Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters

So, if NiGHTS, Amigo, and Aiai are allowed in this article...

Does that mean that Mario, Luigi, and Yoshi are considered Sonic characters too? magiciandude 00:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Mario and such are property of Nintendo, first off. Sega's characters can't mix with them. And in most cases, franchises are kept separate as well. However, Sega has put NiGHTS and the others in various Sonic games. At this point, they might as well be Sonic characters.

Plus they don't really have enough characters for their own page so they need some place to belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.145.6 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No way.... Yingpingu (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a little advice, take it or leave it.

This articles a little messy. I think it would probably be better if it was organised into sections. eg. Main Characters, Secondary characters, Minor characters and scrapped characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.233.210 (talk) 11:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more in favor of the previous version, but I appreciate your contributions. -- POWERSLAVE 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This led to an edit war, so I removed it.--Neofcon (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NON SONIC

Shouldn't we add the whole cast from S.S.B.B. onto the non-Sonic section?-SLJCOAAATR

That would get a little cluttered best just leave it as it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.227.10 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. But why are characters that made only 1,or 2,or 3 appearences in the main characters section?Everyone after the Chaotix should be moved to minor characters.-SLJCOAAATR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.6.131 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The SSBB Chracters are not in a Sonic related game, Sonic is in a Mario related game!  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Sonic APPEARS in a NINTENDO game. No way related to sonic games so they dont count.--Neofcon 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Villains

Where are all the villans is something I would like to ask, I would like to add my disaproval of this article and demand everything be changed back immideately! These articles were perfectly fine the way they were, and I have recently learned most of the one timers were intentionaly erased, which is pure vandalism! And I will not stand for it.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Villains have their own article...  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which no longer exists, try looking it up for yourself if you don't believe me.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Why is it gone? Edit: That's fixed now, there was no reason for it's removal!  Doktor  Wilhelm 

My guess would be that the person who did all this probably deleted it, I only managed to get back the Other characters list because I was watching it.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Yeah, I had a look (and brought it back), I think it's the same person removing it all.  Doktor  Wilhelm 

It is His name is TTN, look on the history section and you'll probably find him.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

One game characters will no longer be covered, and I am working towards one list. Please just go along with it. Complaining and reverting will only prolong the inevitable. TTN (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed repeated article

Elements of this article (which is only a list, and as such should even be on here) were taken/repeated from Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), I have removed them...  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

None of the characters assert notability by including development and reception information. Unless that information is provided, these will be merged. I suggest Wikia if you would like to continue editing this kind of information. This is not a vote, so please remember that having more people than me will not help. TTN (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and any descriptions from the other pieces of media will be merged to their correct lists, so you don't need to worry about that. TTN (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing stuff until after it has been decided, as you keep doing with Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)‎, wait until the dicussion is over! Anyways, I believe the articles would do much better being merged, but your tactics and the article you keep replacing List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) are weak and really not a merger at all. Also my problems with the merger you are doing are that the first half of the article is nothing but links the other articles, and the rest are a few chracters, that you personally believe to be notable! If the articles are merged, also, it will end up being too long, that is one of the rasons it has been seperated into Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other chracters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), maybe any information could be merged into them two, with the main characters having their own articles, and List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) serving as a bridge between them all!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some notability reasoning and other information to the article. Personally, I am against merging any minutely notable article which is not a stub. I know this is not a vote, but I would like to prevent the change of "in a list article, the section is bursting, so they make it it's own article. People like you question notability, OR, etc, and get it merged back. It overflows and is moved out again." It's fine as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters should demonstrate real-world significance, per the fiction guideline, right? Is anyone disputing this? Most of the content on these various lists thus looks inappropriate for Wikipedia. Efforts to make an exhaustive guide to the Sonic universe should be done on some other wiki. Friday (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

as I said, I believe a merge could be of benefit, but no the way TNN is going about it! Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, Rouge the Bat, Eggman Nega and Babylon Rogues could easily be merged with other articles: Villains and Other characters, , E-123 Omega should aslo be merged with E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog), Chaos (Sonic the Hedgehog) is as important a enemy as Doctor Robotnik and Chaotix should have any associated cracters merged into it and then it could even be merged into other character. Friday, what TNN is doing, doesn't help with anything to do with real-world significance, only with condencing the articles into one!  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I say (further ranting), there really is too many rambling articles on singular chracters (many of which TNN has singled out); and they should be trimed and seperated into Villains and Other characters, the Main characters that are notable enough to have their own articles should also be sorted out! That leaves two seperate articles for 'bit players' and however many seperate main chracter articles (how many are there of those anywayas?), and the article we are discussing on now should be used as a bridge for all Soinc the Hedgehog related chracters within the games, this would make the whole video game related articles better, of the Comic Book/other related articles I know nothing of though. but I'm sure they need tidying up!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if those two lists are kept, the one game characters are going to be removed, so that leaves Nack in the enemies and a few in the "others." Nack would obviously be merged, leaving the only the one list. The single articles that are going to be merged would also be merged there, leaving us with the exact same situation with the exception of a different name. TTN (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How does Nack the Weasel survive anything, isn't he only in one game, while eggman nega is in two, so are the Babylon Rogues? and why do you want to remove one game chracters? Special if they are important to the development of the game, and it's reflection of the events in 'real life' that they mirror? I know you just want to remove all content, but just because there are Wikia, doesn't mean that mean that everything should be removed from wikipedia, otherwise anyhthing about Motor Cars should be in one article, includding all makes and models! and everything else about Cars should all be on a wikia!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the characters covered on that list, not the ones being merged. Nack has appeared in multiple games according to his list entry, so he is actually relevant. On the other hand, one game characters are part of only one game, so their description is completely redundant to the main article. That is different than cars, which for one thing are real objects, covered in real world documents. That argument is broken in more than one place. TTN (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are figures of chracters, real world objects, more real than most of the cars to most people! Anyways, there are enough chracters, 'bad' and 'good' to warrent having two seperate articles for other charcters, and not just one singular list! Unless you think, that the entire collection of articles for Sonic the Hedgehog video games and characters, should just be in one singular article?  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Figurines apply to the overall series rather than the specific characters. Unless you can find a lawsuit regarding single characters, they do not apply here. Again, all of the one game characters will be removed regardless of the outcome here. That leaves Nack and Nega as the only pure villains able to occupy the list (the other "villains" are more on the rival side or become reformed in the case of Chaos). Please stop jumping to such extremes as if they could possibly come true. It does not help you. TTN (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One article per game sure seems reasonable to me. I could be convinced otherwise- if particular characters had sufficient coverage in reliable sources, outside the context of the game, it might be reasonable to have an article on the specific character. But, much of what we have here so far is inappropriate content. It would belong fine on a game guide, but not on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One character list per game? That doesn't really work out, as most of these games share core characters, while adding some that either go onto become regulars or only preside in the one game. The structure of one main list (this is how it'll look if you haven't seen it) to describe the recurring characters, while allowing the plot sections of the games to describe their actions and the one game characters is the best way to do it for this series. TTN (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant one article per game. Characters that are relevant to that game might be mentioned in that article. But the article should focus on encyclopedic content about the game, rather than in-universe-perspective stuff. Friday (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. That's how it's generally set up, though the game articles are pretty big cruft magnets. TTN (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. We have to ask ourselves what the right place is for any given bit of information, and we need to be able to accept that sometimes the answer will be "not on Wikipedia". Friday (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that may be true but what about that little word called 'overcrowding'? if some of the more frecuent charicters like Rouge, Cream and Blaze were to be mixed in with many other of the minors there would be just to much infomation cramped as tightly as possible and that is not what wikipedia is about, besides the Chaotix page is just fine as it is cause it is a list of charicters on its own and its got plenty of infomation to remain sepertate besides its works perfectly the way its is with the minor villains in one list, minor charicters in another, chaotix on another, Babylon may have only appeared in two games but is it unecasary to cram them together, besides is good to have the cast having their own page like Omega and Chaos, please stop merging it may seem good but its not organized and it laks all the proper infomation. Behellmorph (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll be switching back to my format fairly soon; just so you know. TTN (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And then we'll probably be switching back, rather soon awfterwards, just so you know!  Doktor  Wilhelm  14:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated, and I will continue to state, this information does not belong here, and it will not stay here. I really do encourage you to utilize Wikia, as it will be the only place for this information eventually. Though, you may end up dragging this out for over a month. Hopefully, I can actually get some people from the video game project to comment later. TTN (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you, yourself, would benifit from a Wikia. then you may remove any and all content, to your hearts desire! If everything is to be condenced down, it must be done well, something you are not doing!  Doktor  Wilhelm  15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with TTN, the characters are no where near notable. May as well merge them into this article until real world sources can be found and placed on each of them. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It displeases me to note that you people are so busy ranting about your cruft and your merges that you don't catch or revert vandalism on the page and another. This causes me to question whether or not you have whats best for the articles and Wikipedia in mind, or whether your on a merge and delete rampage. I agree that Omega COULD be merged to E-series, but honestly, some of you sound like you're suggesting merging all the articles in to one big SONIC CHARACTERS article. This is neither neccessary or wanted. User:Radman622 07:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Rouge is one of the main characters and has a main Role in every game she is in. If Cream, who is becoming the next Omochao, has her own article than Rouge should have her own to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.248.156 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You cant do this people. Rouge, Blaze and Silver all deserve articles, and there is not enough room to put their info on this page. This has been suggested by some wiki-Nazi who wants to get rid of these characters, well guess what, not going to happen.--Super Badnik (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree here, but a Wiki Nazi is a little extreme. All characters mentioned in your list of merges should be kept as single articles. I mean, Transformers as an example has a single article for each of their characters, and their are a lot of characters. Sonic only has very few characters and the most notable ones (Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Eggman, Shadow, Cream, Rouge, Blaze, Silver) should all have their own articles for being main characters as well as recurring characters. Let's not turn this into a war. Evilgidgit (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So TTN, you say "We'll be switching back to my format fairly soon; just so you know". Well then i would like to reply; Oh no we wont! We wont unless a consensus is reached among us editors to do so. You have no right do so by yourself if everyone else disagrees. And as others have pointed out, there are many franchises with far more individual character pages than the Sonic franchise. So i dare say that atleast Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Eggman, Shadow, Metal Sonic, Cream, Blaze, Silver and the Chaotix are certainly entitled to the individual pages they have now. And i think most of the regular editors of those articles agrees. Rattis1 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say leave this article as is as(Chaotix). Merging it with other info just leaves it in a location where it won't fit properly. They aren't villains, and they aren't necessarily allies of Sonic. Even if this got merged with "Other Characters", as a group and as displayed in the comics, this group would still deserve a special mention anyways given their significant importance.Reinoe (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We shall be keeping the articles

Since the concensus seems to be that the articles in question (all shown in Template:Sonic_characters) should be kept, but worked on, I think it's time that the Merge tags be removed and the relevent tags be added (I'll try the best I can), I personally have ideas for improvement in the articles, specially the Villains and Other characters articles, they need fan/media/other reception towards the chracters, elements adding to improve real world importance, and fan "cruft" removing, the size of each characters sections should be relevent to their part in the games as well as the amount of games that the appear in! Is there no Wikipedia Project page for Sonic Game articles, as there are many projects for smaller games?  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger Discussion reopened

TTN has re-opened a disussion for the merger of Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)‎ in to the List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) article (The discussion is at WikiProject Sega).  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been moved to WikiProject Video games.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we?

Add Shade and the Dark Brotherhood?SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on how infomation would be involved with them, but its not a bad idea actually. Whos knows i think that it might be a good idea to let Big have his own page since he has appeared in quite a few games.behellmorph (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Big page ;)SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WHO SAID THAT SHADE WAS TRICKED BY EGGMAN TO STEAL A EMERALD FROM SONIC?! -LyokoTitan101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.97.140 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A dirty lying mother f***er. That's who.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New pages

I believe that we should re-create the Big page, as well as a page for Solaris (Containing Mephy, Iby, Soly (My nicknames 4 'em!)). And a Black Arms page. AND a Ghost Pirates page containing Whiskar, Johnny, Mini, Mum, etc. Please state your opinions about this.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Big should get an article after Sonic Chronicles comes out, the rest of the characters I don't think so.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Alright. I think we should do Big now, and well, I think perhaps a page for major villians? Metal, Nega, Solaris, Black Arms, Fang. What do you think?SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Big article I support but not until Sonic Chronicles comes out or until we've got more info about the kind of role he'll play. And by the way Metal Sonic and Eggman Nega already have pages.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But, while Nega isn't really a minor villian, he really hasn't gotten enough sdpotlight for an entire page.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

does

the ancient minister or tabuu count sonic is in tuper smash bros. brawl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.247.30 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. They're characters from the Smash Bros continuity, not the Sonic one. If we were to count Tabuu and Ancient Minister as Sonic characters, then that rule would apply to everyone, and we'd have Wario in Fire Emblem and Samus in Pokemon... Again, no, they don't belong on this page. 24.5.145.6 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dexters info

this page must of been vandlized, it states that dexter is amy's boyfriend, and it was confermed by IGN, but on the link it gives no information on anything about that and im shure there gonna make it so amy continues to have a crush on sonic, its a bit out of her nature and the series plot for here to give up on that. onless someone can prove this, it shall be deleted.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proved, just scroll down and take a look at the image. IGN.comFairfieldfencer FFF 08:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

i see, but an image cannot prove this enough. for all we know this could be a trick to make sonic jelous, thus, possibly a made up person. i will change it to say "possible boyfriend".--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying that is just speculation.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

well, we cant be too shure, if it says "possible" then that means both ways, real person or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicobbsessed (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else even CONSIDERED the possibility that the screenshot is a fake? The screenshot seemed to "magically" appear on IGN. It wasn't in the Nintendo Power article, and BioWare never mentioned it. IGN is the ONLY place it appeared on. There's also the fact that it looks like a horrible photoshop, of course, but everyone seems to like covering that with the whole "Pre-Alpha" thing. Also, in case you're having a hard time believing that IGN is wrong, think about that time where 1up.com posted a false Brawl roster update. Gaming sites are run by people. People make mistakes. In some cases, they also play pranks on other people, but I don't think this is a prank by IGN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.145.6 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It also appeared on Kotaku. -Sukecchi (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

... That doesn't change anything at all. Kotaku might have gotten it from IGN, or the other way around, whatever. Either way, BioWare never mentioned it. 24.5.145.6 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you've pushed it!

What, characters introduced from 2005+ aren't good enough fot this article now? -.-  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  17:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of mate/friend.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At the same time as me none the less. lol. I finish fixing it, and i see that you've beatan me to the punch!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  18:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I am the fastest editor in the north west. That's a joke, cause Liverpool is in the north west of England.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

lol. Getting to ourselves now?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mergers - Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 46#Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 47#Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft JohnnyMrNinja 07:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Big Mess

(sigh) See my comments here on why discussions like this are going to eventually cause Wikipedia to collapse in on itself and turn it into a useless blob of "whatever goes". It is largely because of this one-month-long discussion on something that SHOULD be a trivial matter that I'm seriously considering just hanging up my hat and going elsewhere, where there is some real genuine good being done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Everybody, stop it!

Look, guys we're getting nowhere. This is what got the last discussion archived. I would advise for FFF and SLJCOAAATR to relax, reread the policies, and comment on their respective talk pages. And KieferSkunk, keep your chin up. Pessimism is not what we need if we're going to get this done, which is why I'm putting my foot down with this, so we can stop arguing and get everybody back to work. FFF and SLJCOAAATR, may I remind you that even it such info is stripped now and is later deemed to be good, it can be restored? There's no need to get into these fights while we're discussing what should go where and how to fix this problem that many call cruft and I don't care what we call it as long as it gets fixed! Now, I volunteered to moderate this thread so it would not be archived again, but the more I keep reading, the more I'm being driven insane. All of you are just pissing me off with this endless dribble because we can't seem to work out a problem which should be a simple fix from a few skilled editors that, should it not work, can be reverted and restored. Can I get you guys to at least agree to let us try to solve this now and if it does not work to revert it? Fix the problem, and then endlessly argue about it! Otherwise, help to fix the problem! I don't know how I can make myself any more clear than that. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, RedPhoenix, we've already "put our feet down" on this and similar issues many times, and yet the argument continues unabated. The problem is, no single one of us, nor apparently any group of us, can make a final decision and make it stick, because we're bound (and in this case, hamstrung) by consensus policy, and nobody can seem to arrive at a consensus. I've become pessimistic because, like you, it's driving me nuts to see this keep on going and going and going. It's become a "He who shouts loudest wins" situation, and it's gotten to the point where frankly it's just not worth my time anymore.

Between this Sonic Cruft discussion and Le Grand Roi's persistent arguing about including video game weapons against an already established consensus, I've had enough of it. Until we get some real leadership that can actually make binding decisions and provide guidance that people are expected to follow, this crap is just going to keep going and going, and those of us who have better things to do are just going to go off and do them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not hamstrung by consensus policy. There is a consensus. FFF et. al are simply standing outside it. Sometimes, a consensus must exclude the inflexible opposition. Just keep cleaning up the articles; it's what we all agree needs to be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a consensus, why are we all still arguing about this, then? And what steps are being taken to enforce the consensus? If we have an established consensus, undoing and reverting consensus edits should be resulting in warnings or blocks. Instead, the discussion is just continuing as though nothing happened.

The reason I say we're hamstrung by consensus policy is that, to my knowledge, it is against our rules to block people because they disagree with consensus. I understand that FFF and SLC are going against consensus, but they're also making a reasonably good-faith effort to discuss it here and see if they can change consensus, which means they're following policies as well. And my point is that we're hamstrung because the current policies (including the blocking policy) prevent admins such as myself from setting anything in stone. That's what's so frustrating about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is a point at which they can be blocked for being disruptive, or for reverting edits. Although it wouldn't likely go through, it would likely scare them into realizing the severity of the issue. I think there is certainly consensus to give them warnings at this point, it's just that every single new person thought they could talk some sense into them. I am going to archive the above discussion, so as to not tempt any other Mobians. JohnnyMrNinja 04:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For starters: I don't scare that easy, and I'm not very like to since you just stated it wouldn't go through.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You've responded to exactly the wrong part of that, but to clarify - I don't think it would go through because I don't think anyone honestly wants to ban you. You are making your comments in good faith, simply trying your best to improve Wikipedia. You don't realize how disruptive your behavior is or how frustrating it is to the people who are making pains to explain things to you, without you seeming to pay them any heed. I was making a more general statement about situations like this, using you as an example. But it is very important that you realize that you can be blocked for disruptive behavior and for reverting edits. I do not want to see you blocked, and it is great to see someone care so much about a subject, but please pay more attention to what other people are saying, and know when to pick your battles. JohnnyMrNinja 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A consensus is not unanimity. A consensus discards opinions that are not based on logic or policy. And a consensus means that sometimes a few people are unhappy, but it has been made clear why things are being done the way they've been going. I'm sorry I haven't been particularly active in this discussion since it started. But add my voice to Red Phoenix in that we have to clean this stuff up, no matter how we do it, no matter what we call it... and yes, we can actually do it. What's next? Randomran (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if I'm off-base about my comments on this, I'm sorry. I just think this discussion is a symptom of a much bigger problem. In any event, I'll leave you guys to it for now. (bonked) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a totally valid observation, just talk of your hat-hanging is scary. I would hate to see such a valuable editor forced out by E-123 Omega. JohnnyMrNinja 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a completely valid point, KieferSkunk. I just think you should have some optimism, and once this gets done, maybe you'll have a little bit more. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps this shall help things out. AMIB, and everyone else, you guys do what you want to the articles. Triple F, me, and anyone else try to gather up what we believe is good info for the article. Then, we all decide what goes, and stays here? Sound good to everyone?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting a thoughtful compromise. Just make sure that any info fits into the consensus established here, and choose your battles. Can we tie this thread up now? JohnnyMrNinja 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why i just thought of it. I really think that my idea could prove useful, if we all agree to work like that. And thanks for the archive! ;) Much neater now!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But in the future, let's have the conversation on the talk pages of the articles. If you want more editors to give their opinion, just mention the debate here with a link to the talk page. This sort of drawn-out, overly specific topic is one we'd like to avoid on WT:VG. This page should be more for general project discussion. JohnnyMrNinja 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

K. I'll do so after you guys complete your work.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being willing to compromise. Maybe now we can get some work done around here. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to see what stage we're at right now. What are the main articles that look to be in rough shape, and need to either be improved or cleaned up with a chainsaw? If someone could make a list, it would be easier to focus this discussion. Randomran (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), we should go through all the articles listed as suggested merges into that article (as well as the list itself). They need to be gone through: get merged, or just cleaned up. Some might just need to go. I know people don't always want to admit it: but Wikipedia simply isn't the place for every character from a notable series. Wikipedia isn't a "catchall" guide for every minor character. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But they are not minor! Blaze the Cat has had a lot of etc., etc. Be careful! Please lets not go there again. JohnnyMrNinja 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will rephrase it: secondary and lesser characters. Is the "scrapped characters" section really necessary? It has two people in it, no sources. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this thread from WT:VG as it is more appropriate here. The scrapped characters are (I think) acceptable as a mention in that this is a list of characters, but only if refs are placed. JohnnyMrNinja 07:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also other lists that should probably be gone through. See Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters to view them. Some are for the games, while others are for the comics. Overall, I think a lot of article and list cleanup is needed here. Things such as Freedom Fighters (Sonic the Hedgehog) and Freedom Fighters (Sonic the Comic) would work as one article probably. I'm not saying we must merge all the similar articles, but we should at least look into that route to see if it would work better. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the lists (if I missed any, feel free to add) -

• List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)
• List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic)
• List of characters in Sonic the Comic
• List of characters from Sonic X
• List of characters in Sonic Underground
• List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series)
• Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series)
• Minor villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series)
• Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)
• Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)

As many characters appear across every medium, would it not be desirable to have characters by type rather than medium? For example, perhaps a list of main characters, list of villains, list of minor characters and list of minor villains? This would reduce all the confusing overlap? JohnnyMrNinja 07:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So have FFF and the like agreed to this? If not, moving the discussion here has made this even more hopeless. Anyways, splitting by medium is the best way to go. It would be too confusing otherwise. Let's work on getting the video game characters done first to get the hardest part out of the way. This list needs to be reverted back to this revision. The "Other Villains" and "Other characters" lists have already been merged enough in that revision, so they can just be redirected. A few characters already have trimmed revisions in their histories, so they can just be merged when we're ready. The rest can be done fairly easily. TTN (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support this as a transitional version. I've taken the liberty of reverting to TTN's version, because the format is more encyclopedic than the list format that the article currently has. Let's gradually add in information to this format to improve it. Randomran (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so currently, the following characters can easily be merged: Rouge, Cream the Rabbit, Omega Blaze, Silver. Only the two sections of Gamma need to be merged from E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog), and it can be redirected after. The few recurring characters from Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) have already been merged. The rest only appear in one single game, so the two lists can just be redirected. I'll work on trimming the others once these are all set. TTN (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a manual trim of Blaze the Cat, and did Omega yesterday, including reference tweaking, so if you want to merge those, work with the articles in their current versions. I'm sure it could be compacted even further without losing any info, if needed. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess i'll agree to it. We can always build back up from here on in...  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Though...Shouldnt we have ALL of the game characters listed in here? And i think Big should be moved to main characters after TDB's released. So, have we all agreed yet? Team Fairfieldfener, Team A Man In Black?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the current list format as you delete most of the characters.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just added new sections so we can have a vote, like you do on AfD.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the polling as unnecessarily divisive. See the guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the policy Wikipedia:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Also, you may want to read the essay meta:Polls are evil. Also, dividing people into "teams" under two leaders is divisive. We're all on the same team as we're all trying to improve the article and bring it up to a level of quality that we can be proud of. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of character lists on this site is to provide summaries of main, secondary, and more important minor characters. The point is not to list every minor or trivial character with a name. One game characters belong within their main articles. TTN (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against adding new characters to this basic outline we've been provided. In particular, the other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) can both be cleaned up and merged into this article. They should fit nicely on this list once we clean up the information that violtes WP:PLOT, WP:V, and WP:OR. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are still a few characters to be added anyways, but the majority don't belong here. Any character from those two lists that is not currently in this list only appears in one single game. There is no need to cover them here when they would just be redundant plot summaries. The character and plot sections of the main game articles can easily cover them. TTN (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with that for now, although obviously there should be nothing that prevents someone from adding a character should they find a reliable secondary source that mentions them. In the meantime, I think the most productive thing to do would be to clean-up other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games). There's a lot of inappropriate content there. If we can get them both down to 25-30k (or even less), they'd be an excellent addition to this main article. I'm going to be pretty busy until Friday, but does someone want to take the lead here? I can provide backup here and there. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not this again. TTN, when are you gonna learn that people don't want this merge to happen. Encyclopedias were made for people and aren't going to like this merge. And the one off characters is is just not needed. All characters deserve to be put in here. And it's that type of attitude that got you blocked for six months.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, one thing, the reason for the restriction on merging and redirecting stemmed from the fact that people like yourself make it nearly impossible to work with the regular process of consensus. To cope with that, I had to edit war pretty frequently. There was a heavy bias within the case to punish one side and I was the best candidate. As for "people don't want this merge to happen", you mean yourself and a few fans oppose a consensus formed locally by a large group of people and the rest of this site (i.e. our policies and guidelines). I still suggest that you use a Sonic wiki when you want information on Sonic the Hedgehog and use this one when you want to look up other topics. That will leave you much happier in the end. TTN (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that it's you that's the problem and not other editors?Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that users that don't understand or ignore policies and guidelines, like yourself, are the overall minority on this site, I would have to say that I am not the problem. My actions fall in line with policies, guidelines, and the overall consensus of what belongs on the site, while people only interested in content that fails policies and guideline obviously do not. TTN (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do understand policies. What I'm trying to do here is make everyone understand that what has been deleted isn't cruft. Am I going against any policies by doing that?Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bickering, this is not the place for it. Let's give some of these changes a chance, nothing is going to be lost because the pages' Histories save it all. Cigraphix (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual editing discussions, can we not at least set up this merge? FFF, we can set it up in a sandbox and then show it to everyone. That would satisfy both groups, the mergers who want to see this all merged together (or several entries, which can be separated by a ---- in one sandbox) and those who oppose it, to see what it looks like and make comments about it. I will even let people use my sandbox at User:Red Phoenix/Sandbox, since I'm not really using it at the moment, for it. Would that serve as a nice compromise for everyone at the moment? It also lets us get this in shape before we make the changes. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of this debate, it might preferable to have a new sandbox with no history, so that the history can be merged with the article, that way everyone can see who did what. But perhaps I'm being paranoid. JohnnyMrNinja 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can start a new sandbox if you really insist on having a new history. I'll keep it in my userspace, it's no problem for me. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The sections can just be added here without redirecting anything. I've already added information to a few of them mainly to just fill in some of the blank space. TTN (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

May I request that the article be reverted back to the original version if the Sandbox idea goes through. I'm all for it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, anything that brings this closer to a peaceful, quick, and complete resolution should be done. But I suggest that we let other editors weigh in first. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the sandbox, as it seems kind of unnecessary. Once we trim the other articles of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#OR, the merge should be relatively uncontroversial. It's the clean-ups that will be tough, considering there are a few editors who are severely out of step with our fundamental policies. I'm just not convinced we need it. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There's always going to be other ways to do things. I'm just looking for the one with the least amount of conflict that will complete quickly the merger. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the sandbox idea has the potential to be a good compromise. It can keep both sides feeling empowered rather than strong arming. It might even serve to educate those not in step with policies so it definitely deserves a chance. Cigraphix (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There really isn't anything that could be done in a sandbox that couldn't be done here. List entries can be created without redirecting the articles, so there should be no reason for a seaprate place to set it up. TTN (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

True but there is still the problem with that the skeptical editors will view it as strong arming - which runs the risk of driving them away or creating more edit wars - both are not something we are aiming for. Cigraphix (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Which was exactly my point in proposing this idea. And TTN, may I ask what harm is there in using a sandbox first? It's not like we're hurting the article in any way by going to a sandbox first. Just because "it isn't necessary to get it done" doesn't mean "we shouldn't use it to get it done". It's like climbing a giant rock with about ten other people without harnesses, but you have harnesses in your truck. While you may be able to do it without fear, and a couple of others, wouldn't the rest like that extra bit of security? And since you have the equipment, what's the harm in using it? Just a suggestion. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The danger of going with a sandbox is it's akin to voting: you have a bunch of people lining up to improve the sandbox, and a bunch of people lining up to improve the current article, with no one trying to find the middle ground. It creates a "fork", with two separate groups of editors working on two separate articles, which can only end in a "vote" for the more popular version. That's not how wikipedia works. We build a consensus based on small edits. Which is happening right now. We have an overwhelming consensus of editors who are all working off of each other, moving in one general direction. If we run into any further problems, we can hit the talk page. Things are going much more smoothly now. Randomran (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in a rush, so can someone quickly catch me up? Thanks.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to sort it out while hopefully keeping away from edit warring. That's pretty much it. TTN (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I didn't miss too much. Though, i suggest putting characters in the order that they were introduced to make things neater. Also, i suggest replacing Bean & Bark with the Babylon Rogues who are more important.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the table of contents is starting to get a little wide. But let's leave that until the very end, once we have all the characters in here. Then we can figure out the best way to organize it. I think sorting them by the game in which they were introduced might be good. But let's worry about that later. Randomran (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A possible problem is the Major / Minor character designations - this might be considered OR or a violation of NPOV. Perhaps this should be about recurring characters, after all, the characters that appear most often would be considered by readers to be the more important (the major characters), while those that appear the least are not so important (the minor characters). Cigraphix (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think Chaotix should be moved to secondary too.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter how we do it, I definitely agree that more than 10 entries under each part of the table of contents is too much. I'm okay with anything that keeps these a little shorter. Randomran (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's a problem, you can use Template:TOClimit or a custom one like in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. TTN (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be fine with the major characters, and some of the more major recurring characters (IE: Maria, Gerald, Babylon Rogues, Gamma, Chaos, Tikal, etc.) Is anyone against adding Big as a main character, or should we wait until more is known about his appearance in TDB? Also, why do the Babylon Rogues still have a page, when Cream doesn't, or a you guys still working on that? Oh, and, what section should Nega be put under? I'm not quite sure weather to classify him as main, or a minor...  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  00:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We're still adding information into this article. Organization should be the last step. You have a lot of good ideas, but I think it's best to wait until we know exactly how many characters are here, and how much information is listed under each character. There's still a proposal to add in all the characters from Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games). So we may need a better organization method than just "major/minor". We can't be sure yet. Randomran (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I added some info to some sections (Do you need sources?) ,and fixed where in the SADX pic., Gamma was called Omega. So that's fixed now.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources are always helpful. Especially since a lot of these entries already have a lot of problems with unverifiable information. Randomran (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright! I'll go find some sources. I'll see if Triple F will help so less time will be wasted.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  00:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I merged alot in here so far. You guys can ick out what you want. I added pics. for the secondary pics as well, and removed the SADX one. Any complaints so far?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  05:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. We'll all have to work together to keep on improving. My main concern are the "small animals" and "coconut crew" lists. My gut feeling is that this information is excessive. But maybe if these could be quickly summarized into a few sentences, the article would be better off. The list/TOC format doesn't seem necessary. Randomran (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it some more once i've moved everyone into here. I just need to get a pic. of Cream, and Team Chaotix though.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There's Chaotix. It'll need to be cropped, though. JohnnyMrNinja 07:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go put a label for those of whom can't figure it out.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  07:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgh... *Yawn* I merged everyone in. I fixed any mistakes that i noticed, and added a extra sentence, or 2 for cameos for a few characters. Just, could someone get either Cream's Heroes art, or her Channel art? Thanks.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  07:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed a pic. of all of the major characters but...It's rather cluttered. We'll need a paragraph summary to help clean things up. I still need the Cream pic. though...  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  08:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic. CBFan! ;) Though it was like that because i'm still working on the article...Ca you guys take it from here?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  08:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was to going to happen, I knew it I knew it. A Man In Black has removed so much important information, (or "fancruft" as he calls it), that there's no choice but to merge the articles. You wouldn't be doing this with post AMIB edited articles. I am against this merge 1000%. This should not happen, and I will see to it that this will not happen. TTN tried something like this before and all hell broke loose. He even force an editor off Wikipedia for a time because of it. This merge is a bad idea. Put the articles back. And there was no consensus about this at WikiProject Video games.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you give us some examples of the information you consider important that was removed, we could debate it, and perhaps figure out whether any of the information could be placed in Wikia. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this much...why Cream's article was deleted, but Metal Sonic's wasn't, confounds me. Heck, even Chaos got to keep its article. I'm seriously questioning why these articles are being merged in the first place. If they HAVE to be merged, can't we first come up with something that speculates what counts as a character or group worthy of having an article or not? CBFan (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This cleanup will surely take its time, it's not going to be complete in the one day, so some articles will take longer to be merged than Cream's. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We're all trying to improve the article here, and this isn't the diabolical master plan of a single editor. There's a strong consensus that this article is steadily improving. I count seven editors who have been working to improve this article by cleaning up and merging over the past 24 hours alone. Randomran (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And there goes my 4 hours of wor in the middle of the night! -.- A list of characters should have ALL the characters. And how are Omochao, President, Bean, and Bark secondary characters? How Chaotix major, and Big secondary? Big is as important as Chaotix. And Major character who lost their articles should have pics. Even the Major Secondaries. I tried working out a compromise for us all, and all that work is lost. THANKS! Waste of good sleep i could've had...  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  16:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As found under the editing box on the edit page:

Please note:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

That said, if you want to shuffle some major characters to minor, or the other way round, fair enough. I do think small pictures/thumbnails for each would be of benefit. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the WP:NFCC, only a few images can be used within this list. Plenty of group images exist, so only one should be necessary. TTN (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up the article alot more but, let's not remove info untill we decide what to do, and work on cleaning it up. Keep it like this untill we've completely finished the move. Thanks.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stage 2

... or rather, a section break for tidiness, but it seems the best point to do so now that Skeletal has done a good job adding characters to the list. Suggestion: characters such as Erazor Djinn need not have a heading here, since he only appears in one game - Sonic and the Secret Rings - and so these characters can be succintly described in the article for that game. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I personally feel as though each character should be placed in here. A list of all of the game characters on 1 page seems better. Should we add deleted characters? Also, if someone can, Cream pic, and Chaotix pic? Thanks.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  23:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I only mention it because I think this is covered under one of the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, I think the Notability (fiction) guidelines. I'll see if I can find it, or if anyone else knows in the meantime. Certainly if we're going to have every character mentioned, someone like Erazor need only have a Main Article: Sonic and the Secret Rings heading, and move any relevant content to the Characters section of that article; saves this article from getting huge when they only make an appearance in one game. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As for pictures: also see the comment above by TTN, re: number of pictures per article; per W:NFCC, only a limited number of images can be used in the one article, and so if you can find group pictures containing a set of characters (such as perhaps Team Dark to cover both Rouge and Omega or even better, the cast of Sonic Heroes in one go) we can fit more characters into fewer images, which makes it fairer under the fair-use guidelines. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 23:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I know about the pics. so, until someone wants to pull up Team pics. I'm fine with that. Though, the entire Heroes cast really wouldn't be needed. About all the characters, i think that the game articles houldn't have a summary of each characters role in the game. It's unneeded, and cancels out the use for articles like these.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It surely makes sense to introduce and briefly detail the one-off character on the game's page. They either need to go on the game's page or in here, not both - that would be duplicating information - and as they belong solely to that game, better to constrain and compartmentalise that information to the game's article. Let's see what others think. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I say, remove their info from gae articles, and clean up their bios a bit here. But, i'l see what the others think we should do.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or to take it another extreme to further illustrate my reasoning, why not remove the plots from every Sonic game and put that into a List of Sonic plots article? Surely the logical thing to do is confine the individual plots to the articles on the games they come from, after all, the plots are confined to the one game each. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted, the characters have somehow made a second appearance. Erazor was on a card in Sonic Rivals 2.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And now we come back to the issue of notability: why are we thinking of detailing the list of cards that appear in a game? That is something for either Wikia or a game FAQs site, not for an encyclopedic article. Indeed, this does not even appear under the Sonic Rivals 2 article. Thus such a piece of trivia does not warrant separating out this character into a list. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, I'm not opposed to the number of characters here. There were a lot of additions over the past day. The problem is that a lot of the info is excessive. Particularly for the minor characters, they ought to be dealt with in 2-3 sentences each rather than 2-3 paragraphs. They're MINOR. Worthy of note, but should not receive undue weight. It's okay for the time being, but someone will have to clean it up, the sooner the better. Randomran (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the number, it's just their placement I'm concerned about; it just makes sense to put one-offs in that game's article. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Although that said, Skeletal has put up subheadings for things like the Super forms of each character as a sub-heading under each character, such as for Tails etc. This is again information that can be put into each character's article rather than spilling over to this list. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 00:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Like with one episode characters in television series, one game characters are contained within their single game. None of them belong within character lists, but instead belong within the episode/game plot summaries. It's completely redundant to sum them up twice.TTN (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tough. This is a "List of characters" article. It HAS to have ALL of the characters, otherwise it just doesn't work. I mean, Crash Bandicoot has tonnes of one-off characters, yet they all still appear in the article. CBFan (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't have this problem if you left the articles alone. This merge is unneeded. Personally, I think this article should be deleted and leave characters and villains the way they are. Then merge the minor characters like Eggman Nega into other villains. Let's face it, this merge is not needed. And why can't we have two separate articles and delete this one, and why are we deleting the one offs? Just because Pokemon is like that doesn't mean other articles should be that way too. And I have a feeling making them the same would go against Manual of Style.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

• To TTN, FFF, SynergyBlades, AMIB, S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R., and everyone else... Consensus requires compromise, and everyone needs to accept that they won't get their way. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an excuse to keep stuff around. Wikipedia is a work in progress. In the long run most of these characters will be merged into a larger article if policy and guidelines require it. The fact that we haven't fully cleaned it up yet isn't a reason to abandon our efforts. However, I agree that it's misleading to have an article that claims to be a "list of characters", when it only includes a subset of those characters. Still, the merge is highly necessary because not every character is notable enough to warrant their own article, and might even violate WP:PLOT with the degree of detail that is in each article. This is especially the case for minor characters such as "The Tails Doll" or the seven koalas in "The Coconut Crew", which really aren't really meaningful characters so much as helpful sprites in the game. If these non-notable characters aren't merged into this article, they are at significant risk of deletion.
  So let me propose a compromise: we include the minor characters from this version of the page, but represent these minor characters in a true list form in order to comply with the policy on due weight that says we represent content in proportion to their importance. I might even suggest that we have a special section for "characters that have only appeared in a single game", and just list those characters under each game. For example, we'd have a heading that says "Characters from Sonic 2: * A * B * C * D", and a link to the main Sonic 2 article where people can read about those characters as part of the overall plot of the game, rather than going into huge detail here.
  Also, I might suggest that groups of characters like "The Coconut Crew" and "The Battle Kukku Army" should not get more weight simply because there are more of then. We can say "this is a group of enemies", or "these assist Sonic at different points in the game". Remember, wikipedia is not a game guide, and we don't give detailed information about every enemy or powerup.
  As for the remaining characters, we should continue to remove information in violation of WP:PLOT, while providing helpful links to the articles for the games themselves. And we should be sure that we present information in proportion to their importance: Sonic deserves his own article, Cream deserves a few paragraphs, Eggman Nega a bunch of sentences, and Vanilla the Rabbit an honorable mention (with a link to the games she appeared in). Randomran (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Cigraphix (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of characters on this site only contain characters that help provide context for the users. They are not meant to be catch-all lists (those belong on fansite wikis). Including one game characters doesn't do a thing because they are already contained within their single games. The same goes for characters that appear in one to three episodes of a series, characters that appear in a couple chapters of a book, characters that appear in only a few comic issues, and other things like that. All of those are covered within relevant plot sections, as should these characters. Including any here just provides unnecessary weight and makes this article larger than it needs to be. TTN (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the point of the compromise though: if we simply list these minor characters by name and link to the actual games, this list manages to stay comprehensive and short, without having redundant information that's already in other articles and without giving undue weight to these minor characters. There's also a clear organizational benefit: people shouldn't have to search through every single game article to find every single character. The minor characters list here becomes a short and efficient way to organize that information contained in the main game articles. Randomran (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way you present them, it will just look extremely tacked on and make this seem resemble the regular crappy fan list it was before. It's not like its even a compromise anyways. The extreme fans want what they want, and that's it. They aren't going to care that there is a list of thirty to forty characters if it forces them to go read a plot summary or character section. They want each character to have a section on some sort of list, and that's all they'll ever accept. Adding it won't do a thing except make this rather "campy". TTN (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

TTN is quite cynical. Perhaps this idea should at least be tried to see how it works out, if it bombs it bombs. Cigraphix (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to do something with a small number of characters similar to one of the minor character sections in Characters of Carnivàle, that would be one thing. There are just too many minor characters, and you cannot really put many of them above each other besides the spin off characters. Then there is still the fact that Characters of Carnivàle lists recurring characters in those sections, rather than one episode characters. TTN (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you deleted list of characters and just merge the minor characters to Minor characters and villains then it wouldn't be too big.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a list of at least some of these characters by name, with a link to the games they appear in, would lead to size problems. We're talking about 3-4k tops. The article is currently 30k, and I imagine it's only a few merges away from being at a healthy size around 50k. I think there's a consensus to at least try this out and we can find ways to deal with the size issues afterwards if there are any. Randomran (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of implementing the compromise, since there seemed conditional support for it (people weren't crazy about it, but it was less polarizing than some of the other proposals). I think it's a decent starting point. Right now, I've tried to add some organization to it by organizing them by game series. But if this is the wrong way to organize it, I advise a revert to this version. The good news: this only increased the size of the article by about 1k. There might even be enough room to add a quick one-liner about each character, which would still only add another 2k or so. Randomran (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a compromise. We cover characters who appear in one work in the article on the one work. This article is going to be catching some more characters from merges; no sense bloating it with one-time characters. They're already covered elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• No matter how much we intend otherwise, people will come to this article expecting a complete list of characters in the games. And even if the characters are covered at other articles, people will come here looking for that information. Offering a short, concise list of minor characters provides a navigational benefit by directing users to the relevant game article. And it makes the list more complete. So far, the list of minor characters is approximately 2 kilobytes, so "bloat" is not a problem. If we're still having size problems later on, we can address it then. I agree we have a lot of merges ahead of us. Randomran (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If someone comes to a list of characters expecting it to include every single person or object with legs, they do not understand what this project is. It is longstanding practice not to bloat lists with this kind of nonsense, and it is bloat; it's three full pages of no content whatsoever.
    Remember, this is an encyclopedic summary, not an index of every creature or animate object. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm additionally unhappy with further compromising the standard we use for fiction all across Wikipedia, a compromise standard older than WP:N and the old mergist no-notability WP:FICT. The current list has inanimate objects, characters introduced in story-less racing games and never mentioned again, characters not yet named, different versions of characters already in the list in more detail, and characters with no dialogue whatsoever. This is indiscriminate in the extreme, and the likelihood of finding anything referenced to say about these characters, collectively or singly, is absolutely nil. It's exactly the same problem as the old individual articles; subtrivial information included indiscriminately.
    "What some overenthusiastic Sonic fans would like" and "Wikipedia's standards of sourcing and writing" are not positions we compromise between; the latter is itself a compromise between many varied positions, a compromise that has been refined by use. The compromise is that we centralize some plot information on recurring characters to lend context, but there's no need at all the centralize non-recurring characters because they are only relevant to one single game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If you're going to take on a consensus of everyone except you, you're going to have to point to a specific policy or guideline that's violated by having this information. If this is a "longstanding practice", then there would probably be some guideline that defines this "bloat" you're concerned about. WP:N guides articles and not content. WP:NNC says that we should give everything weight in proportion to its importance, but this is a list that mentions the names, so it's still proportional. You've referred to WP:SIZE issues, but this is a relatively small section in an article that is not pushing any size limits (yet). You've referred to actual problems with some entries on the list, but not the list itself -- if inanimate objects are there that don't belong, then remove them. I agree we need to uphold wikipedia's guidelines and policies. But if there's no specific guideline being violated here, then it really comes down to consensus. Reasonable people can disagree about what's the best way to cover these characters. Rather than focusing on this minor point of disagreement, let's focus on major issues like which articles to merge and which articles survive our notability requirements. We can return to this point at a later time, if need be. Randomran (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • TTN as well; in fact, he raised this objection.
        I haven't referred to WP:SIZE issues, I've referred to "This is a great deal of unencyclopedic bloat of little use to the reader." The importance of these characters is nil, because they are relevant only to the game they appear in. Many of them aren't characters at all, and are so minor they merit no reference even in the article for the game each one appears in.
        If you really really must have citations to things with {{guideline}} or {{policy}} at the top, I suggest WP:AVOIDSPLIT which avoids splitting content from an article unless needed, WP:NOT#IINFO which discourages including info not needed for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and WP:ENC which means that an encyclopedic goal needs to be served by everything you do on WP.
        Now, what reasoning do you have for including redundant, unencyclopedic, indiscriminate information (often on things that are not characters) in this article other than to please some Sonic fans which have expressed open derision for any effort to bring these articles to an encyclopedic state? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That it's not indiscriminate. Or, to the extent that people are including things that shouldn't be included, we can make it discriminate. The value of having the information is to make the list more complete, and to provide a navigational benefit to the articles where I agree that these one-off characters should be covered in more detail. I can understand wanting to avoid too much WP:NOT#PLOT information, but a list of minor characters is pretty concise and doesn't violate any policy or guideline. This is highly congruent with WP:LISTS too, especially in terms of providing a navigational benefit. Randomran (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
          • It is indiscriminate because it includes every remotely related thing without considering the utility of it. The discrimination traditionally used is whether a character is relevant to the series (by being in more than one game) or not.
            Lists of minor characters are appropriate, but when you have a list of minor characters in a single game, the place for that list is in the article on that game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Arguably, deciding which characters should or should not be included makes this article even more indiscriminate. I agree that the main game articles should cover one-off characters, but according to WP:LISTS this gives an information and navigation benefit. People can't find information on those one-off characters if we don't point them in the right direction. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Setting a standard for inclusion makes this list more discriminate. That's the definition of disciminate, having a standard for judgement. People don't need to be led from here to find the one-off characters; if they're aware of the character, they're already aware of the game, and even if they aren't, typing the names of the minor characters into search will lead you straight to the game. 22:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the information already qualifies to be in the individual game artilces, it is not indiscriminate. Since this part of the list is barely 1k, it is not 'bloated'. No breaking of WP rules has been shown and instead appears to follow them. It can serve as a helpful tool similar to the Template:Sonic_characters which is at the bottom of character pages. AMiB seems to merely beat the same drum over his opinion on a matter that seems quite simply subjective. When a matter is subjective, consensus takes precedence, and it seems established by support by not just fanboys, but also several editors who supported the merge. Lastly it was ok'ed on the premice that if it doesnt work out it gets deleted so give it a chance. Cigraphix (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason it belongs in individual game articles is exactly the same reason it doesn't belong here. They only pertain to the one game in which they appear. It "qualifies" to be in the individual game articles because they're relevant to that one game and only to that one game. The list is bloated because it's full of background characters, characters with no dialogue, and even objects which are not even characters.
TTN said it quite clearly; we do not need a fansite index of every character that has ever appeared in a Sonic game. Consider this a breakout article to Sonic the Hedgehog (series). This is a list meant to offer understanding of where these characters fit into the series, and characters which have no role in the series (meaning, they only appear in one single game) are not relevant to or needed in an article on the series as a whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a policy. You don't have a guideline. And while you're entitled to your opinion about what Wikipedia does or do not need, you unfortunately don't have much support. We should all get on the same side here and work on the merges, and just let the list of minor characters be. Or, improve it incrementally instead of trying to axe it all at once. Randomran (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an argument. You have handwaves to "Well, this is popular." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

An argument that's still just your personal opinion. The counter-argument, that this offers a navigational and informational benefit, may still be opinion. But it's supported by the general consensus, and is totally compliant with our guidelines and policies. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Navigating to what? Informing whom with what information?

Cut this "Well, that's your opinion" crap and actually discuss the merits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is, if you haven't read the title yet, a "List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)" wikia. What you're saying is "This character only appeared in one Sonic game, so he/she isn't a Sonic character", which, just like your reasons for merging certain articles but not others, falls flat on its face. I'm still not seeing you putting any logic across. The only reason I went ahead with the whole merging thing in the end was because Randomran, unlike you, didn't try to run before learning to walk, so to speak. CBFan (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We're repeating ourselves and going in circles. The informational benefit is that someone coming to "list of characters from sonic the hedgehog games" will find a list of characters from sonic the hedgehog games, as opposed to an incomplete list, or a list that suggests that a one-off character is not actually a character. The navigational benefit is that people will be able to see or recall minor characters, and follow a link to the game in which they appear for further information. These are both important benefits under WP:LISTS. Those are the merits, backed by guidelines, and a consensus of editors. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The animals in Sonic the Hedgehog are not characters, they're incidentals. Tails Doll is an object. Mecha Knuckles is a reskin with no story. Chao and the Zoah and the Black Arms and the Battle Kukku Army are groups or races, not characters. These are not characters. In addition, many of the remaining characters are one-off bosses who say, "Hahaha, I will fight you now!" and do and are never heard from again. It's not because they only appear in one game; it's because they are things that do not belong in a list of characters because they are not characters. They are background filler or interchangeable mooks or anthropomorphic objects. They're a clear sign of scope creep.

As for the rest, the things that actually are characters are not needed in an article on the series as a whole, because they are only relevant to a single game in that series. There is no need to be exhaustive when writing plot summary, merely comprehensive. This means you only include the parts that are needed for comprehension. The one-off characters are not needed to understand the series as a whole because they are not part of the series as a whole; merely a part of a single game.

They're all awful. It's just that some aren't even characters, and the rest don't belong here either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Without trying to sound rude...tough cheesy luck! They're still characters, get over it. We may as well kick Sonic, Tails, Knuckles and Amy out of the article, stating that THEY'RE not Sonic characters. I'm sorry, but for a "List of Characters" to work, it has to include ALL of them, in one form or another. CBFan (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Really. So we're going to include every nameless robot? Every variation of animal? Every single townsperson in Dark Brotherhood? Every single person, named or otherwise, in the SA series? WE MUST COVER EVERYTHING EXHAUSTIVELY is the definition of indiscriminate, especially when you're not even concerned with not including things that aren't even characters.

Moreover, this "tough luck, we want it this way!" attitude is why I have little respect for "Well, there are more people who support this." Support for bad reasons or no reasons is just useless "Let us have our fan pages" voting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that is EXACTLY what you're saying, and exactly what you have been saying since you started messing about with the Sonic articles..."No, it HAS to be THIS way because I say it has to!" And you're still missing the point completely. Those things you mentioned are NOT characters, they're just...randoms, I suppose you could call them. Everyone you try to remove IS a character. Try attaching the wheels to the go-kart BEFORE using it. CBFan (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa CBFan, my problem with AMiB's arguement is that the editor has not successfully invoked any WP rules, keeps repeating their arguement on a matter that appears to be entirely of opinion (saying things like "they're awful, they're not needed" and saying nonsensical things like the playble character Tails Doll is an "object not a character"), and that no difference has been made between the functionallity of Template:Sonic_characters and this has been argued. Whereas when the merges were first proposed, they were based on WP rules and principals. AMiB, since this is a matter of opinion, why not try out counter-compromises? Cigraphix (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The compromise to the compromise is that we remove true non-characters like game items or what not. But the list itself should continue to be there. The minor character list is still a work in progress. Randomran (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone trying to add nameless NPCs (like the boy who told Sonic about the Light Shoes in SA - or even worthless NPCs with names like "Mr Know-It-All" also in SA) or items - although I have seen attempts at including the names of every single animal "friend" and minor sub bosses that have been removed (there might be a few left in games I'm less familar with). What I'm seeing overall is that there is a consensus to keep it and see its result, but that consensus is weakened by this dissenting opinion. We should not freeze dissenting editors out of the process, we should instead strengthen consensus by compromising. Compromises are hammered out in a give and take that may continue for quite some time. I'm merely saying that if AMiB is willing to soften his position from complete deletion and compromise, we should listen. Cigraphix (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The compromise is the compromise we use in every single other series; list articles cover the recurring characters, one-offs are mentioned in individual fictional work articles. I am not terribly interested in a further compromise that involves repeated, redundant coverage of exceedingly minor characters (most of whom are not in any sense a character). "Don't be needlessly redundant" is such a basic thing that it need not be put in a page with {{policy}} at the top. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because it would contradict WP:LISTS, which says that a list of topics can provide a navigational benefit, despite their redundancy. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to navigate from the series to one-off characters in the series (or things which aren't characters at all.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We're going in circles. I think we've stopped communicating. Randomran (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AMiB's arguement is about something being de facto - this puts burden on AMiB to prove, and with things like Template:Sonic_characters contradicting it, it's a heavy burden indeed. Can you give an strong example of a similar situation in which this alleged de facto rule was successfully argued? Cigraphix (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Sonic characters}} was referring to an older version of this list, which was an index of every single character that has ever appeared. I detest otherstuffexists arguments, but if you insist:

List of Metal Gear characters is recurring characters only.

List of Mario characters is recurring characters only (with an admittedly very broad definition of "recurring").

List of Legend of Zelda characters is recurring characters only.

List of Army Men series characters, as terrible as it is, is recurring only.

Leaf through Category:Lists of video game characters. You'll find that all of them are lists of recurring characters or lists of one game's characters, with the sole exceptions being two- or three-game "series" and the occasional massive index of all characters, major or minor. As time has gone on, these indices have been replaced with encyclopedic summary lists, and I had hoped that this process of improvement would continue here as it had in many other lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're still VERY much missing the point, and you know full well you are. Even if a character has only appeared in one game, he or she is STILL a character if they have a big enough role. CBFan (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That a character is a character does not necessarily mean that it belongs on this list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, it isn't a character then...and that doesn't work. Seriously, you're not even TRYING anymore. You're just insisting on getting your own way and it isn't working. CBFan (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about that logic means a character isn't a character. I am saying "An index of non-recurring characters (as well as non-characters) is needless bloat in this article." I've been saying that the beginning. What encyclopedic purpose does an exhaustive index of every minor character serve? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was asking for. I wanted you to prove that redudancy as a navigational tool is not allowed on WP per a de facto precedent. Your otherstuffexists list just alleges other lists establish precedent of allowing recurring characters. You also have not distinguished what makes things like {{Sonic characters}} different from this list (or the same in need of deletion) as it also redundantly lists other characters for navigational benefit. Cigraphix (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It provides little navigational benefit, and is being shoehorned into a peripherally related article. It is very marginal on its own and distracting bloat here, in this list that follows the format of other lists made previously. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, THAT comment makes no sense whatsoever and you full-well know it doesn't. They are characters, get over it, they have to be included, otherwise the entire purpose of the article is defeated. CBFan (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the policy or guideline that says every single list needs to be exhaustive to the point of overwhelming it with trivia? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the policy that says they shouldn't be?Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we're discussing this and presenting arguments, then. Randomran and Cigraphix are arguing that an index might be useful. I disagree with that, but more importantly I think it's a mistake to cram that index into this article. Thus, Index of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Go make that an exhaustive index, and we'll see what ends up happening with it. It serves the purpose this used to serve, while this article is converted into an improved version of what the "Other characters" list used to be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the old version of this article. And if you want a good version like Other characters, then revert it back to where it was good, and change this article in to the index. If this is what people want then this merge is completely pointless.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't a case where policies and guidelines can really tell what specifically can and cannot be done. In this case, we look to common practice within video game series character articles. I don't believe we have any cases where series articles do anything like this, so why should this one be any different? TTN (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Split

We now have a recurring characters list, and an index of all characters. The latter can be discussed on its own talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is hopelessly flawed.

Everything about this page is wrong. Not only is there a complete biasey concerning who gets their own article or not (as I've stated in Cream's now revamped article), but there are characters MISSING! A "List of [INSERT VIDEO GAME TITLE HERE] characters" should have ALL the characters, otherwise it doesn't work. CBFan (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we obessed with squashing the whole of wiki into one article?

Well we are. Rouge for one has appeared in 7 out of 10 main games and is constantly a main character and does have just as much real world info as others such as Tails, Amy etc. Eggman Nega has appeared in just as many games as Silver and Blaze. If it were up to some nit wits we would have every article merged into one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Badnik (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

lol. Sonic Wiki pages offically suck. The page is all over the place...Coconut Crew in Adventure series? Freaking dumbass'...*facepalm* And since when are Bean, and Bark recurring characters? Mephiles is more important than Bean, Bark, President, and Vanilla put together! Fucking pathetic these articles have become...  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  23:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I made this article to make a LIST of ALL the characters in the Sonic game series and it has become a warzone for a bunch of Wikipedia rule followers and Sonic fans to decide whether or not the MAIN CHARACTERS should have their own articles. Wikipedia is called the free encyclopedia, I repeat, the FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA. To me, this name is not true as we have so many rules and arguments in this place that it is no longer free. Wikia is crashing as well due to the stupid advertisements. The only place that doesn't seem to be falling to pieces is Uncyclopedia! Can we just end this war and get along!!! Evilgidgit (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The characters had had articles had them for a reason. As I said before, this is possibly the WORST page on Wikipedia thus far. It's all over the ruddy place. I, personally, say KEEP the existing articles and remvoe this, because it CLEARLY isn't working. CBFan (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of us wouldn't even be thinking about merging the articles before AMIB's edits. He hasn't helped the articles he's made them worse. Granted a few new and good refed sections have been made, but we could bring back the old versions and then copy and paste the newer and better sections. Then we have a reasonable amount of important information about the character, and the devopment and reception of the character.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The problem was a lot of articles that did not pass the WP:GNG because they did not have adequate references, and such sources didn't exist. Also, there was a lot of information that failed WP:NOT#PLOT. There's an overwhelming consensus over these guidelines and policies, and there's a consensus to at least attempt to apply them to this series of articles. Hence the major clean-up effort. Randomran (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does all the main Mario characters get to have their own article. And every Sonic character (besides the robot villains) can be called the main characters. Sure Cream hasn't been part of a story branch sense Shadow the Hedgehog, but she has still somewhat changed the story. She has been playable in...

• Sonic Advance 2
• Sonic Advance 3
• Sonic Battle
• Sonic Heroes
• Sonic Riders
• Sonic and the Secret Rings
• Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity

Yes I know it's too late to bring back her article, but the other characters are more of main characters than Cream. Silver was one of the main characters in Sonic the Hedgehog and in the Sonic Rivals series. Silver has only been around sence 2006, and was playable in four games. You have to give it a chance to grow. If we just keep merging article, this article could be merged into the Sonic Series. Unknown the Hedgehog 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Topics get to have their own articles when they comply with the WP:GNG which requires specific kinds of sources to prove that a subject is notable. If there are other non-notable articles out there, don't worry, someone will eventually clean those up too. Merging these characters into one larger page is an effort to save them from deletion. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I've had just about ENOUGH of AMIB's actions. It's now bordering on deliberate vandalism if you ask me, because not only is he STILL being biased towards certain characters (removing Cream and Blaze, but keeping Metal Sonic, Chaos and Eggman Nega...does that make ANY sense at all?), but now he's refusing to accept Big as a Sonic character. CBFan (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. If these actions were done by an IP, I'd be reverting them on the spot. And you know what else; AMIB saved Shadow's article for stripping last, which was weeks after all the others.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm reverting them anyway. If there were reasons behind the reverting, then OK, I'd be fine with that. It's just that I'm really failing to see any logic in his actions. In my mind, it'd be best to leave the articles to people who know the Sonic fandom, and thus know what they're talking about, but at the same time are not going to fill it with random rubbish (in other words, responsible members. We don't want it like the Sonic Wiki, after all). CBFan (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. We need someone who knows more about the subject in hand. AMIB can't even spell one of the main characters names properly.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, I reverted the wrong edit once. Stop this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You reverting that edit implies that you don't know that much about the series. With every Sonic game there's an instruction manual with a little character bio. You not knowing how to spell Rouge's name indicates you never read them, or at least none with Rouge in, and those are the most important ones.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it means I clicked rollback on one tab when I meant to click it on the other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is AMIB? Is he the one behind this merging crap? If so he should get lost, by the sounds of things he doesn't know anything about Sonic and so would not know who deserves an article and who dosen't.- Super Badnik x

• Figuring out who deserves an article or not is not about how much you like the character, or your expert opinion on who is important to the series. It's based on WP:policies and guidelines. One of the threshold tests for who gets an article: is there a reliable independent source that covers the character? TV shows and instruction manuals don't count because they're not independent. Blogs and fansites don't count because they aren't considered reliable by wikipedia standards. Ideally, we'd want a review that goes into depth on the character from IGN or Gamespot or the like. That's how you decide who deserves an article, not personal opinion. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound rude, but I really don't get how that works. If instruction manuals don't count, that means that nobody, not even Sonic himself, would get his or her own article. That will need to be explained in a little more detail, because to me that sounds awkward. CBFan (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the WP:GNG and look carefully at how they explain the research requirements. An instruction manual is a primary source -- it's published by the makers of the game. You can't write an article about anybody who's created something themselves. Otherwise you and I would have our own biographies on wikipedia. The reason why Sonic the Hedgehog is notable is because he's been covered by reliable gaming news sites, and they've discussed the character in depth. Basically, it's references like these that help establish notability. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense...and yet, at the same time, it doesn't make sense. CBFan (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have any further questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I've been around long enough and had enough run-ins with policy/guideline problems that I have a decent understanding of how these things work. Randomran (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nine each of what? Super Badnik (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been settled yet? this has been going on since TNN wanted to merge all. The list Evildidgit made is supposed to be a quich list of all the characters so why is nearly all the list merged into this one page, its cramped, not enough infomation and what happened to the list of supporting and minor villains pages?

This is the list of how it should be: Heroes: Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Big (after chronicles), Blaze and Silver Anti-Heroes/netual: Shadow, Rouge Villains: Eggman and Metal Sonic Groups/Factions: Chaotix, babylon Rouges, GUN, Chao Lists: Supporting Characters, Minor villains, List of all characters There with all those pages nothing will be cramped and it will be organized and yes i think Big should get his own page cause he has appeared more than most including CreamBehellmorph (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Err...no he hasn't. He's appeared significantly less than other characters. He was fine right where he used to be. Cream has appeared in significantly more games than Big has, and if she can't have her own article, what chance does Big have? Or Silver or Blaze for that matter? CBFan (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Next step

Discussion has stalled. Nobody is pointing out specific problems with individual characters or offering specific solutions on how to cover them. People are talking passed each other and edit warring. So let me offer a few specific proposals, at least to get discussion going:

• Include Big the Cat as a prominent character
• Move The President to the minor characters section
• Move Mephiles from minor characters section to common recurring characters. (My bad.)
• Finish merging Metal Sonic
• Finish merging Chaos
• Finish merging Eggman Nega
• Finish merging Shadow the Hedgehog - Hold off on merging Shadow the Hedgehog

• Finish merging Silver
• Finish merging Omega
• Discuss whether or not Rouge has enough WP:NOT#PLOT information from notability appropriate sources to make a merge unnecessary.

And assume good faith. These merges are being proposed to comply with WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT. If you oppose a merge, don't accuse somebody of vandalism. Explain why that character meets the WP:GNG so that they can have their own article. Randomran (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Shadow the Hedgehog page has new and growing sections about the character's conception, nonfictional history, and reception which should be enough to comply with WP:GNG and stave off merging as more is found. I've also been looking for real world info on Rouge the Bat to see if that article could comply with GNG and successfully created a reception section, but the character was so overshadowed by Shadow (no pun intended) that it has been extremely difficult. And why do you propose moving Mephiles into common recurring characters? Cigraphix (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • You probably know more about the topics than I do. The Shadow the Hedgehog article is definitely improving, and I'm willing to hold off on a merge there (just my opinion, of course). My impression was that Mephiles was actually semi-important to the series, but I might have him confused with someone else. That's why I'm trying to start a discussion. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see...I'm in agreement with Big (especially seeing as he's now in Chronicles) and The President. Mephiles, I'm not really sure about, as he's a one-game wonder that we know about. I also don't agree on the merging of Shadow the Hedgehog, as I know he has got a lot of information to work with. Silver, maybe. Shadow, definately not. As for the merging of Eggman Nega, Chaos and Metal Sonic...well, frankly, I've had enough of merging for one day, BUT if Cream, Blaze, Silver, Rouge and Omega are to be merged, then these guys definately should be as well. CBFan (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that the section titles relying on how often and how prominently characters are displayed by the games would take the guesswork, opinions and OR out of the equasion that sections titled "major" and "minor" would bring. This way a character like Mephiles, who only appeared in one game, would not be included in a section reserved for recurring characters who appear more times. I was also thinking about proposing that cameos not be included so things like the nostalgia cards in Sonic Rivals would not be counted. As for the difference between prominent and common, I'd say characters who belong in the prominent section appear in a higher number of games made during their existance than the number of those in which they do not appear - excluding newer characters who may run at like 2 for 2 easily. Cigraphix (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Silver and Omega definitely need to be merged too. But Rouge is actually improving with critical coverage from notability-appropriate sources, and I'm willing to hold off until we have a better idea how much critical coverage there is. It looks like Shadow has achieved a decent level of notability to support at least a low-quality article. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another thing that'll need to be taken into consideration: the Sonic character template. If merging is successful, that'll leave Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow, Dr Eggman and possibly Rouge (as well as the Chaotix, Babylon Rogues and E-Series). That will render the current set-up a little useless. Maybe, by that standard, we need to make a few adjustments there. Perhaps group them all under one single heading. CBFan (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only one way to solve all of this. We must vote on if the rest of the characters get to have their own article. Maybe we could start the vote today (here in the discussion page) and end it around next week. Unknown the Hedgehog 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:VOTE and WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. The two main reasons we don't vote on things: because votes can't trump policies like WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#PLOT, and because voting tends to make people pick one side or another rather than seek a compromise. The reality is a lot of these character articles are non-notable by wikipedia's definition and are at risk of deletion if we don't merge. Randomran (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now taken the liberty of merging Metal Sonic. Really though, this argument wouldn't have happened if all the articles were shrunken down, then merged, at more or less the same time. CBFan (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. I agree that it's confusing that some stuff is merged and some stuff isn't. It makes it look like there's a double standard when there's not. Merging is tough work, but it has to be done sometimes. Randomran (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and that was the main problem I had. I've also merged Chaos, but I can't merge Eggman Nega yet, as there's nothing under his section yet besides a link. CBFan (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So what characters can be removed from the merge list here? Shadow and Rouge have now got a reception SECTION and Silver does have a Concept and Creation section, or do we need to add some other real world stuff?- Super Badnik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Badnik (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shadow and Rouge should have their own articles, as they have been in an equal amount of games and have significant roles in the franchise, Shadow most indefinetly. I object to Metal Sonic and Chaos being merged, as they had good articles, but this is just my opinion. Chaotix should remain with their own article, since there is a lot of information on them. I am not concerned about the Babylon Rogues. However, Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Dr. Eggman, Shadow, Rouge and Blaze should keep their articles. One thing I have wondered is why has this article become a warzone? I created this article to make it a list of Sonic characters for people to research the character easier and navigate around the site to reach the articles...but now there are big annoying complaint signs on top, character articles have been ripped apart and slapped onto this page in two measily paragraphs and half of the characters now have now information upon them at all. Can we stop this pitiful arguing, make this article an actual list like it is supposed to be and can we all just get along! Evilgidgit (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It turned into an argument because SOMEONE who I shall not name but knows who he is and should be ashamed of himself if you ask me refused to let Cream have her own article. That wouldn't have been a problem in itself had he insisted that Metal Sonic, Chaos and Eggman Nega (even more minor characters) DID have their own article AND refused to accept Big as a character full-stop (he removed him completely). CBFan (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when has Metal been a minor character?Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's minor-minor, but he's not exactly had the best roles in the games for a while. CBFan (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• The standard for a topic having its own article isn't their number of appearances, or how useful or lengthy the article is. It's WP:NOTABILITY. It's also WP:VERIFIABILITY: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Randomran (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

CBFan is right about Metal Sonic, the character doesn't appear often enough in big enough roles to be 'prominent' and should go into 'common'. Same with the Chaotix, Cream and Big. Silver and Blaze are still new and should go there too. I really think cameos shouldn't be counted on how often a character appears so Tikal, Chaos, and maybe Gamma should go down to 'minor'. Omochao really isn't that important and not much can be sourced so that character should go to minor as well. Vanilla isn't that important either and could probably be turned into a bullet under the Cream entry so that character entry isn't taking up space on the Contents directory. Cigraphix (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind there are two Sonic games coming up fairly soon. Perhaps (and this is only a suggestion) we should wait to see how the characters perform in those games (if they appear at all) before adjusting their setting? By this theory, the article shouldn't require as much maintanence as some other articles may need. CBFan (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And remember that wikipedia is never done. We can merge the existing information into this article, but if new information comes out that's covered by reliable third-party sources, we can eventually re-split them out again. Randomran (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Eggman Nega has now been merged. Now the next step, I think, is to sort out the template and remove the characters lacking articles. CBFan (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have some things to add. First of, when Metal Sonic was merged, some info was lost, notably the info from the character polls. That should be readded. Second, Metal Sonic is a major villain and has appeared in more than enough games to warrant that. Third, would not be easier just to make three seperate pages, one for a list of major villains, one for a list of major heroes and one for a list of minor characters. It may keep us from having to use this extremely long and crummy page.Rogue Commander (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there are only three main bad-guys that I can think of (and by main, I mean having more than one appearance), Dr Eggman, Metal Sonic and Eggman Nega. Also, it's no longer just how many games a character has appeared in, but how much outside information exists on him, apparantly. CBFan (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then lets have a look at the Mario articles. Luigi. Where is all the outside info here? I can't find hardly any, or here: Princess Peach. They have no tags or anything! These mergers have just destroyed a bunch of good Sonic articles for the hell of it! - Super Badnik —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at those articles right now and I'm seeing nine each. Sorry, but the argument doesn't work. CBFan (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nine Each of what? Super Badnik (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Badnik's right. And VERY little is actually sourced.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if you find unsourced junk in any article, but especially game character articles, delete it. The only reason that the rules are enforced inconsistently is because there's so much work to do and so few people to do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete it? Before you go in all guns blazing, see if you can source it first, and if you can't find sources, then delete it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I still find the order of this list problematic since designations like "major" and "minor" will start stupid little arguements and it would probably be considered OR (what sources call any Sonic characters "major" or "minor" anyway?). So I propose all characters be listed in order of first appearance in the games. is how it should probably look. Cigraphix (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we done merging the major characters?

Let's ignore the secondary and minor characters for a moment.

Characters such as Blaze, Silver, and Big the Cat have been merged into this article because they do not meet the general notability guideline, and there was not enough WP:NOT#PLOT information to support an article. On the other hand, characters like Sonic, Tails, and even Shadow all have a great deal of NOT#PLOT information (such as how they were created, and how they were received) that can be supported by reliable third-party sources, as opposed to just instruction manuals and playing the games themselves. There's a few major characters left that haven't been merged, particularly: Chaotix, Rouge the Bat, Knuckles the Echidna, and Amy Rose. Can anyone prove that these meet the general notability guideline and that there is WP:NOT#PLOT information to make a complete article for each of these characters? If not, we should clean-up, summarize, and merge. Randomran (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the main points of the Chaotix are now on this page (by me), we should probably merge them anyway. CBFan (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What about "Mighty the Armadillo" and "Heavy and Bomb"? Is there a reason we don't mention them at all? Randomran (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me time and the Knuckles article will look like the Shadow article - I just didn't think to build that one while I worked on the others, but Amy has similar but slightly less problems than Rouge (she has a little something known about her creation - its just hard to find a reliable source for it, and more critics' views) Cigraphix (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ray is missing as well. Mighty, Ray, Heavy, and Bomb should recieve small sections under Chaotix. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rouge can definitely be merged at this point. The reception is trivial enough that it doesn't even belong in this list, and it really has no chance of becoming better. Amy possibly has some information out there, but she can probably be placed here until something is found. The rest of the main characters should be fine for now. The Chaotix have enough information here already. Mighty isn't specifically one of them, so if he is to be included, he can be given a small section in secondary characters. Considering the other minor characters like Bark, Bean, and Fang are no longer on the list, I would say that Mighty probably isn't important enough either. E-Series and GUN can easily be summed up here also. The other two lists can be redirected at any time. TTN (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Rouge? No one will ever go for that.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember it's not a vote. If Rouge is going to have a separate article, it will be because there's enough WP:NOT#PLOT information that merging her in wouldn't fit. As of now, a merge makes a lot of sense because her article is mostly an extended plot summary, with a very short section about her reception. Randomran (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

She's still got more real-world info than most of the other articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If everyone wants to know, I removed Mighty, Ray, Heavy and Bomb from the Chaotix section because they don't form the current Chaotix. I included Mighty and Ray in the "Other character" section. Heavy and Bom have yet to be added there. CBFan (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This merging is pathertic. Rouge and Chaotix are fine, leave them alone. They deserve articles and have well written articles. Of course there is going to be fictional info about fictional characters. I have already Shown Mario characters are just as bad as the Sonic articles yet they don't even get tagged. Plus i have made a personal copy of Rouge's article, delete it and i will have it straight back up.--Super Badnik (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• We're merging not deleting. If there's a problem with the mario articles, we'll get to those too in due time. Randomran (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have said to AMIB, we are NOT going to do something just because ONE person doesn't want us to do it. Just because you SAY Rouge and Chaotix don't need merging doesn't mean they don't. It doesn't work like that. CBFan (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rouge, Amy, and Shadow are the only ones on the bubble. Possibly some of the groups. The bulk of the merges are done for now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added various missing characters in here. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If they only appear in one game, please add them to the game article and to Index of Sonic the Hedgehog characters instead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the prior version of this? This is a list of all the game characters, so let's not screw over 1-timers, cause in Mephiles 2 appearances (1 being a cameo) ,he's had a larger role in the series than Vanilla, and, Omochao put together. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That index is not notable by itself. However, including an index-format for one-off characters within this article is fine, because this article is already notable, and WP:NOTABILITY only applies to whole articles rather than specific sections or statements within an article. For content, there is WP:N#NCONTENT, and this would not give undue weight to these characters. Please stop removing the list of one-off characters, as there is no policy or guideline that supports you, and the value of this list is supported by WP:LISTS. Randomran (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, if that index isn't notable, neither is this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That version only has short amounts of information, this one has much more and references, making it notable.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY only applies to articles, not information within articles. Including it here, it's notable. Including it elsewhere, it's not. Randomran (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The index is a bare list of facts, easily referenced to reliable sources. It's not any more or less "notable" on its own or elsewhere; "notable" means "Can we verify the claims made (or that would be made) in this article to appropriate sources?" Here, it distracts and bloats. There, it's benignly useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right about our ability to reference the index with appropriate sources. But I still think the index and this article should be merged. The index is only useful where there are numerous articles for different characters that are scattered throughout wikipedia. Since the vast majority of characters are in this article, the index would ultimately link to the same place over and over, and would be highly redundant with this page's table of contents. The index really only provides a navigational benefit in terms of letting readers find a one-off character and navigate to an article about the game they appear in. As such, merging the index into this article offers the same navigational benefit, but cuts the index in half by reducing redundancy. Randomran (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This has gotten insane over a few characters. AMiB wants none of them, SLJCOAAATR wants every one. I wasn't even that invested in this and just wanted to give it a chance. The index was made to make a point and is just a mirror of part of the purpose of this page. Don't even bother merging just delete it. As the list itself, AMiB hasn't changed my mind but I don't feel its worth going on and on over against his unreasonable determination and unearthly persistance. I'm starting to wonder if the editor has issues of ownership. I'm going to throw out a final compromise, one AMiB should have thrown out long ago: true one time characters are left out, but characters who were important once and then cameoed in other games are fine (like Fang). Cigraphix (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this as a compromise. Randomran (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The index wasn't made to make a point; it was made because I realized I had two problems, and by giving up the fight on one of them the other could be solved. I don't like the index, but I like having an index shoehorned here even less. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles like Rouge, Shadow, Amy and whoever else have too much info to be crammed onto this excuse for a character list. If Mario characters like Peach and Yoshi desvere articles (which by the way have little to no out of universe info), These Sonic charcters deserve articles too. And BTW, meging might as well be deleting as only a paragraph of info about each character can go on this page.--Super Badnik (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, there's too much info in these articles that violate WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOT#PLOT. If only a few paragraphs are salvaged, that's why. Randomran (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You and i all know these characters should have articles and they were well written. Now they have been deleted and been turned into this crappy article. We were better of with a few artciles rather than this excuse for an other characters artcile.--Super Badnik (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

She's right. The articles were better AMIB's edits. Most of wouldn't even be thinking about merging the old versions.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That notion of "better" isn't grounded in anything but personal opinion. Rather than focusing on how I personally feel, I'd just point out that this article better conforms to the WP:NOTABILITY requirement, and that there now much better compliance with WP:NOT#PLOT. Two very important rules on Wikipedia to promote higher quality. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But this article is full of fictional info, while the seperate articles had outside info such as Voice Actors, Music inspired by/Made for the character, their real world creators and etc.--Super Badnik (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct Badnik, and every little thing was sourced, where as say, Mario articles, have loads of unsourced info. Like I stated a long time ago, this is bassically a game of, Follow the Leader: AMIB Mix, and we're just agreeing with who HE says is a character. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisley, this article is terrible.--Super Badnik (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Section titles and order

We have to start discussion about the ordering of this list, which is problematic since designations like "major" and "minor" will start stupid little arguements and it would probably be considered OR. If the above arguement over the one time characters wasn't going on, there would probably be an arguement over whether Big the Cat is major or not. And what sources call any Sonic characters "major" or "minor" anyway? So I propose all characters be listed in order of first appearance in the games. This is a quick idea of how it should probably look. Cigraphix (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean a brief summary for each character, like the original format? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is just how it is now, just reordered by first appearence in the games - with section titles that reflect that. (I've left out 1-timers though, only recurring characters) Cigraphix (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think that something like that would be good. Just, we should list all the characters. The one-timers would just get a sentence, or two to describe them. Depending on their role. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think ordering them in terms of their first appearance would be more organized and objective. Maybe we'd drop the whole major/minor character distinction altogether in doing so. But rather than grouping it by decade, I think it might be better to simply use each game as a heading. Let's try it out. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought about grouping by game but felt that with so many games where only 1 character debuted, it'd turn out a little messy. Cigraphix (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that depends on how many games only debut a single character. You probably know better than I do. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I "know better" - especially since "messy" is more of a subjective opinion. Has anyone checked out my sandbox version? Cigraphix (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look, I'm less convinced. The organization is more objective, but less clean. Maybe the major/minor distinction is more appropriate, so long as we can work towards a consensus for those borderline cases between major/minor. Randomran (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Sandbox version is just a work in progress. What makes you feel it is less clean? It can be fixed or changed (I invite anyone to play with it - just post the URL permanent link to your version here). Cigraphix (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The 5 year increments seem kind of arbitrary and don't really lead to a balanced grouping of characters. This is really subjective though. I'm just throwing out my opinion. I'm willing to go with the flow on this one. Randomran (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Major and minor (or any variation of those) are perfectly fine for this kind of list. There is no reason to make this overly complicated for no real reason. Major characters are identified by recurring major roles and minor characters only serve a single or specialized playable role (E-102 and the Babylon Rogues) or a recurring story role. TTN (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to organize this in a real-world way. I think Cig's suggestion is reasonable, especially given how the series slowly aggregates characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New version - ordered by hardware generations. Its less arbitrary than being ordered by years, but its balance is very heavy in the last gen - on the other hand, the size difference between a minor characters section vs a major characters section would be even greater, so maybe it's still better. Cigraphix (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone like this new idea, or prefer the old one, or just keep as it is? Cigraphix (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Group Photo

I was wondering, if I were to make a picture with art with all of the major characters (Since Silver & Blaze & Metal are pictureless) ,and possibly the secondaries, could we use it? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on copyright law, but I think you'd be safe so long as the image isn't too high quality. The idea is that we use as little as necessary of the copyrighted characters to make the point we're trying to make (e.g.: what do they look like?). See: Wikipedia:Non-free content, particularly the sections about images. Randomran (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I was going to get the latest art for the major characters, put it on powerpoint, upload it to a fansite, then, bring it up here, so that it should look nice. This way, new fans can know what the major characters look like. So, how about, Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Eggman, Metal, Cream, Shadow, Rouge, Omega, Big, Silver, Blaze, Chaos, Tikal, Jet, Storm, Wave, G.U.N. logo, and the Chaotix. Sound good? I think I could whip up something nice looking. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm doing 2. 1 of 2-D art, 1 of 3-D. I'll let you guys decide which is better. For the 2-D one, I've used Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Eggman, Metal, Shadow, Cream & Cheese, Rouge, Omega, Vector, Charmy, Espio, Jet, Storm, Wave, Chaos, Tikal, Big, Vanilla, G.U.N. logo, Silver, Blaze, Nega, and Marine. Marine, I placed, because Channel made a calender of her, and they seem to only be doing major characters, so, this hints at future appearances for her. Any questions, or requests? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A collage is no better than many non-free images, and would be a derivative work to boot. This is not a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your merging was not a good idea.

That aside, I don't see how it can be deriviative...Mind explaining? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:FUC really quickly. It's WP's rules on when and how we can use non-free images. In particular, see #3. By using a single image made by Sega, we're using the smallest amount of non-free content possible, rather than using an image for each character or many character images condensed into a single collage.

A collage, by aggregating multiple images, is a derivative work. The example in the derivative work article is even a collage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for explaining! Nevermind then. Though, how about single images of Metal, Silver, and Blaze? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know how to handle our fair use requirements... but how about an existing image that shows off multiple characters, rather than a derivative work? See here, for example? Randomran (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any official group photos with all the major characters. Our current one is missing Metal, Silver, and Blaze. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the end of the world if we don't have every single marginal character on the group image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just think that it's important to have pictures of the major characters at the very least. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the promotional picture by Matt Hermes (official Sonic comic artist) for Barnes and Noble at here? This picture (the lower resolution of the actual print) could qualify as fair use with the proper rationales. Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome, and all but, it's got alot of comic characters, and this is for the game characters. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, seriously...

These whole edit wars need to stop. There have been fights on if some characters get to keep their own article. Now it's if some characters get to stay in this article (Just look at the article's history). AMIB, don't feel offended by what I am about to say. This is going to be more of constructive criticism than a bash. AMIB, we don't need to shrink down every article. Articles can be big (unless vandalism). If an article is big we don't have shrink it down. Unknown the Hedgehog 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And also AMIB, if you suggest one-timers don't belong, I guess games without sequals can't have articles! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if turtles aren't mammals, I guess lions aren't either! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the index. I don't much like it, but there's no sense trying to cram two different articles (a list of recurring characters and an index) into one single article. They're different lists with different objectives. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing about the seperate article, is that it may become confusing to guests who don't know about all of this. Two seperate articles=Bad Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then link them clearly, they're both already in the navbox. The same "Two separate articles = bad" argument applies to drastically reducing this and upmerging it to the Sonic series article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion to alleviate this nonsense. How about we link the single-game characters to the game and give them a description there. Either that, or at least give them some info here. ZeroGiga (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need a few sentences to describe them here. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's similar to the compromise I proposed above. I totally support this. Somehow, I suspect that one or two editors will oppose this. But WP:CONSENSUS isn't unanimity. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, AMIB shant complete his mission of destroying all Sonic articles! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a compromise. We have an index of all of the characters, single-time or otherwise, in another article. Please do not cram it into this article, as it ill-fits here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are really deadset on demonizing me, huh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say you're destroying these articles. I think you're acting in good faith by merging. But in terms of the list of one-off characters, I think you might be breaching the spirit of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule even as you obey it to the letter. Do you really want to keep pressing against the list of one-off characters, instead of working to clean it up and fix it? If so, then we might need to consider a RFC, let alone mediation. It hardly seems worth it for such a small issue that has almost total support, and is entirely consistent with every guideline and policy. But it's up to you if you want this to continue. Randomran (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It doesn't have total support. It has you and Cig against me and TTN, with SLCwhatever and FFF and a few chiming in because they think we're DESTROYING THE ARTICLES. I've offered a reasonable compromise based on existing editing practice, and the only answer it's gotten is STOP DESTROYING OUR ARTICLES. I am sick to the teeth of people who are more interested in protecting their walled garden and making fansites on Wikipedia instead of respecting existing editing practice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, it's a few people in the middle trying to find a compromise that lets us tear down the walls while letting them keep most of their garden. I have no vested interest in this article either way. Is this something you feel strongly about? Because I think that means we're left with no choice but to try more formal steps for dispute resolution. Randomran (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The compromise is the well-worn compromise we use on everything else, and again, I have proposed the well-worn compromise that we use for everything else. I've seen any attempt to implement it reverted as vandalism and no argument against it other than STOP DESTROYING OUR ARTICLES or other nonsense.

I'd like to see some actual discussion, rather than accusations of bad faith and tendentious editing, thanks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, I had full respect for you at first, but, you've far more than passed the pushing limts. You decided that all the cited info we had in articles was fancruft. I admit that there was some but, then you, TTN, etc. started removing valuable info ranting that it was fancruft. Then, you guys took it upon yourselves to say that characters who have appeared in 10 games were suddenly "Minor" "One-Timers" & "Not Important To The Series". The only needed merges were Chao, Chaos, Echidna Tribe, Babylon Rogues, and possibly Nega. You began merging various important characters, and barely even giving a summary on them. Then givng actual minor characters larger descriptions. (IE: Vanilla, President, Omochao, Bean, and Bark) Half of the One-Timers had a larger impact on the series! Mephiles had a larger role in ONE game, than Vanilla, President, Bean, and Bark in a few appearances. Then, you weren't even allowing most characters in a page titled "List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters"! Then, you proceded to merge even Metal Sonic who's had just as large a role in the series as Rouge. Maybe even larger. And don't give me the f***ing bullcrap excuse "They don't have real-world info!" Because, all of the main characters had more than enough. We could easily dig up ALOT of info on the main characters. Now, you won't even allow pictures of half the main characters! AMIB, THAT is why people are against you. And two list of characters articles is un-needed, and is your shitty excuse to get rid of stuff. Two cancels out the point of the other. What's wrong with this one? Oh, wait ABSOLUTELY NOTHING So, AMIB, do us all a favor, and cut the bull crap. K? And, if someone gets an admin on me for a few minor curses, let's not forget AMIB's constant cursing. K? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You have misrepresented my goals, actions, intent, and reasoning. I don't know what editor you're talking about, but I'm relatively sure it isn't me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Try looking in the mirror, then, because, frankly, your "Mark Elam attitude" (long story) is destroying the whole purpose of the article. What gets included in an article is NOT decided by one person just because THEY want what they want and everyone else's opinions are wrong. CBFan (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion TTN made about me a while ago? It's obvious that AMIB doesn't care much for the article, he has wrecked the character articles so badly that they had to be merged here, let's just ignore him unless he comes up with an idea that pleases everybody.Fairfieldfencer FFF 05:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the attitude to which I refer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange how you never said anything like that when TTN suggested that about me.Fairfieldfencer FFF 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, where, exactly, are you addressing my arguments, instead of demonizing me? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm addressing the fact, as will others, that you're actions and arguments are on thin ice. And you know it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So no, you aren't planning to address my arguments, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, where, exactly, are you addressing my arguments, instead of demonizing me? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You fail AMIB. You FAIL at realising our points. TAKE A LOOK!!! THIS ISN'T YOUR F***ING WEBSITE! YOU DON'T OWN THE WORLD!!!! And why haven't we merged the Chao article, where very little is actually sourced? Favorism is the reason. This little game that you started AMIB, it has a name, and it's called favorism Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

All these edit conflicts are royally pissing me off... -.- Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and AMIB, I brought up many statements about your arguments, you just choose to ignore them because you KNOW that you've been defeated. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is why I've given up discussion with SLJ and FFF as fruitless. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet others are by our side. Notice how you stand alone in your views?Fairfieldfencer FFF 05:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And you choose not to se the POV of others? I've tried settling compromises that everyone liked, they worked for a while, then, you come out of the blue, and destroy without trying to se our POV! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I don't even KNOW why I'm bothering now. I only participated in the merging because I thought it was going to end your ranting and rampage, but now I don't even KNOW why I'm bothering. As far as I'm concerned, you're vandalising. No two ways about it. Wikipedia is, essentially, a Team Project and is not decided by one person yelling about getting his own way. Which is exactly what you're doing right now. If this keeps up, EVERY bit of merging and article creating done may end up being reverted BACK to the way it was. You have two options, basically...put up, or shut up. CBFan (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean start

Let's try this from the beginning.

That this is named "List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog" does not mean that it must contain every single character that was ever in a Sonic the Hedgehog game. The list, which is a sub-article of the Sonic the Hedgehog game series article, should be comprehensive (meaning it contains everything required for comprehension of the series), not necessarily exhaustive (covering every single detail). We summarize, not detail to an excessive level of detail.

That said, I understand there there's an argument for, as well as demand for, an index of all of the characters in the series. I don't think it's terribly useful, but okay, I understand the argument, so we have a separate article for that, instead of bloating this article with that list. Thus, Index of Sonic the Hedgehog characters.

By trying to combine them, we end up with an overlong article with divergent purposes. By separating them (as is done with other series), we end up with two articles that focus on their single goal and do it effectively. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Only one character article is needed. I've seen no game article with seperate pages. Except for RPG's which have an article for characters in each game. The Fire Emblem series for example, because, they have about, 100 new characters per game. And even characters who only were in the series for a few minutes have descriptions, so why can't characters who had one entire game about them? Again, favorism... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to refer to other series, nearly none of them have exhaustive indices of every single character. All of their series article lists are lists of recurring characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy justification for excluding verifiable information from this article altogether. These characters should be included, but they should should be given due weight. Which means that these characters warrant at least a mention. These mentions did not lead to WP:SIZE issues, as they were only a few kilobytes. Randomran (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vote.

There isn't any policy justification for half of the visual length of the article to be characters so unimportant they don't merit description, either, and size is more than raw kilobytes. Is due weight giving as much space to characters who don't merit description as to the main characters?

What purpose does including them serve? This is clearly verifiable information, but how is it useful? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, for starters, some of the one-timers (IE Mephiles) are more important than half of the recurring characters put together. And, AMIB, instead of whiny excuses to get you way, how about just admiting dfeat, and let the rest of us take things from here, and you can check up on things in a few weeks. K? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are they more important? (And the rest you can file in /dev/null thanks.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because, most of the one-timers have had a larger role in the series than half of the recuring ut together. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For example. What's a one-off character with a lasting role in later games? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand? Do you mean what chance do they have at a comeback? Just as much as the recurring though, Maria, and Gerald are rather unlikely to return... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you keep saying "There are one-off characters that are really important!" without saying who they are or why they're really important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN! IE: Mephiles appeared in 2 games (1 a cameo) but, in the one, he played a larger part than Vanilla, Omochao, and President ALL put together in all of the games that they've appeared in. Same for say, Erazor, Iblis, Elise, etc. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"i.e." is "in other words."

Then put Mephiles in this list. This doesn't justify the bulk of the list, just a few specific marginal examples. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Nothing personal to any of the parties here, but I think my efforts to mediate between the minimalists/maximalists has failed. There is no clear policy guideline about how to handle this, and the edit warring has gone on far too long. Either the parties need to compromise, or we need to take on another step in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. That means mediation or a request for comment. Is either side willing to compromise? Randomran (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise, and discussion on it is (finally) ongoing. Would you care to respond in that discussion? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried many compromises but, AMIB has taken advantage of them all. Whatever we come up with, he'll always disagree, and take matters upon himself... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 07:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do love the accusations of bad faith and all, but maybe we could discuss the actual article in the section immediately above? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should have a list AND and index of characters. If the characters are verifiable, then we should include them in one centralized list. But I'm willing to see if other people feel differently, and believe that there is a good reason to keep the one-off characters separate from this list. I can't find a reason in policy or guideline, but perhaps WP:CONSENSUS will lead us otherwise. Randomran (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does including them in this list serve that does not also serve as a reason to have a separate index? This is clearly verifiable information, but how is it more useful here? (I'd appreciate if you could respond to this exact same question where it is posed above, to consolidate discussion.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More central location, for one. Less redundancy, for two. A majority of the "index" will point directly to this article, over and over again. And for three, it avoids the problem where we have an article called a "list of characters" that's not actually a complete list. We've been through this before. Now's the part where you say there's no policy or guideline to support your position, but that there's a longstanding common sense guideline that's not written anywhere that we should all listen to. Randomran (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the index will point to the game articles or remaining individual character articles (or nowhere at all); numerically, the characters not on this list outnumber those who are. As for the problem that a "list of characters" is not exhaustive; none of the others are, and if that's a big problem for you we can rename this one.

I don't much appreciate the sarcasm, especially given that there's no policy or guideline to back your position either, while mine is based on long-standing practice, as can be seen in other articles. You're proposing an entirely novel marriage of two different styles of list given a coincidence of article naming. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy that backs the idea that you keep referenced information in wikipedia is called WP:VERIFIABILITY. If you're uncomfortable with these characters being just mentioned, we can go back to offering a brief description of each of them, which is the way it was before I proposed a compromise. Randomran (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That a factual claim can be verified does not mean that every possible relevant verifiable factual claim belongs in an article; that isn't what WP:V says or means at all. I'm uncomfortable with an article that tries to do two things at once (cover recurring characters that don't merit their own articles while also trying to serve as an index of all characters however minor), doing a disservice to both.

You're evading my point. Why must these characters be mentioned here, since established practice is to have lists of recurring characters and indices but not cram them together? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're evading my point: who cares about some undocumented practice when we're doing something that is entirely consistent with our guidelines and policies, and is backed by three good reasons, plus consensus if not for you? I think that's why a further step for dispute resolution is necessary. Randomran (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You've hand-waved TTN away. Again. He hasn't remove the section because he is enjoined against doing so, that's all.

You've given good reasons to have an index. I've conceded that point. Where are the good reasons to cram the index in here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair point about TTN. I didn't realize he was enjoined. The benefit of having mentioning every character here rather than elsewhere is to centralize the information in a single article. Centralizing the information in one article leads to less redundant information, and there will be no need to list a character in two different articles. It will also make it easier to keep the Sonic articles up to date, since only one article will need to be maintained rather than two. And it will also lead to a stronger navigation benefit: rather than forcing readers to switch between a thorough character "list" and a complete character "index", readers will only need to visit one article that is both thorough and complete. The added "clutter" is marginal, and only adds a few kilobytes to this article.
But I suspect this debate will come from you saying that the clutter is terrible, and that the benefits I mentioned are marginal or trivial. That's why dispute resolution seems to be necessary. Not that I'm so passionate about this article that I can't compromise, but I suspect that the others are pushing for something more than just a bare mention of every character. For better or for worse, if formal dispute resolution begins, I'll probably make a quick comment and hand the process off to someone more experienced than myself. I tried to broker a compromise, but it seems to have failed. Maybe someone else can figure something out. Randomran (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an information centralized here, only an index. Centralizing the one-off characters here is going to be hellaciously redundant, not doing so moots any argument about redundance or having to click through. Maintenance is a red herring; editing two sections of one article isn't significantly harder or easier than editing two separate articles. You're mentioning kilobytes, but currently, this page is 5 screens of character detail, then four and a half screens of one-off characters (or zero-off characters, but that's a separate issue).

I am unconvinced that there's any significant utility to this arrangement. A separate index is redundant in exactly the same way that an index here is redundant, maintenance isn't any harder or easier either way, and navigation is impaired by forcing articles to serve divergent purposes.

Lastly, I wish you'd stop going on about "dispute resolution." The way we resolve disputes on Wikipedia is to talk about them. Either file an RFC or don't, but in the meantime address arguments. (Countersinking your arguments with "Well, you're just going to counter them with this!" is more a sign that your arguments aren't going to hold up to scrutiny than anything.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to show that I'm aware of your arguments, and I think you're aware of mine too. This is just a question of value: you think the clutter of a complete list is huge, I think the clutter is marginal. I think a centralized article is a huge benefit, you think the benefit is insignificant. That's why we're at an impasse. If you can see a way out without escalating the dispute resolution process, and without everyone suddenly changing their mind about the list and the index, I'm totally open to whatever ideas you might have. But it may be simpler to just get a few of the WP:VG guys to pop in and settle this. I'd be okay with whatever they decided. Randomran (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It Seems once again the Mergers have been proved wrong so they have started a new section to discuss and pretend that it never happened. But it is true, the Seperate Articles have a ton of outside info such as VAs, Music created for characters, their real world creators and etc and it was all sourced. While this article is full of fiction. Please do not ruin Sonic's section on Wiki anymore, by merging anymore characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Badnik (talk • contribs) 09:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A decent point Badnik. AMIB, you're pretty much suggesting that we revert to what this article was before the merging? Then, why not the other articles. Let's undo this whole, big mess, and slowly work done from there. We can warrant enough information to create good articles for each of the major characers. Sources, and all. Secondary, and tritary characters can remain here, each with a 1, or 2 paragraph section. And AMIB, I lve how you didn't reply on my comment on not merging the Chao article. Utter defeat me boi. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that we have a separate article similar to what this was before the merge. And what comment about not merging the Chao article? I've had to skim comments about how I'm DESTROYING THE ARTICLES, as they're mostly noise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You saw those comments. As I eep saying, you seem to either pull of some merger stunt, or ignore something when you know that you've been defeated. And, the seperate artice before, I wasn't in favor of having an artice for heroes, an article for villians, then a list of them all. But, if anyone else goes for it, I'll coop but, you seem to be the only one in favor of it. Stop trying to take control of things. It shows cowardness, which is a bad sign. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an unproductive thread of discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So the almighty AMIB admits defeat? Well played for a while there. Shake? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly i think he was ignoring his defeat again. Anyway the last target for these mergers appears to be Rouge's article. I have a copy of the article from Edit Page view saved into Word. Delete this one and i will it straight back up and i urge others to do the same with any other articles that these mergers want to destroy.--Super Badnik (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased characters

Why do we have an utterly unverifiable section on characters who were in zero games? And why am I being reverted when I remove that nonsense from the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should we cite them, and not the other characters? AMIB, you do not own this world. Do you understand. This site doesn't belong to you. Anyways, I can easily whip up some sources. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. Characters who are in a game are a trivially verified fact. Characters who aren't in any game are not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, eh? I beg to differ. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's say I added "Narfle the Garthog" to that list. How would you know it was any more or less valid than the rest of the list? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because being a fan character he wouldn't have any refs or official images.Fairfieldfencer FFF 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a character I made up by pounding on the keyboard, but same difference. Where are the refs and official images for these characters? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. If he didn't have refs or images then he/she would very likely be fan character.Fairfieldfencer FFF 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we know these aren't fan characters? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are the refs here for the minor characters? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The minor we don't really have to worry about. It's the old ones with next to no info. They don't have any refs but we know they exist.Fairfieldfencer FFF 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)