main series. The only reason that it is in the other gameplay styles section is because the story of this game does not affect any other games in the series. Tails0600 03:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yah know...Sonic Adventure 1 has the same gig because the story doesn't really affect the other games in the series. Just sayin... Neofcon

I think it blongs in the main seriesSonicrules2 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Sonicrules2

LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE!!!
I know its difficult to say if Sonic CD is canon or not, and how it is. As I said, I am contacting SEGA for more information. It'll have to wait until tomarrow seeing that they're closed this time of night on a Sunday night. As I said, LEAVE THE ARTICLE THE WAY IT IS! I will edit it appropriately as I get more information. Tails0600 02:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I used the online form for help, his is what I sent:
 * "I hope I am directing this question to the right people, if not, I'll try to contact the right people. My question is about Sonic CD (Sega CD). According to most of us at Wikipedia.org, Sonic CD's storyline is based BEFORE Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Genesis). I wanted to find ou if this is true, or if it may just be a rumor, and if possible, any and all reasoning behind it. As I said before, If this is not the right contact area, I will attempt to contact another party at SEGA, but any and all information is greatly appreciated!" Tails0600 02:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, think about this:

1. According to the GHZ, Sonic 2 and Sonic CD were both worked on at the same time, Sonic CD t be released first, however, Sonc 2 was released before CD, for internal reasons.

2. According to Wikipedia's article on Sonic CD, the two were going to be the same thing, however, CD ended up being vastly different.

3. Tails was developed in-house by STI. Because of the corporate structure, SOJ may not have seen the images of Tails, or even knew of his creation. It may have been leaked near the end of development, that may be why there is only a brief picture of him.

Now, those were some reasons Tails may not have appeared in this game. Here are reasons for storyline.

1. Some of the Sonic 1 staff worked on it.

2. Very different staffing (The GHZ)

3. Corporate decisions.

4. Machine capabilites.

And millions more. I'm still waiting for an official response, so hang in there! Tails0600 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE Still no word yet, will post their reply as soon as I get it. Tails0600 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you also ask them if Sonic Rush is canonical? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I already sent out the e-mail, sorry. However, if I do get in touch with someone at SEGA who can provide some answers, I will definitely ask about Sonic Rush. In fact, if anyone has ANY questions about the Sonic the Hedgehog series (anything that was produced by Sega), post it here, and I will try getting in contact with someone at SEGA to answer them. Tails0600 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well...I am curious as to why certain characters are never used again, such as Mighty and Nack. Most people hint at Naoto Oshima's leave from sonic team as an indication, but if they still use him in comics then whats the dealio? I was pretty upset with the absence in heroes. Hell i'd be surprised if they had a good reason for not making tails or knuckles go "super" as before. Neofcon
 * While i really like Mighty as well, i think one of the reasons was because of the need of a 3-man team. In several of the descriptions (see the chaotix page), it says he's a traveler so it may be that he just happened to be in the neighborhood and decided to help out, and then went on with his business. I have to say though, i think Mighty would have been a much better addition to Team Chaotix than Charmy, though that leaves them without a flight member. The real mystery characters are Bark, Bean and Ray. IsaacGS 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Sonic is also a traveler and manages to make an appearance everytime, along with the rest of the cast (yeah I know its not fair to compare but you know all the characters are travelers, or else they wouldn't end up in so many weird cities (soleana anyone?). Now Bean and Bark I dont think are ever coming back, they were just two empty slots to fill in and were also in Fighting Vipers as rejects. Nack the Weasel needs a comeback imo and I doubt ray is on anyone's mind at the time.

You know...I have a much bigger question. What in god's name was the actual point of FIRING the original voice actors without notification? Neofcon

Sorry, nothing yet. I'm trying to get into contact with Yuji Naka,, or someone from Sonic Team. Hopefully by Tuesday I'll have something. Tails0600 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuji Naka left the team dude Neofcon


 * Yeah, I know, but I';m still trying to get in touch with someone who worked o the games, and may have an idea about them. I'm trying to get in touch with Naka, which should be a little easier now, because of his own game studio. Tails0600 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another request, ask if Sonic and the Secret Rings is canonical or not. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE-PLEASE READ! Alright, thanks for your patience, I'm sorry it took so long, but it doesn't help too much when there's a weekend around the corner, and with Memorial Day, that messed everything up. The first thing is that I successfully talked to the director of Sonic CD, Naoto Ōshima. I will be getting a copy of the e-mail I received on the Internet by Friday. NO, I CANNOT RELEASE E-MAIL ADDRESSES!!!! Anyway, now that that's out of the way, YES, Sonic CD is canon. The main reason is of course the fact the Amy Rose appears in almost every game AFTER Sonic CD. This also ties into why she likes Sonic so much, starting with Sonic Adventure, and progressing to Sonic 2006. The second reason is the fact of Metal Sonic's appearance within this game. (RANDOM THOUGHTS)Now, he doesn't appear again until Sonic Heroes, but the reason for this is still unknown. (END) Finally, Tails appears in only a screen shot of the game, because as I rumored before, SOJ did not see the design of Tails until after Sonic 2 was released, where Sonic CD was released a year later. Tails was not needed within Sonic CD so much as Amy was. So there you have it, Sonic CD is canon, and, it can also logically be assumed that it occurs AFTER Sonic 1, and BEFORE Sonic 2. I still am not aware of how true that statement may be. Once again, I will post a copy of the letter on my website as soon as possible. Tails0600 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Metal Sonic was in Sonic Adventure 2 y'know. Angry Sun 19:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As a playable character in two player. NOT officially a part of pf the SA2 story. As for the email, well we all know CD had to have happened because the characters appear in recent titles, but the question still remains if it takes place between 1 & 2 or not. Neofcon


 * Yeah, I'm still trying to figure everything out, as well as some of the other questions that have been asked. As I get more details, I will let everyone know. The letter will probably be in Microsoft Word format, and will be available at www.pteamplay.net/downloads. There is nothing posted there yet, so don't get your hopes up, as I said, it will be released by Friday. I will also post subsequent messages provided that I have permission. Tails0600 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not going insane, I apologize if I was a bit abrupt and blunt about it. Just anxious thats all. Neofcon

He was in Sonic Adventure in Story Mode. He was in a tube. Angry Sun 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying anyone went insane, just don't want that to happen. Tails0600 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A.S., thats called a "cameo" appearance, if the character has no actual involvement with the story, it's a cameo appearance. Neofcon

Well actually I think he was important. Eggman was obviously rebuidling him we he went berserk and set the plot for Sonic Heroes. Tails. Could you ask him why Sonic didn't get a Graphical Update like Robotnik did? Angry Sun 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think" =/= Fact. That sums up the chronology of the sonic continuity just about (no offense to those who made it, then again they will be offended). Point is he was a cameo/Easter Egg. Much like the Tornado 1 in Sonic Advance. Neofcon

Alright, First off, my server is having problems right now, any information I can put online will be on my website shortly. Now, I also regret to inform everyone that it has been requested I do NOT post any manuscripts or actual conversation. Sorry. I wish I could, but as a website owner, I'm bound to confidentiality. Now, as for any other person I talk to, they have a right to say whether or not the manuscript should be posted. What I can do, is use "snippets", or anything that may be appropriate or useful as facts, but once again, I cannot post the whole manuscript. Tails0600 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, in case you don't see my point at the bottom of the page, here's what I've got to say about Sonic CD's timeline placement. The game has to happen after the first 3 sonic games(the third being 'Sonic 3 and Knuckles'). This is because of Metal Sonic. As you notice, he's much sleeker, faster, and more powerful then the Mecha Sonics in the first three games. If you've played the games, you'll notice how bulky and slow the Mechas are in the first three compared to Metal. It would make no sense for a man of 300 I.Q to switch to a subpar design. --Superbub 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to start any but dude be quiet! Tails already found out that Sonic CD is canon. It takes place ater Sonic 2. The Game Gear Games ARE NOT CANON! So get that out of your head. Angry Sun 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets review...did he DENY it was canon? No. Did he MENTION the game gear games in this paragraph? No, has there been ANY indication of where anyone detailed the placement of Sonic CD? No, so angry sun, you still have no information to your theories, you still are shoving your opinions as fact down everyone's throat, and you are still wrong about the chronology (if any) of sonic the hedgehog, so if you would be so kind as to HUSH until further notice. Neofcon

Thank you Neofcon. I seriously don't get what your problem is, Angry Sun. All I was saying was that CD should come AFTER the first three games. I never denied CD's canonicity, and I definetely NEVER even remotely mention the game gear games. I do not like the game gear games in the slightest, so I don't even consider them sonic games.

Next time, read my paragraph before you sart complaining;)--Superbub 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Other gameplay styles vs. Other Games...
I think the Other gameplay styles section should be changed into a section devoted to the "Other Games" of the series, not just the ones whose status in the Chronology is unknown and whose gameplay is not a standard platformer. It's the Sonic series article, so all the games should be mentioned somewhere. 208.101.130.232 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea. Neofcon

Sonic CD timeline placement
Here's what I've got to say about Sonic CD's timeline placement. The game has to happen after the first 3 sonic games(the third being 'Sonic 3 and Knuckles'). This is because of Metal Sonic. As you notice, he's much sleeker, faster, and more powerful then the Mecha Sonic's in the first three games. If you've played the games, you'll notice how bulky and slow the Mecha's are in the first three compared to Metal. It would make no sense for a man of 300 I.Q to switch to a subpar design. --Superbub 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats always been a favorite theory of mine, but im holding all of my ish until the devs say so. So lets just chill with it. Then again it's been like a LONG TIME since we got word of it. Neofcon


 * okay, thanks^_^. But, i guess we will have to wait a bit longer....I'll be patient--Superbub 15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sonic RPG
I have made a basic page for the upcoming RPG (Untitled Sonic RPG), because I was surprised to see it wasn't done already. I'm unsure what templates it fits into, so I've left it alone for now. I'll now link to it from other articles in order to give it more publicity. Philtrauferson 15:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's being released on the Nintendo DS, so I say it should be placed in the handheld games template. 206.66.217.142 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that, but there were some pretty strict rules imposed on what goes on what template, they sort of scared me not to mess with them. I'll ask on the template talk page. Philtrauferson 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

well it be made for the game cube


 * No, it's for the DS. Gurko 22:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Metacritic rank of Sonic CD (iOS)
The iOS version of Sonic CD has a Metacritic rank of 93, which is relevant since is the highest rank of any Sonic game in that web. However, every time I write that in the aggregate review scores section (with its reference of course), it gets deleted. --Pablotorre13 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it's been removed in the past. I don't think it was me. I imagine you did this under a different name, or an IP address? I can't see any history of you making this edit before through your past edits. I don't see a problem with including it, unless I'm missing something here... Sergecross73   msg me   21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Better off being on Sonic CD article instead. If only the console changes, yet still strikingly similar  version of the original, it might be better just adding metacritic, gamestats, gamerankings on their respected page and showing the initial reception here. Also sometimes the scores arent aggregated scores. They have reviews but not enough.Lucia Black (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking the source, it's based off 13 reviews. It's a minor blip on this entire article--I see no problem with it being there unless, again, I'm missing something. I agree it should be at the Sonic CD article too though.  Sergecross73   msg me   03:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting removing all re-releases of the games, and just keep the original installments. So no, not just a "minor blip". its several. Simplifying the gamereviews.Lucia Black (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that's what you're getting at, since that's not what either of us were talking about.... Sergecross73   msg me   11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when I add that in the past I did it with a different IP address because my PC was formated and I forgot the password. Anyway,I think we can either removing all re-releases and ports and keeping only the original releases, or keeping everything, but is pointless removing only the iOS version of Sonic CD and keeping the other re-release of the game (PC,PS3,Xbox360) as well as the several re-releases and ports of other Sonic games. Also, keep in mind that the 2011 re-release of Sonic CD is not a simple port, but an enchanced version with many unique features (Retro Engine, widescreen, 60fps, Tails playable, ect.) unlike the re-releases of Sonic 1 and 2, which are only ports.--Pablotorre13 (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with keeping it in. Quite frankly, there are many editors out there who are obsessive about adding/updating GameRankings/Metacritic ect scores anyways, so I imagine it'll be re-added over time regardless of discussion on the talk page. (Which, I'm fine with, as long as the info is correct.) Sergecross73   msg me   11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * iOS is a re-releases. Ports are re-releases if theres a large gap between releases. So i suggest keeping it simple and having the original console release. Add the same template we have here on other pages that many re releases and agreggated score. We can always leave a note to say that do not update it with re-releases.Lucia Black (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sales Differences
A couple of times, I have tried to properly change the sales figures of Sonic and the Secret Rings(2.43 million) and Sonic Unleashed (3.96 million). They used to be there for a long time, but now they are changed in a couple of hours. I now realize my mistake: I forgot a source. Then I realized that I didn't know how to put in literary sources, which is where I got the info. I hope that you can put it in. Here is the needed information, which applies for both: it was written by Chris Schilling in the "3D Platformers" section on page 109 of Guinness World Records: Gamer's Edition 2012.Please respond if I need anything else. Thank you. -Mumbai0618. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.144.217 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A scan of the source would help.--Sexy Kick 17:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Techincally, the source you presented, if real and true, would be reliable. However, given just about every interaction I've ever had with you, for instance, the ones User talk:Mumbai0618, has been about you breaking Wikipedia policy and then being difficult about it, it's hard for me to trust you on this. Can you provide another source? Or any proof that this source says what you claim it does? Sergecross73   msg me   17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As you requested I did not one but both of the things you wanted. If you go to my YouTube channel (also called Mumbai0618) you'll see the video "Sonic and the Secret Rings and Sonic Unleashed Sales". It contains both. If it cannot be used please tell me. Thank you. -Mumbai0618
 * I meant a readable scan, and I'm sure Sergecross meant another source that wasn't the book. Serge what do you think of the video? It's near completely unreadable, but I think it sounds legit.--Sexy Kick 16:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you read any of it? I couldn't read a single word beyond the cover of the book... Sergecross73   msg me   23:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)!

First of all, SexyKick, I was only responding to Sergecross, and he also said I could give proof of the source. Continuing on, I know the words are illegible, but what is said is what is on the text. If you can't hear what is said, I could put the text on the description if that's okay.
 * If you knew the text was illegible, what was the point? What's the difference between taking your word for it on this talk page, and taking your word for it on a Youtube video? There's equal amounts of "no proof"...  Sergecross73   msg me   23:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 4 - Should it be included under Handheld Games in the template?
Since Sonic 4 has been released for mobile platforms like iOS and Android, do you think both Episodes should be included under the "Handheld Games" section of the Sonic games template as well as the "Console Games" section? 68.228.177.224 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sonic Generations Sales Update
According to http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=sonic+generations

Sonic Generations sales are 2.12 million in all world and in all plataforms, please update the article with this information

Also Sonic Unleashed has sold 4.38 million copies source: http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Sonic+Unleashed — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCRDT21 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, VGChartz isn't a useable source on Wikipedia. Please see WP:VG/S. It's not considered a reliable source. Sergecross73   msg me   17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

image
This is a discussion about the header image... Anybody want to keep the image there Keep or Remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I agree with sergecross, but if there is a more modern logo that does have the main character, it would be ok to use that aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove/Don't Use - For a number of reasons:
 * There is already an images that works just fine, which includes both the logo and the title character, Sonic. That image is much more useful in communicating an idea to the reader, opposed to something that is merely a text logo.
 * There is no precedent for using two images at once on infoboxes as the IP has been trying to do. And if there even if there was, you'd want two images that express two different relevent ideas. These images do not do this; one images is a logo and a character, while the other is a very similar version of the the same logo. They don't illustrate separate ideas; the images together are redundant.
 * My view is backed up by Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. I haven't seen any valid reason for inclusion other than a very subjective "this one is better" by the IP. That's not even a fully thought out reason, let alone one that relies on policy. Sergecross73   msg me   16:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP/Use:Image of the current logo of the sereis is much better than a title screen of the 1991 installment.For it is just a picture of an old game.74.178.177.48 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you switch it to a "picture" that contains only text though? And why would that be better than a picture that shows a logo and a picture of the title character? And why is age of the picture a factor? Do you have anything policy based backing your opinion? Sergecross73   msg me   19:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And that would be fine with me too, my problem is that the IP's proposal image is a huge downgrade by itself, and excessive use of images with them both. I'm not completely committed to the image or anything. I can't remember if it was this article, or a different one, but I think I just threw it up there a while back more as a placeholder, because various editors/IPs kept on adding copyright violation images that kept on getting deleted/removed. Sergecross73   msg me   21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are logos out there like what you said LB like the Sonic 06 image.74.178.177.48 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to stay away from Sonic 06, since it's pretty much the worst reviewed/received Sonic game out there. Doesn't seem like the best image to sum up the series... Sergecross73   msg me   00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you have a point,really I hate no Sonic game so I don't care but not all people are me.74.178.177.48 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sales Chart - Entries with no sales figures
I've noticed a user keeps on re-adding games with no sales figures into the sales chart. This strikes me as rather pointless, and even detrimental. I don't think we need to clutter an already pretty good sized chart with games that we don't have any figures for. Any thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me   14:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo is all we need
The current logo is all we need for the series. I say we keep the logo! That picture in the infobox is the original game's title screen! 22dragon22burn (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as extremely similar to the discussion we just had, 2 sections up, which ended in no consensus to change - why should we remove a picture that contains a picture of the character and the text, and replace it to the image of just text? The current picture better represents the picture. Why use a picture at all if it's just text? It's not like the font is that iconic or anything. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with using a different picture, I just don't think we could replace it with a picture of all text/doesn't contain a picture of Sonic. Sergecross73   msg me   03:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How is Sonic Shuffle like Mario Party?
How is Sonic Shuffle like Mario Party? and dont say its because its a party game because that be stupid. Speedy X 77 (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would that be stupid? They are both mascot-based party games where you navigate a character through a board-like level while you play mini-games a different intervals with the end goal of collecting more of a given item than other characters. There's one reliable source in the article already, and I'm sure it would be very easy to find more. Why is it you seemingly want to remove all comparisons to Nintendo/Mario from Sonic articles. I mean, it's not like they're even negative comparisons or anything... Sergecross73   msg me   16:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

its not that i want to remove all comparisons to Nintendo/Mario from Sonic articles its because Sonic Shuffle is not like Mario Party like i said on Sonic R Sonic Shuffle is not like Mario Party and Mario Party is not like Sonic Shuffle so just stop ok. PS Happy Holidays! :) Speedy X 77 (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could give some meaningful ways that they were so different. I've given many reasons how they're the same, and provided sources that back it up, and all you seem to say is basically "No, they're different because they're different". Beyond that, on Wikipedia, reliable sources are going to trump your personal opinions and observations every time. Unless you have a particular reason why the source in the article isn't useable, I don't think you're going to be convincing anybody... Sergecross73   msg me   01:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Even heard of Crash Bash, it's also a party game --178.235.183.165 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. What about it though? Sergecross73   msg me   19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Aggregate Scores
Question: Why do we have Sonic Colors and every game after that in a separate aggregate scores category? Is the column we have too big? Is it because of the game de-listing? Or something else? Personally I find no point in the fact it is separate, and think we should just add it with the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's a reason. I tried merging them together once, but with all the references and formatting going on with it, I couldn't get it to work. In the archives, I believe I asked for assistance, and no one ever did. So, if you or anyone else wants to merge them together, I'd support it. Sergecross73   msg me   14:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

– The disambiguation page has just been tagged as one that should be changed to a Disambiguation concept page. The idea is valid, except for one tiny detail - we already have such a page. The video game series is clearly primary topic, and even the only other possible primary topic is part of the game series. This will put the primary topic at the title it deserves. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonic the Hedgehog (series) → Sonic the Hedgehog
 * Sonic the Hedgehog → Sonic the Hedgehog (disambiguation)
 * Note There was recently a related discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character) which was closed (not rejected) since the proposed page to move changed mid-discussion. The closer suggested renominating, which never happened. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see why the character wouldn't move to the undisambiguated location instead of the series. The DABCONCEPT is incorrect, since the disambiguation page, is infact a disambiguation page, of articles that share the same name, or are called by that name. And with the gene article, it covers more than just the videogame related subjects. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a disambiguation page, but a disambiguation page shouldn't be at this disambiguated title. There is a huge difference between Aurora, where the various Auroras have nothing to do with each other and Sonic, where every single article but one is about the game series. Thus, you still would have a disambiguation page, but it would have the (disambiguation) at the end, so a person who doesn't know which of the many closely-related Sonic pages they want can get an overview at the main title. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't understand the need for any of this. It feels like we're looking for solutions for questions no one is asking. Strikes me as a waste of time and energy. Sergecross73   msg me   15:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted this in response to a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. So, as to your claim that no one is asking, sorry, not right. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then, feel free to waste your time with such trivial matters.  Sergecross73   msg me   16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As one of the major contributors to the article and its related articles, I see no purpose in this. I'm not suggesting that I have more say over anyone else, I just say that things are functioning just fine as is, and the effort is best placed elsewhere in more constructive manners. Sergecross73   msg me   16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Sonic the Hedgehog should be treated any differently than multimedia franchises like Star Wars, Star Trek, or Transformers. In each case, we have as the base title page an article on the franchise as a whole, which in each of these cases covers TV series, video games, comic books, and so forth. Since the "series" article is limited to video games, I would oppose this move and propose writing an article on the franchise as a whole. The article would begin something like:
 * Sonic the Hedgehog is a multimedia franchise centered on a video game series starring the eponymous title character, a fast-moving blue anthropomorphic hedgehog, who has the ability to run at supersonic speeds and the ability to curl into a ball, primarily to attack enemies. Since the launch of first game by Sega on June 23, 1991, the franchise has spawned numerous spin-off comics, 4 animated shows and an animated OVA.
 * The article would then go on to outline the history of the franchise, list all of the media, and explain how each development played into the next step. Everything that is presently on the disambiguation page would be covered, including titles that do not belong on a disambig with this tile, like Sonic X and Sonic Underground. bd2412  T 13:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose the move as well, so it's not like I'm challenging you...but what you're describing is this article. There's sub-sections on the animations and comics. They're just not very fleshed out, as no one's bothered to clean up those sections. Sergecross73   msg me   14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those subsections are not needed in an article on the video game series. If anything the game series article should only have a line or two noting that the games have been spun off into other media. If the base page name, Sonic the Hedgehog, were an article containing those sections, then readers coming to the article could decide if they wanted to read more about any particular media (such as the video games alone) by following a "see main" link to an article dedicated to the breadth of the franchise in that particular media. The main article would serve as a hub presenting all of the basic information about the origin and development of the franchise, with specific media (and things like pages on the individual characters and in-universe items) being spokes on the hub. This just how it works with the franchise pages I cited above. bd2412  T 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, what I'm getting at is that the article is like half-way between a "video game serie" article and a "franchise" article. It could be either trimmed down to be just about the video games, or fleshed out to be the full-fledged franchise article. Sergecross73   msg me   15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be easy. The material needed to expand this into a franchise page is already in Wikipedia, on the character page and the individual media pages. bd2412  T 16:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too confusing for a user on Wikipedia, especially when I type Mario and I get the character. Srsrox (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Will This Work?
I've got two links for Sonic 06's sales:

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/70441/sonic-the-hedgehog/

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/70440/sonic-the-hedgehog/

I'm not sure if they're accurate or not. Are they, and if they are, can we use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, VGChartz is not useable on Wikipedia. Its not considered a reliable source. Sergecross73   msg me   22:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sales - All Stars Racing
I have to question the inclusion of All-Stars Racing and Transformed in the sales chart. I mean, those fall much more under the banner of the Sega Superstars series, not the Sonic franchise in general. I think it would be more appropriate to have those moved to the Sega Superstars Series page rather than listed here, or just removed outright. Opinions? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonic's name is in the title, and he's in the game, and the games are covered in the article, so it seems natural give list the sales as well. If someone wanted to subsection it off, like it is with the Mario & Sonic game sales, that'd probably be fine too, if that helps your concerns. Sergecross73   msg me   14:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sonic hatred, wuh?
I've never come across such outrasges against our favorite hedgehog! May I ask to help direct me to some areas, gentlemen? User:06Lover Neo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.178.156 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, is there a part of the article in particular you have a question about? I'm not seeing much about "outrages" or "hatred" in the article... Sergecross73   msg me   19:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger - Sonic Boom (TV series)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Currently, everything that is known about the new Sonic TV show comes from Sega's brief blog post on 2 October 2013. Sega stated that they aren't even sure of the title of the show. Wikipedia requires diverse coverage from a wide variety of sources. Most, if not all, of the sources out there are simply relaying Sega's blog announcement. I was inclined to nominate for deletion, but after some thought, merging the content here as a section under "Animation" may be more feasible until more information about the show becomes available. v/r, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Very premature, for the reasons you just listed. There's a sentence in the series article now, I believe, so a redirect will suffice. It can be undone closer to its air date (which isn't until 2014). Sergecross73   msg me   00:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose although thename might not be set in stone, all the more reason to keep it if more information about renaming arises. Also, this is a confirmed show and scheduled to release of fall next year. there's plenty of information between that time to be revealed. But if you want to bring it back to the main article, i suppose it won't hurt as it will just be reverted anyways when more information comes, and i'm sure we will get more information soon.Lucia Black (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is currently 2 sentences, and a list of 4 characters. Do you really think it should be kept now? Seems like it should be redirected and then un-redirected once more information is known. (I don't believe there's any information known except for what is there already.) I don't support deletion, as it will surely be notable someday, but right now it just seems WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73   msg me   01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * fair enough, i suppose it can be merged for now, it will only serve as a redirect anyways, so any new information can be moved back.Lucia Black (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I fully support restoring it once more is known. Sergecross73   msg me   02:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah you are right I mean its just a little of information provided, so I wouldn't mind. TheUpdates (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Per Sergecross. --Asmetr (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since its unanimous so far, even with the support of the article's creator, I went and redirected it to the animation section. Right now its only one sentence, but feel free to flesh it out to the full two sentences if anyone wants to. Sergecross73   msg me   13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Miyamoto on Sonic
In a 1995 interview with Edge, Shigeru Miyamoto was asked about his thoughts on the Sonic series (among many other things), to which he replied: "Among Mario's imitations, Sonic is a good one." This may be irrelevant, since Miyamoto isn't much of a gamer and he isn't a critic either, but it might be an amusing anecdote. I can't say I have thought very deeply about whether this is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, but I thought I'd mention it here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Green Hill Zone merge proposal
I propose that Green Hill Zone be merged to Sonic the Hedgehog (series). As mentioned on its talk page, I believe the article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) but is worth including on this page instead of deleting outright. The most significant sources that cover the level in more than a sentence talk about a papercraft version or an office prank involving the level, which I wouldn't call significant coverage. If analysis of the level itself from reliable sources were to appear, I'd reconsider, but we've had this conversation open for a while now between the talk page and the WT:VG conversation. czar ♔ 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Green Hill Zone is currently up for GA. Let's wait until I pass or fail the GAN before deciding on something like this. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been cases where Good Articles were merged into other pages. Just because an article reaches a status doesn't mean it protects it from a merger. GamerPro64  01:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true. That's happened with two of my past GAs and looks like it may with one or two more (not that I agreed with it...). Tezero (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Also active merge conversations are explicitly mentioned as not affecting GAN#5 (stability) czar ♔  01:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware how GA's can be delisted and redirected, just felt we should wait until the review has concluded. If sufficient coverage comes into the article within the next five or six days, I will pass the GAN and oppose the merge. Otherwise, I will fail the GAN and support the merge. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But if there's a chance it becomes a Good Article and then there is consensus for a merger, then the review would be rather pointless. GamerPro64  01:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a worthy concern, but there are two supports and two opposes so far: nothing like a consensus. Tezero (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, obviously. The papercraft version and office prank would be a fine rationale for merging... if they were all there was. Instead, there are numerous sources talking about how classic and memorable the level is, even within its game. Tezero (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, why do we need individual pages about level zones? BcRIPster (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - per Czar. This looks more like something that belongs on countless Sonic fansites or Wikias, not a Wikipedia article meeting the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me   02:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons I have already stated at the Green Hill Zone's talk page. Multiple third-party sources have given more than passing mentions. As GNG states, the topic does not need to be the main subject of an article, but should have more than passing mentions. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, even the mentions that are passing typically gush a little about how significant a level it is. Tezero (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Coverage of office pranks and other similar evidence suggests that a level is notable enough to have penetrated into the common dialogue. Nobody would consider a prank involving level 4-2 (just picking a random level here) because nobody is familiar with it. It hasn't achieved notability so it would be meaningless. I don't think it makes sense to discount this kind of evidence of notability. Obviously more depthy sources would be required to get this article to GA or FA status. Ideally we'd see discussion of the level from a level-design or game-design perspective, and coverage of the development history of the level. These kinds of sources probably only exist for a handful of levels. Where does that leave us? I think articles like this meet the minimum threshold and shouldn't be deleted, but I am more open to the idea of merging. As I've said at the Sonic characters discussion, it's not a bad idea to consider merging large numbers of closely-related and scantily sourced (i.e. in-depth, third-party, RS-sourced) articles into one large and well-sourced article. It would likely mean losing some content, but that may be an acceptable trade-off. In general with level articles, I'd shy away from the "first level of a notable franchise" ones because coverage is most likely to be insignificant. I'm neutral on the proposal for now because I think the article meets the low end of GNG and thus policy doesn't dictate an answer for me. I think this would have to proceed as a matter of editorial discretion. As this is kind of a matter of first impression for WP:VG, this could be looked on as establishing a precedent for level articles, though, so the more members of the community that weigh in the better. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merge - I don't mean to pour cold water on anyone who's tried to make a GA out of this (indeed, I GA reviewed Sega Genesis and would like to think I helped get it an easier ride to FA status in the process), but if I had a dog, it would probably bark at this article. There are sources, sure, but I can't help feeling we're just trying to make too much of an article that is adequately described in the existing Sonic articles instead, and squeezing notability out of sources like toothpaste from a tube. Really, we should improve Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) first.  Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   17:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's... I don't remember what it's called, but Wikipedia has a policy that discourages using one's preferences in which articles be improved as an argument. this may be a sensitive issue, but I remember you being accused of it in some way, rightly or wrongly. What's it called? Anyway, the reasonable argument I see here is that the topic isn't needed as it's redundant – though that's still not one I'd agree with, particularly because the users who have voiced approval of merging don't even agree on whether it should be to the series or the first game. Tezero (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. Where are you seeing people disagreeing on a merge target? Sergecross73   msg me   03:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On Green Hill's talk, and  say it should be merged to either the series or the first game,  mentions "the existing Sonic articles" (whichever those are) and implies the first game is the best target, and  (who thinks the article meets WP:N but that we should consider merging anyway) just mentions one large article for several topics of which Green Hill is presumably one. Yet this discussion is happening on the series article, which is also the proposed locus per the template at the top of Green Hill's page. Tezero (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * which is to say that the supports here are for merging it here, to the series article czar <font color="#909">♔ 03:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oversimplification, but fine, I'll assume they're all for here. I still don't think it really fits here, though; if merged here, it'd be a bunch of miscellaneous information that wouldn't fit in one section (e.g. Reception, legacy [that combined section ought to be split, at least into subsections], common elements), yet seeing Green Hill references everywhere would be similarly weird. The overall main reason I think it's better off as its own article isn't notability, although I also contend it has that; it's that the level is probably more significant in gaming than in the Sonic series. I mean, think of how important Green Hill is to the Sonic canon (not very - it didn't appear in any plot-driven Sonic games except in Adventure 2 and Battle as more of a bonus level) vs. how much it's demonstrably thought of as a classic gaming level. Yet we also definitely couldn't merge it into a generic gaming article, even that of platform games. So I really... do think it works better on its own. (And to be clear, this isn't me glorifying Sonic. I think World 1-1 of Super Mario Bros. is at least as well-known in all common sense; it just doesn't have the coverage this one does.) TL;DR: Even if we assume everyone thinks the article fits here, I don't for a few reasons. Tezero (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you were pulling your information from multiple discussions. Anyways, if the consensus is to merge, we can just have a second discussion to measure the consensus on which merge target makes the most sense, so we shouldn't let that put a hamper on things... Sergecross73   msg me   03:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why's that? Merging—as an idea, with no locus intended—doesn't make sense. Moreover, as I've elaborated, there being no particularly well-suited target can very well be an argument in favor of keeping, and it is one of mine. Tezero (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is way off topic now, but AfDs close all the time with "merge" consensus and no consensus on merge target. They still close as merge and go to discussion on the talk page. Also anyone can merge wherever they'd like czar <font color="#909">♔ 05:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd understand your stance if we are talking about zero merge targets. But we're talking about two targets. That leaves us with a bunch of options on where to move the info in a merge. It certainly would inhibit a merge... Sergecross73   msg me   22:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per Ritchie and czar.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has gotten non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources such as MakeUseOf and IGN. Definitely meets the WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it has some weaknesses, I can't get behind this merge - not no way, not no how. There are several sources that suggest it to be a valuable part of Sonic, SEGA's, and the Genesis' history. I think it's important that we let this article grow more. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article seems to establish some form of "icon" status rather than being just another common element in the series. Lucia Black (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Like said, there's references to a variety of reliable sources. Being notable enough for a prank directly involving this level to have its own article in Kotaku is definitely one of many good indicators that it's a keeper. <font style="text-shadow:0em 0em 0.75em #B87333;">Supernerd11 Firemind <font color="9F000F">^_^ Pokedex 19:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Citations 13, 14, 24, and 25 are to third-party secondary sources that contain more than "passing mentions" to this subject; they contain multiple paragraphs describing or analyzing it. Citations 3 and 16 further describe in detail events directly connected to the level. This is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate "significant coverage", and therefore this article satisfies the general notability guideline. Moreover, several of the above editors who support merging this article have offered few to no substantive reasons why this article fails the GNG; rather, many supporting editors appear to be making unsubstantiated assertions based on little more than a personal dislike of this topic having its own article (i.e., "if I had a dog, it would probably bark at this article"; "why do we need individual pages about level zones?") –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's now safe to say that this is not getting merged. Can the discussion now be closed? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Movie Date Correction
The date for the Sonic movie is incorrect. Needs to be 2014, not 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentwulf (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)



Grammar check
A general cleanup of grammar and misused words should be conducted. For example, under Sonic Boom, the word "preclude" (to prevent) is used where "precede" (to go ahead of) would make more sense. 199.27.195.217 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Other characters exist, too
I'm a little concerned about the lack of images of characters other than Sonic in this article. Something like the full cast, such as the Generations screenshot I added to the character article, isn't necessary, but the current sampling of images kinda gives the impression that Sonic has been the only significant playable character or, even less accurate (and more distasteful), that all games in the series are defined as such by him being the protagonist. Does anyone have any ideas? I'd honestly be fine with swapping the Green Hill Zone one for something else to represent the Classic era - say, playing as Tails or Knuckles in S3&K, or even a Knuckles' Chaotix screenshot - especially because there are, like, five Wikipedia articles with Green Hill screenshots.

On a related note (and fulfilling these two things could overlap), I don't think the various eras of the series are adequately represented. Do we really need a pic of Sonic being Super Sonic when the only relevant visual information is that he turns yellow (not my idea of an adequate fair-use justification)? Regardless, I think screenshots from (1) a Modern-era game such as '06 or Colors and (2) one of the Advance or Rush entries would be helpful for an understanding of the directions the Sonic formula has gone in. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove the Super Sonic image.
 * I don't know about replacing an image with one of just another character, as Sonic is largely the focus of the series, and images on Wikipedia are supposed to be minimal. But maybe s screenshot consisting of Sonic and other major characters (Tails, Knuckles, Shadow) could be a good idea. Sergecross73   msg me  10:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you chose to remove an image of the main character of the title series, in its most iconic level, with a random Knuckles picture, as the first image of the article? That makes no sense at all. Sergecross73   msg me  03:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the first image of the article; you've made sure of that by insisting on replacing the free-use series logo with another screenshot from Sonic 1. But I removed it because this "iconic level" is used in numerous other pages and gets old after a while - but this isn't the image that's usually used, which is hardly the "minimal use" required by FUR. Moreover, the Sonic & Knuckles one shows things like the shield and checkpoints, which the Green Hill one doesn't. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Knuckles image in itself is fine, it's just what you did with it. It doesn't make sense as a replacement for an image that contains the title character, and it doesn't make sense as the first image showing gameplay. I'm not crazy about the Blaze screenshot either. It's hard to see her and what's going on in the image, and she's hardly a primary character in the series... Sergecross73   msg me  10:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, in response to your puzzled edit summary, "lead off" just means "first" or "beginning". As in, the first image in the article (outside of the infobox pic, which I excluded because it's not depicting gameplay.) Sergecross73   msg me  12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks for explaining. Anyway, I'd venture that it's especially important for this series' page to contain some kind of visual illustration of other characters, because of all of the endless rants from IGN and junk about how many characters there are and how the focus should be (but isn't) on Sonic 24/7. (Actually, it has been since Colors for the most part, but that's a different story...) Tezero (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined to agree if/when the article actually covered any of that. That's covered some at the characters article, but not really much here at the series article. Sergecross73   msg me  17:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

change genesis to mega drive
mega drive because mega drive is the correct name used everywhere except the usa also it sound better Thetruthhhh (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)thetruthhhh
 * No. This has been debated to death at its article. If you go to the Sega Genesis talk page, you'll see the reasons why, and we should keep it consistent here with the article title. Sergecross73   msg me  13:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sonic's sales
I checked our sales, and Sonic is 8th best selling, two slots below the listed 6th place in the first paragraph of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.72.233 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've just changed the wording to "one of the" highest-selling, since it's an extremely volatile piece of information. Tezero (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

New Sonic game 2015
New Sonic game released 2015 on  Wii U,  PS4  and <font color="#0de100">Xbox  One . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.206.161 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable source. Sergecross73   msg me  02:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sega has also clarified that the information is false BTW. <font color="#00B7EB">Satellizer  (´ ･ ω ･ `)  08:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily take that as false - it could be just them not having wanted to talk about it yet. And there has been a recent, possibly reputable (but not for here) information leak on a possible new game called Sonic Runners. Nevertheless, as I was going to say before I got edit-conflicted out last time because I didn't hit "submit" quite when I thought I had, we need reliable sources before reporting on rumors, even if we're not purporting them as true. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the three of you are around, feel free to familiarize yourself with the disruptive editor behind this. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, looks like I've been responding to him elsewhere too. How can you tell though? I trust your judgement...but I can't make the connection personally yet. Am I missing something? Sergecross73   msg me  21:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The range, the crystall-balling (just from this IP: Draft:Paper Mario (2015 video game) and this) mostly. Used to be big into Macy's Parade crystal balling but everything's protected now (although you still see stuff like this. Been on my radar for over a year and I have most targets on my Watchlist, so when he edits something it inevitably leads to other cleanup. The amount of crystallballing/hoaxes (because they are asserted as facts) pages I've had to delete by following this vandal around numbers in the hundreds. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

About sales
The nubmer of Sonic the Hedgehog sales is wrong. http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Sonic+the+hedgehog&publisher=&platform=&genre=&minSales=0&results=200 The first Sonic game sold out in 4.34 million copies, not 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.144.79 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, same thing with Sonic Heroes and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games series.

Sonic Heroes: 2.96 milliom copies (not 1.73) Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: 5.08 (not 11.31) Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games: 4.51 (not 6.53) Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games: 3.68 (not 2.7 million) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.144.79 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * VGChartz is not a reliable source. It's unusuable on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  02:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, the general practice with sales totals (assuming reliability) is to use the highest estimate, leaving two of these assertions moot. Tezero (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sonic CD's actual rating
In the "Reception" section, the chart claims that Sonic CD has a 100.00% rating on Gamerankings.com. I know that is not true because Super Mario Galaxy has the highest rating, but I couldn't edit it so... yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.212.111 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You can change it if you want, then; I can't really do it without my browser crashing because phone. (Personally I'd like to see this change, too, since I find CD's level design tremendously poor, its music forgettable, and its visuals quite garish. Galaxy, however, is awesome; I prefer it to the second one.) I wonder how that error came about - maybe added when there were fewer ratings in for a certain port? Tezero (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's because the Sega CD version only picks up one review Sega 16, and we don't even consider that a reliable source. There was an agreement somewhere at WP:VG that games with less than 4-5 reviews should not have GameRanks or MetaCritic scores, because they statistically don't mean much, and are misleading. I'm all for removing. Sergecross73   msg me  05:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015
73.142.128.45 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ No request actually made. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2015
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This has been around for a long time now, and has also been muddied by the fact that the nature of the source article has been changed during the request; it is now a clear cut disambig, and that means that some of the earlier comments may or may not be still relevant. Given this lack of clarity, and the fact that there are quite a few opposes saying that the series is not primary, I don't think we can declare a definite consensus to move at this time. This does not, of course, prevent a fresh new RM, if people wish to initiate one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

– (This is technically a relist; the original rationale is below this comment.) Now that Sonic the Hedgehog has been converted to a disambiguation page, this discussion is to move the series article to the ambiguous title (designating it the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and moving the disambiguation Sonic the Hedgehog to Sonic the Hedgehog (disambiguation) (For this proposed move, I am neutral.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sonic the Hedgehog (series) → Sonic the Hedgehog
 * Sonic the Hedgehog → Sonic the Hedgehog (disambiguation)
 * Previous rationale, prior to Sonic the Hedgehog becoming a disambiguation page: After being on the fence of this readability dilemma for a couple of years now, I feel that it is time to post this move request. This move request is not the same as the move request in 2013; instead, I am in the belief that the page currently at the "primary topic title" should either be deleted or blanked. The current content at Sonic the Hedgehog looks nothing more than an abridged version of Sonic the Hedgehog (series); it's not a disambiguation page, but rather a set index that essentially replicates the information in Sonic the Hedgehog (series) in a shorter form. Steel1943  (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: To retain the attributions at Sonic the Hedgehog per WP:A, a good option may be to move it to a title such as Sonic the Hedgehog (video game series), or better yet, just reverse the two pages and have Sonic the Hedgehog (series) redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog after the attributions and pages have been swapped. Steel1943  (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In the potentially fast moving world of Sonic, I would worry that this move might allow the content of Sonic the Hedgehog (character) might end up getting merged into this article. GregKaye 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The character is certainly independently notable, so I don't think that'll be an issue. czar ⨹   14:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * teeheehee, "fast moving" - nice one, GregKaye <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 02:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support as proposed. I also agree that the character should be kept separate, just as Doctor (Doctor Who) is a separate article from the franchise article, Doctor Who. bd2412  T 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as the most logical alternative; it's clearly not the original game, and the character is not as notable as the series. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 02:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Since Wikipedia is all about neutrality and there is no clear cut, ultra obvious usage which deserve priority - I have an alternative suggestion, since I agree that the Sonic the Hedgehog page as it stands now, it just a list that belongs as part of the Series article. The main article of Sonic the Hedgehog should be a disambiguation page with 3 options for Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) and Sonic the Hedgehog (franchise) instead of (Series) which is more common than series and more applicable since franchise is more than just the games themselves when it expands into other media formats like cartoons, books, movies, etc.; In pages related to the topic, the series is described as "a video game franchise" and in the (1991 video game) article it says "The game's success led Sega to develop an extensive media franchise.", All three of those things have the same name, and I don't think that any one of them actually deserves priority over the other, they all exist together, none can really exist without the other, which puts them all on equal ground when it comes to what someone finds when they search for terms related to the character, game, and franchise.WildWikiGuy (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a hatnote atop the series article serve the same purpose? czar ⨹   14:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a hatnote atop would serve the same purpose, however, I think that should be on the character, the character is what the games and the Franchise are centered around. I believe franchise is better overall because it has expanded beyond just a series of video games.WildWikiGuy (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Before your suggested move happens (if it does, consensus pending), do you at least agree that the current content at Sonic the Hedgehog is an unnecessary copy of Sonic the Hedgehog (series)? My ultimate goal with this discussion is to deem the content currently at the primary topic title unnecessary, not to determine a new primary topic. If you agree, I'd rather this discussion not be derailed to "no consensus" due to an opposing view, and attempt to determine a different primary topic in a different discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given Cúchullain's referenced edits below, my struck comment above is no longer valid. Steel1943  (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that the page history currently at Sonic the Hedgehog needs to be preserved, contrary to what the nom above seems to think . Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have overlooked the lines in tags below my nomination statement? Steel1943  (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite right, and my apologies! Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Wouldn't it just be easier to make the "not really a dab page" into a legit dab page? Seems like cleaning that up would be easier? I know me being a maintainer of many of the related articles doesn't give me any special status or anything, but too much shuffling around by people who usually don't edit them kind of makes me nervous in respect to lost or mis-information too... Sergecross73   msg me  17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that as well, but the history of the page currently at the ambiguous title just makes it seem like a fork off of the "(series)" article. Another option I could see to retain the attribution at proper titles would be to swap the contents and edit histories at Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic the Hedgehog (series), converting the "(series)" title into a redirect to the ambiguous title, then creating a "legit dab page" at Sonic the Hedgehog (disambiguation). Steel1943  (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given Cúchullain's referenced edits below, my struck comment above is no longer valid. Steel1943  (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: At this point, Sonic the Hedgehog was converted from a set index page to a disambiguation page (in this edit). For this reason, the comments above this notice may relate to when the page was a set index. Also, my rationale for this move has changed, and Sonic the Hedgehog has been added to this move request. (I am the nominator.)
 * Support. The current series article makes a fine WP:CONCEPTDAB. It's really of no help to readers to send them to disambiguation pages when there are other options. Such a solution is standard at many similar articles on media franchises, including Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Crash Bandicoot, and The Legend of Zelda. And yes, the set index what-have-you should be converted into a real dab page covering items actually called "Sonic the Hedgehog", as is done with Planet of the Apes (disambiguation) and Star Trek (disambiguation).--Cúchullain t/ c 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I converted the list at Sonic the Hedgehog into a normal dab page. It can be moved to Sonic the Hedgehog (disambiguation), with the series article usurping it.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the dab page is doing its job, the fact that the main character is also called the same thing suggests that we want to get links right rather than guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.