Wikipedia

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 2

< Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Sergecross73 in topic So what's the gameplan for merging?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Notability

Latest comment: 9 years ago350 comments28 people in discussion

I've brought up my concerns on several pages about numerous Sonic character articles recently recreated from redirects not meeting the notability criteria, and I wanted to centralize the discussion here instead of making several remote conversations. Looking at even the sourcing on even current GAs such as E-102 Gamma and Blaze the Cat, the coverage is not significant. I wanted to broach this now in a friendly manner before more time is spent on these topics, feelings are hurt, and, as I've mentioned somewhere else I don't remember, we have another situation like Bulbasaur (where the project made a ton of individual Pokémon articles and even brought a few to FA/GA only for the rest of WP to find out and rightfully remove most from the encyclopedia, now encapsulated in Bulbasaur's talk page article history). So my concern is that the majority of these new articles were made without meeting the notability criteria (significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?)) and while I don't plan on bringing any to AfD myself (since they should be redirected and merged and not deleted), I think a discussion is warranted. My proposal would be to redirect (merge) Babylon Rogues, Blaze the Cat, Chao (Sonic), Cream the Rabbit, E-102 Gamma, E-123 Omega, Wisp (Sonic) to this here list article based on their large percentage of Appearance section material relying on primary sources (also an undue weight issue), dependence on listicles, and additional dearth of secondary coverage per the notability criteria. (I'm leaning towards merge on Amy Rose, Big the Cat, Rouge the Bat, Shadow the Hedgehog, Silver the Hedgehog, but I can see more consideration for these.) Sonic, Tails, Eggman should be fine on their own, perhaps Knuckles too but I'd need to see more sources. Okay, that's my sense of all this. I'll shut up and see where everyone else lies. czar ♔ 04:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you'd actually bothered to research our coverage of individual Pokémon articles, you'd have realized that we have dozens of them, each supported by at least several secondary sources (though not as many as the libraries we'd need to fill to please you, apparently), and we have for longer than most of these Sonic character articles have been around, and this has drawn little complaint from WP:VG. (Seriously, look at Klefki.) Tezero (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep it civil, okay? Re: the Pokémon, I was referring to those purged as mentioned at Wikipedia:Pokémon test and not the several dozen that remain. czar ♔ 04:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the sources of many of these in a while, but I can say right off the bat that Shadow the Hedgehog is notable; most of its sources are reliable secondary sources. Regarding articles' reliance on primary sources generally, the proportion of primary-to-secondary sources shouldn't make a difference as far as the notability guideline is concerned; so long as the article's subject has "significant coverage" in reliable secondary sources, it satisfies the notability guideline, regardless of how many primary source citations there are or what text they support. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Likewise with Chao, I think. Wisps technically is still mostly primary by number, but there are several articles that are entirely or at least largely (a few paragraphs or more) about the Wisps, as can be seen at the FAC page. (Hit Ctrl+F and type "To FAC coordinators".) There are a lot more that are... up in the air, I guess, as it depends what counts for the nebulous "significant coverage". Tezero (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Reception from top lists are fine for establishing notability, just as long they are more than passing mentions. GNG states that the topic in question does not need to be the main subject of an article, but needs more than passing mentions. After looking through some of the sources and stuff, characters like Amy, Shadow, Rouge and Big deserve to keep their own articles, as far as I'm concerned. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
How would a top list accolade be a "passing mention"? I mean, typically there are a small number of paragraphs, sometimes on an individual page, for the character. I think of a "passing mention" as something like "Twilight Princess' extravagant and compelling art style, such as what can be seen in Midna, is..." Tezero (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that some top list lists only give like one sentence about the character. But that's not the case with all of them. That's the point I was trying to make. I'm in agreement with you here, you know. I don't think these articles should be merged. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I definitely understand Czar's concerns. On the surface level, Tezero's article look great because he's a good writer and he's good at formatting and adding plenty of refs, so they look like good articles. But of you dig deeper, you see that its a ton of passing mentions, and non-notable quotations. I didn't want to be the only one to rain on his parade, because he's definitely making some improvements, but I do think Czar is right and he's getting a bit carried away. Let me look into which ones apply... Sergecross73 msg me 10:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I see Czar's point. The question isn't whether or not this information should be deleted, but how it should be presented. When the bulk of an article is composed of information gleaned from primary sources, then even though it may be permissible under the rules, it is not a bad idea to consider whether a better article could be generated by merging them. Rather than a dozen closely related articles each with 3 or 4 independent in-depth RSes and 10s of primary sources, a merge would give us a single article on the close relation itself with dozens of independent in-depth RSes. To many people such an article would appear more encyclopedic. I know this idea is anathema to those who work for WP:CHAR, but I think it is important to take a broader Wikipedia-wide perspective. Again, I'm an inclusionist at heart so if this were simply a call for deletion I'd be opposed, but a merge makes some amount of sense here. -Thibbs (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I definitely see why cleanliness could be useful for a number of video game franchise character lists, but the Sonic series has gone on for literally several dozen games, many of them with in-depth plots, as well as extensive other media. To merge this many articles and adequately cover what each character does in the series would generate an incredibly long and difficult-to-navigate list. Working moderate, though unimpressive, amounts of reception into individual character sections in lists is also kinda weird. Tezero (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I've brought up before, merging too many of these articles would set a new precedent. Look at, for example, Fawful, Koopalings, Toad, Wart, Bowser Jr., and most of the Pokémon. Is their reception coverage better? Looks like a lot of "listicles" and "passing mentions" to me – and for good reason. How often do you actually see an article just about a single video game character? Tezero (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not precedent, that's just "other stuff". Wart is an especially bad example, it's been tagged for cleanup and notability for years, and only seems to have avoided a redirect through pure indifference and lack of traffic. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I must've misspoken. "Other stuff" is more a form of revenge, or at least strong desire for fairness, without policy-compatible reasoning. In this case, I think the articles I mentioned should stay, as should... at least most of the Sonic character ones (while I wouldn't actively advocate merging them, I can see how Gamma, Omega, and the Rogues might not be notable: they only have one medium-sized paragraph of reception each and have each only been in a handful of games) – because I feel that the articles in both groups satisfy WP:GNG. The reason I brought the other articles up was to give perspective, not to try to bring them down with these. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
My interpretation of "Other stuff" isn't revenge. Articles should be judged based on their individual merits, and not based on the existence of similar articles. The purpose of the essay isn't to bring down multiple articles, or qualify the inclusion of multiple articles; rather, it's a call to judge each article individually. The judgement of notability most strongly rests upon the quality of the coverage of the subject in reliable sources. If significant coverage does not exist for a subject, then it is non-notable, regardless of whether a similar article exists or not. I will look into the notability of these individual characters. Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
"OTHERSTUFF" isn't about revenge. It's just meant as a counterpoint that trumps when editors bring up examples of articles that are equal or worse quality to justify the existence of their articles. There's "precedent" if there is active consensus supporting the examples. It's "other stuff" when it's just random Undiscussed garbage articles with no real discussion that supports its existence. (Wart is about as strong if an example as it gets. ) Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but we actually have to get down to this now. Why isn't the discussion on Wart real? Do you primarily have an issue with the volume, the fact that it's lists, how much text appears on each page, or something else entirely? And where's the cutoff point? Tezero (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, can you locate a discussion where a group of editors came to a consensus that it was to be kept? If not, then it's not a good example of any sort of precedent. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The only relevant one I can find about these Mario characters is for Bowser Jr. According to the discussion there, twice as many reliable sources as were currently used (so 10) would be necessary for an article. Plenty of these Sonic character articles have more than that. Anyway, enough were dug up, so it survived. And neither the ones present in the article at the time nor the ones there now are any more "significant [of] coverage" than those in, say, Chao's or Cream's page. Tezero (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
My main objection is that so many of the sources are just passing mentions, amounting to something along the lines of Source X referred to character Y as "not great" and "average". There's nothing of substance there. Or worse, some are closer to just descriptions than actual reception or judgement value. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize there were any without opinions; I haven't consciously been adding those since old Espio and old Blaze got deleted. Tezero (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm remembering those old ones, as I'm not finding any examples of the "non-reception" yet. But the passing mention stuff, that's very prevalent. See below subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Babylon Rogues merge discussion

First example of the type of notability issue Czar is (presumably) driving at. Look at the reception section for the Babylon Rogues. It looks like a documentation of every time a reviewer made a passing mention about them being stupid. (The word stupid is literally direct quoted three times in that very short paragraph.) Nothing of substance is actually said about them. Even the design section boils down to "The creators made them for a racing game with a backstory." Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of substance? Not enough of substance I can see, but there's a fair variety of complaints. What kind of complaint that they're missing would count as one "of substance"? Tezero (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this is looking like it can go on for a while without resolution. I suggest we just make an RfC or formal merge discussion or whatever, solicit outside opinion and call it a day. Anyone have a preference on the method? czar ♔ 04:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero, no it boils down the the same problem as usual - poor sources and just "passing mentions" of the actual subject instead of significant coverage. @Czar - I have no preference, whichever you prefer. Sergecross73 msg me 10:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd prefer an outside opinion so that we actually get a formal, policy-based decision that can be referenced later rather than getting into the same arguments over and over again. Tezero (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I have made a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's step back and for the record point out first and foremost, WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOTDIR. Now, look at this situation. While it's certainly fine to provide guidance on the key characters for any given gaming universe, up-to and including dedicated pages for what in most cases should only be a limited amount of characters, Wikipedia is not the place for listing all of the secondary, tertiary, etc... characters. There are other dedicated sites that are better suited for that and in general practice it should be considered best practice to direct visitors to those specialized resources where appropriate. The only thing we should be really working out here is the generalized line to draw on what defines a primary character for any given universe. BcRIPster (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Primary" isn't relevant here. I mean, think how many minor Shakespeare and Star Wars characters have articles, and then how few major My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters do (it's 0). The determining factor, whether any of us likes it or not, is coverage in reliable sources. What we're niggling over is how much is necessary, and of what kinds. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It absolutely is relevant. And, I think you made my case by bringing up Shakespeare. Do we really honestly need pages for every minor Shakespear and Star Wars character? No. Not really. And just because they have a rats nests of pages means we should also? No. Nobody cares about all of these secondary characters except for the die hard fans and information about them does little to nothing to help some understand what these games are about. "Reliable sources" is well defined at the top of this page and the first thing it says is: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." This does not say "all articles that feature reliable, published information are deserving of their own dedicated Wikipedia page." BcRIPster (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right and the most important guidance... WP:WHATISTOBEDONE "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." BcRIPster (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we assume that the Babylon Rogues have an encyclopedia article with a heading, I'd damn well expect to see content there. (It's my fault the content isn't more extensive; I haven't been prioritizing this article, though it looks like that's for good reason.) The same goes for more obscure (and less RS-covered) Sonic characters like Marine the Raccoon, Chocola the Chao, Black Doom, and E-100 Alpha, who—as much as I would personally want them to have articles, as I dislike Wikipedia's standards for notability in general—never will. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
But this also assumes that Babylon Rogues is relevant and notable enough to even warrant a page. If you never heard of these characters would your concept of the Sonic games be any different? I think not. I'm really not trying to upset you here, but re-read your statement. Wikipedia isn't about "what you personally" want to read. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic source which is intended to provide an introduction to a concept that someone can leap off from for further exploration. Specialty sites/books/etc... are the proper place for extended details on a given subject. Maybe people just don't remember what real encyclopedias were like anymore. BcRIPster (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is consensus for merging all of these except for Chao, where there is a consensus against merging. The consensus is significantly weaker for merging Wisp than it is for all of the other ones that were closed as merge, and if future games incorporate the mechanic/character, and it revives additional coverage, un-merging may be a possibility. At this time, however, consensus is for merging that article. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Babylon Rogues, Blaze the Cat, Chao (Sonic), Cream the Rabbit, E-102 Gamma, E-123 Omega, and Wisp (Sonic) be merged into List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters?

Survey

I propose that Babylon Rogues, Blaze the Cat, Chao (Sonic), Cream the Rabbit, E-102 Gamma, E-123 Omega, and Wisp (Sonic) be merged into List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters. These articles lack the significant coverage needed under the GNG, resulting in Reception sections that collect passing mentions without potential for completeness and lengthy Appearance sections of undue weight constructed exclusively from primary sources. The topics would be best covered (briefly) in this list instead of on their own. See above for further elaboration. I'd also be interested in thoughts on whether anyone thinks I should include other list members in any subsequent merge proposals. czar ♔ 00:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm personally leaning more towards keeping most of these articles (aka oppose the merge), though it's a borderline decision (and I wouldn't mind the Rouges and E-123 Omega being merged as their reception sections are especially weak). Sure, their sourcing could be better but at least there are multiple mentions rather than some, and a few have depth and are more than passing statements. The GNG is being enforced a bit too harshly here. Take a look at some of the comics and tv show characters - many of their articles are in a shitty state but most are still allowed to stand. I know someone will reply to this with "but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" but video game character articles are currently being judged with a double standard that is much tougher than the rest of the encyclopedia. Many thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this about WP:VG's especially harsh attitude toward notability. That's why I think it's important that outside opinions be brought in. (I mean, every fucking bridge or train station in Nobodycaresberg, Germany, with zero or next to zero sources even available, let alone used, gets an article, but a character that actually gets hundreds of views a day... Really makes me wonder.) Tezero (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree! But the way to fix this is rein in all the articles about individual bridges! Don't compound the issue with "well he did it, so I should to". Please? BcRIPster (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I never said that, and neither did Tezero. All I'm saying is that WP:VG is being awfully harsh against the notability of video game characters, compared to, say, other projects against comics or television characters, or even "bridges and train stations in Nobodycaresberg, Germany, with zero or next to zero sources". People are saying here that these characters don't pass the GNG, while on any other project it would pass with little doubt. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not literally, but it was strongly implied by Tezero's statement about "every f*ing bridge gets an article...", and I was simply saying that rather than criticize WP:VG for being harsh, criticize WP:BRIDGE for being lax. I totally agree with the sentiment and I think it's crazy to have all of these articles that really don't add value to a layman's perspective from an encyclopedic standpoint. BcRIPster (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, really, I think WP:VG is being harsh, not that WP:BRIDGE is being lax, as WP:BRIDGE's policy (I'm not even gonna bother checking if that's a real project; you know the principle) on notability seems more representative of Wikipedia overall. Tezero (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:VG judges notability harshly overall, but for some reason they're especially hard on video game character articles. I mean, just take a look at some of the stub-class video game articles out there, and the lack of sources in them... I just don't see the reason for this obvious double standard, and why video game characters have to show much more notability than everything else. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merger and since you asked, I'm going to voice what I readily admit will be considered an extreme stance (so please don't flip out). That, based on my interpretation of what a general encyclopedia should encompass, I would think that at most, stand alone pages for Sonic, Knuckles, Eggman, Tails and Amy Rose would be warranting expanded, special focus. Everything else would fall into a "characters of..." summary that links off to something like the sonic.wikia for detailed character profiles and bios. I think this definition captures my thoughts well "An encyclopedia is great for getting a general understanding of a subject before you dive into it, but then you do have to dive into your subject; using books and articles and other appropriate sources will provide better research. Research from these sources will be more detailed, more precise, more carefully reasoned, and more broadly peer reviewed than the summary you found in an encyclopedia." BcRIPster (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think the fact that the Appearances sections are mainly made up of primary sources is a fair rationale for merging. Often a character's basic role in a game could be attributed to a primary source, but a more complete understanding of the role requires primary sources, as secondary ones just don't think to mention it or it doesn't relate to a point they're making. The reason that large use by percentage of primary sources for Appearances sections isn't common outside Sonic character articles is that most articles just haven't had the effort put in to actually discuss the relevant Appearances in enough detail, or the articles just aren't at GA status so those parts are unsourced entirely. TL;DR: Just because secondary sources aren't the only thing used (or close to it) doesn't mean there aren't enough of them. Tezero (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That isn't my rationale for merging, but I will add that when 75% of an article are sections of mainly primary sources, that leaves 25% with secondary coverage, which should be seen as undue weight and a red flag for notability czar ♔ 01:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE refers to content, not sourcing, and is used in NPOV disputes, not debates on notability. It's not much of a "red flag" here. The primary sources are mostly found in the "appearances" section, which merely explain which games a character appears in and in what role, and, as Tezero says, second sources don't work as well there. The main determining factor for notability is the "reception" section, which shows the impact a character has, and as I stated above, I find the sourcing in all of them to be sufficient (with the Babylon Rogues and E-123 Omega being exceptions). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Undue weight also refers to balance (WP:BALASPS), which was straightforwardly the section I was referencing. Notability is a proxy for available coverage. The red flag is when 75% of an article has no option of secondary coverage and when the appearances of a character matter more (by weight) than the sum of the other sections. But let me be clear: my merge argument is that the few secondary sources do not constitute significant coverage and thus the topic doesn't pass the GNG. The weight issue is secondary. czar ♔ 11:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No, WP:BALASPS still refers to content, and is irrelevant to sourcing. And personally I consider coverage by 8-9 RS, as in the case of Cream the Rabbit, to be more than a "few secondary sources". Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction you're making. Anyway, Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#What_Wikipedia_is_not summarizes any other thoughts I'd have to add on this line of thought czar ♔ 01:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that BALASPS refers to the POV of sources, not whether they're primary/secondary or if they demonstrate notability or not. As for your second argument, I disagree with you as I believe that most of these articles do have satisfactory reception sections and are more than a plot summary. Though honestly this discussion is getting a bit unproductive as I doubt either of us will manage to change the other's opinion on this matter, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments in the above sections. The reception and development sections are very weak in content and significant coverage in sources. All the rest of the content is more fansite-ish type content sourced from first party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have the time to look through every one right now, but I'd like to point out that [[Wisp {Sonic)]] is a GA with a mostly supportive FA candidacy right now. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While it frustrates me that no one seems to care about all the dedicated Wisp coverage I've brought up at the FAC, GANs and FACs aren't worth the paper they're printed on (well, you know) as far as notability goes. FWIW, Cream's also being GA reviewed right now. Tezero (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I read through the coverage listed at the Wisp FAC when it was posted and I don't believe it constitutes significant coverage. They are mentions as part of the individual games' reviews. Why do these character topics have notability apart from the games? It's not just that a lot can be written about them, because Sonic wikis has lots of examples of topics we'd never cover. These topics do not meet a threshold of available sources to substantiate a reliable, encyclopedic article that isn't piecemeal aggregation of every time the character has been mentioned on any website. If these articles were brought to AfD, I believe their discussions would be closed as "merge", hence all this. Also I've already responded on Supernerd's talk, but GA or even FA status does not constitute notability—it isn't in the criteria and it's a separate discussion. czar ♔ 11:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
When it was posted? Well, there's been more since the FAC started, and I'd argue that even what it started with was sufficient. Wisps have notability not because of common sense, but because they have a decent amount of rather in-depth coverage from secondary sources. And it's not a "piecemeal aggregation of every time the character has been mentioned on any website"; in fact, I left out a lot that simply didn't say anything of substance or give an opinion. Actually, if you look at the FAC, I even left out some opinions about them because they were redundant. If you think the Wisps aren't notable apart from their games despite the piling coverage evidence otherwise, take the general issue of WP:N up with Wikipedia's policy creators. Tezero (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, after taking a look at the article about the Wisps, I oppose the merging for that one. Multiple third party sources gives them more than passing mentions (WP:GNG). I don't see the undue weight issue either. "Appearance" sections typically does not even need sourcing when it comes to plot (at least for things the player can clearly see when playing the game and watching the cutscenes). There's a reason plot sections in film and TV show episode articles usually aren't cited, after all. Besides, when will you ever find third party sources telling a detailed plot for anything? Not very often. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will say that I don't see how Rouge has more "notability" than Cream. Even from a common sense perspective she doesn't, and her Reception section is noticeably less substantive. Tezero (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • At least Rouge elicited some meaningful commentary from sources regarding females in video games. Cream is largely a collection of passing mentions saying she's either "unnecessary" or "cute". 00:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Was anyone outside of WP:VG notified of these discussions? The one thing me and Tezero agree in is probably that people outside should contribute too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notify anyone besides the article tags. I've added an RfC but feel free to post to other venues czar ♔ 01:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Articles actually have third party sources that judge them which is the point of notability. If you have a problem with one of them address them individually rather than making such a convoluted talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support merging per comments in above sections, looking at the sources that make these characters "notable" I don't see any that talk extensively on the characters, mostly just passing mentions in game reviews. The majority of the reception on Wisp is about the gameplay that they provide, not their designs, so would be better merged into reception for Sonic Colors. E-123 Omega's reception is basically a comparison to E-102 Gamma, which itself has a pretty poor reception section. These characters simply don't have enough notability as individual characters, and have their "notability" just for having a role in a Sonic game. Jucchan (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't know if anyone's actually followed what I suggested, so here's what I said at the FAC:

Going back over it, the article I was thinking of, by Famitsu, is still there. Also, the IGN preview has about 4 paragraphs just on the Wisps (about half its length), this has 4-5 paragraphs (about 2/3), and this is mostly about the Wisps and even references them in the title (though it's unusually stingy with opinions about them). And this one is a full-length article about the Wisps. I didn't even add it because it was redundant to Famitsu; that's how well-documented these critters are. And that's not even counting the sources I just added talking about the Wisps' visual appearance (which is not necessarily tied to specific games and thus couldn't as easily be merged) and gameplay, or the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph... The fact is, there are now three solid paragraphs of real reception, with additional sources to spare; countless game character articles exist and pass GAN (some even FAC) with less than this, and they should. To FAC coordinators, I hope you'll consider this case for the Wisps' notability and note that hahnchen's other concerns have been addressed. Tezero (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned that I had read this above and explained there why it is not significant coverage czar ♔ 04:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
My mistake; I'd thought that was in reply to the sources available earlier. Regardless, look at Sergecross73's reply at Luke von Fabre's talk. While he does state he's in favor of "minor Sonic characters" being merged (I'm not sure if he was referring to the Wisps among them), the rationale he gives in support of Luke's notability (explicit opinions + the character being the main one in his game) ties quite well to the Wisps. Tezero (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That's...not really the same. "Luke's" article is about a playable character who's character development is a central part of a plot heavy game. The Wisps function more as a "gameplay mechanic", they have no character development, personality, or real dialogue, don't drive the story, and the story is a largely minor, irrelevant part of a Sonic game. Apples and oranges. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: This is terrifying. I'm aware that WP:VG has a strong attitude towards notability, but I wouldn't have known that the Sonic characters would be at risk. Tezero and I have promoted a few of these, and it would seem heartless if all of his work put into making these scarce articles into to GA quality be thrown away. Look at the List of Pokemon, about thirty of them have their own articles and they are much less comprehensive than the Sonic characters! They all contain the same basic sections, legacy, reception, design etc. Bulbasaur, for example, it's fairly comprehensive (on the same level as the Sonic characters) and it isn't even GA! If you think about, what makes Wisps so special? It's a FA candidate yes, but in theory it contains just as much content as all of them do. Who is there to stop someone from nominating all the others for FA? It's possible, as most of them are already Good Articles. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The GA/FA process is completely separate from notability. Tezero's own past work, like Espio, were once GA's, only to be redirected, for example. Its one of the reason's why I don't bother with the process, there are a lot of awful articles/reviewers who pass things that don't even meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up, for the sake of transparency, Jaguar passed all four of the recent GAs in the set under discussion: Blaze the Cat, Cream the Rabbit, E-102 Gamma, Wisp (Sonic). Would also like to point out that I encouraged not creating these articles back before this began, and if the primary concern is wasted time, the primary author (T) knew that their notability was borderline. Also need to point out that Bulbasaur was once FA, hence its sourcing. I'd put Bulbasaur in the same notability boat as Amy Rose with their current sources, but don't want to get off-topic. If your concern is even-handedness, we can visit another group of fictional characters next, but let's take one consensus at at time. czar ♔ 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That was taken out of context. I was talking about the likely outcome of this discussion, not what I thought myself of the articles satisfying WP:N or of WP:N should be, nor what I'd thought of any of those things when creating the pages. Tezero (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I was going off of Actually, had I thought more about it at the time, I might've figured that bringing up more articles would make the less-notable ones seem more so and thus shield them a bit. but if that wasn't your intent, I retract it czar ♔ 01:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh. More understandable, but still not what I meant, in the same way as above. Tezero (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While I also oppose for obvious reasons (at least for most of these), work I've done in building the articles up doesn't count in and of itself toward their subject's notability, nor does yours in reviewing them. Some of the Pokémon, moreover, show more cultural impact and are covered more by secondary sources than most of these, although I would contend that others, like Torchic and Victini, aren't nearly as well-off as the Rogues and have little potential to show more WP:N. Regardless, articles of any kind aren't likely to reach GA status unless they're close to meeting WP:N, if not already there. Tezero (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In response to comparison to Pokémon articles, I say that it is true that many Pokémon articles are in not much better shape than the Sonic characters. However, I think that those Pokémon articles should be merged as well. I would oppose merging Bulbasaur due to it being a starter Pokémon in the first games as well as being used frequently by Ash (and May) in the Anime (and thus, should have more available sources to prove notability), and I'm border line on Victini for it being featured in merchandise and a movie, but I would agree to merge on most of the existing Pokémon articles. Just being similar to something that exists doesn't justify either of them existing. Jucchan (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support these merges. I'd like to note I've participated in similar discussions on fictitious elements of the Sonic series before. The biggest concern with fictional characters is that there has to be significant coverage independent of the subject to be worth an article; i.e. Sonic has been discussed extensively in reliable sources about his rivalry with Mario and representation of the Sega brand; Tails has been mentioned in critical commentary about video game "sidekicks", Eggman is often discussed in topics about video game villains, etc. Amy and Knuckles may be pushing it a bit, but I could see them being possible in mentions of sources about video game love interests or "frienemies", if such articles existed that weren't specifically about the Sonic series. Shadow would be at the very edge possibly due to his popularity and antihero status. Outside of that, I can't really see any character having notable elements independent of the series except that they're often discussed as being an issue in the Sonic series as a whole that there are so many characters as to be ridiculous. That would be a nice section for the List article, and there's certainly no reason the list couldn't be extensively worked on and completed well. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Most games we have articles on aren't notable by that standard, nor are countless other topics like the lesser known chemical elements, various cities and towns, religious topics... And that's to say nothing of a significant percentage of our game characters – a field whose entries are already, as I see it, over-scrutinized on two counts for notability. Tezero (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you're making that leap; most video games have critical receptions of themselves as a whole in the media without being a criticism of the series which they're a part of, as well as individual developments, just like how chemical elements have all been researched and discussed individually in academic sources, and cities and towns are usually discussed in reliable sources such as newspapers. The key point here is WP:NOTINHERITED; in other words, notability is not inherited just by being a part of a notable game or game series - or, for that matter, being a well-received part of just that series, because the notability is still tied to the series in itself. All of the examples you provided would have that independent notability. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Of the series, maybe not, but they're about the games themselves, other than in some articles like Ocarina of Time that have received numerous accolades and been described as extremely influential. Conversely, plenty of coverage in these articles focuses on the characters as characters rather than, say, how they affect the flow of the individual games, even though most of that coverage appears in reviews and other features about the games. In other words, I think it's a double standard to accept reviews of games as "outside the work itself" when they discuss the games besides their place in the series, but not to do the same for characters when this coverage discusses them besides their functional role in the game. Tezero (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to also make a second proposal: Tezero has done an incredible amount of work with these articles. Would not they be fit for a transwiki to a Sonic the Hedgehog-related Wikia site? Surely a location like sonic.wikia.com would be able to put this all to good use and that way the work would not be entirely for not. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Sonic wiki values different content from what we do. If you think the Appearances sections in these articles are overly detailed, oh man. Conception/creation is also much better covered there than here, as they can rely on leaked development screenshots and other things we'd count as either non-reliable or WP:OR. All I think they'd value is Reception. Tezero (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You both have a point here. On one hand, Tezero's work definitely looks like something that would be found on one of various Sonic Wikias. On the other hand, the Sonic fanbase is rather large and active on the internet, and there's far more detailed work there already in place. Still, I'm not sure why Tezero doesn't focus his work more on Wikias, who value his sort of writing much more, unless I've already answered it with this reply. (It doesn't need to be done on Wikias - it's already all been done before there.) Still, that doesn't make the content right for here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't make it right for here, no, but I fear you're running to the opposite extreme and assuming that the fact that it would fit there means it doesn't fit here. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this generalized survey - If an article's notability is going to be debated, then it should be debated individually, on its own merits. This discussion is overly broad and ambiguous, with many editors making sweeping judgments about these articles in general without justifying why a particular article does or does not satisfy the general notability guideline. The breadth of this survey does not allow for the nuance that may be necessary to discuss each article's particular notability. I'm further concerned that some of the editors here have not actually bothered to look at all of the sourcing for each of the article's listed--I know I certainly haven't at this time--and are basing their support or opposition on what they personally feel like should be notable or non-notable. Sergecross73 chose the fair and correct route when he started an individual discussion about the notability of the Babylon Rogues article, and we should continue to have article-specific discussions instead of this overinclusive mess of a survey. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair. I'll draw up the relevant subheadings now. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Bundling is completely normal for multimerges, especially where there isn't article-by-article debate expected, but looks like this is already under way. @BcRIPster, Supernerd11, Tintor2, Jaguar, and Red Phoenix czar ♔ 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
A moot point now, but I don't see this discussion falling into any of the example bundling criteria listed on WP:BUNDLE, and I'm glad that these articles are now being discussed individually because some of them may "stand on their own merits" as stated there. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Babylon Rogues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is broad consensus for a merge for this character. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Merge - Look at the reception section for the Babylon Rogues. It looks like a documentation of every time a reviewer made a passing mention about them being stupid. (The word stupid is literally direct quoted three times in that very short paragraph.) Nothing of substance is actually said about them. Even the design section boils down to "The creators made them for a racing game with a backstory." There's very little information that has been pulled from the sources about these articles, and thats because sources don't provide significant coverage - it's all trivial, passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Jet got listed on a top 10 worst list, as someone helpfully added. The rest of the coverage... isn't ideal. Tezero (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How is that a good rationale to oppose? One of the three characters making a top 10 list, and conceding that even you aren't happy with the sources? Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It's possible for me to think the sources could be sufficient without them being ideal. I mean, they comment on non-gameplay-related things (including an uncommon criticism type like what species they are), and there aren't that few of them, just not a whole lot, hence the oppose being weak. As for only one of the characters making the list, well, that lifts all of them up, since the characters ought to stick together here. If anything, it shows him being recognized as a character rather than just "oh, that's right: Sonic Riders happened and there were birds or something". Tezero (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blaze the Cat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is broad consensus for a merge for this character. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge No notable conception. Reception is pushing it also after randomly checking a few quotes. 1up says her gameplay is fun, the article sources it to say the character fun; CCC introduces the character as a Cool Queen to describe her personality, article says it's complimenting her as cool; IGN says she has a move which is a good counterpart to Sonic's spin dash, article ambiguously says she is a good counterpart to Sonic. These three don't belong in character reception. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - For pretty much the same reasons I explained for the Wisps below. Multiple third-party sources give more than passing mentions. As for undue weight, it's not very often that you'll find third-party sources giving detailed plot descriptions for stuff. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Which ones are significant coverage? Much of the coverage is single word quotes calling her "cool" and "fun".... Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There's more coverage in there than just that. For example, GamesRadar gave a more in-depth look to her ([1]), as did Blistered Thumbs ([2]). Kokoro20 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't believe Blistered Thumbs is considered a reliable source, and even if they were, if you look up the guy who wrote it, it's all forum posts and comments on articles. It looks like its user generated, not the staffs work. (Note how it says "posted by" on it, and if you click on his name, he goes by an account name of "Goombasa" - not characteristics of staff writers.) GR...gave her a short paragraph, I guess... Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Merge - extremely weak sourcing in reception, especially DragonZero's observations. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I'd oppose if Blistered Thumbs' comments had come from a more reputable source; I hadn't realized how shaky it is at the time. Tezero (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per DragonZero, and that short paragraph on GR doesn't seem "in-depth" enough to show notability. Jucchan (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per Kokoro20 and my first comment above Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my original rationale as proposed that there is not enough sourcing available for this set of articles to constitute significant or dedicated coverage. Same scant sourcing from one-line mentions as mentioned in Cream. And sigcov implies more coverage than a single paragraph in a listicle. For our purposes, compared to the reams of coverage their associated video game would get in comparison, that paragraph's a "mention". czar ♔ 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per arguments made. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per arguments above. NathanWubs (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per above. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my above bundled arguments. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chao (Sonic)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is broad consensus against a merge for this character. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: I take particular issue to this one for something that is a minor mention but I feel demonstrates significance: "Chao" being used as a virtual synonym for "virtual pet" in that one Pokémon Channel review. If it matters, I also wrote the Reception section back in 2009 and there's probably a good amount more out there that I just didn't feel needed mentioning. I may try to, with as policy-based of arguments as I can, chime in on the others later. Tezero (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per my first comment above Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge - This is the only one I'm okay with. The sourcing is better, and could probably be improved too. There was a lot of coverage on them because they were such a drastic change in Sonic gameplay prior to the games they were released in. Now, they seem to be Sonic's equivalent to Toads. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my original rationale as proposed that there is not enough sourcing available for this set of articles to constitute significant or dedicated coverage. I would agree that Chao would be the most likely of the lot to be notable, but that's based from my own understanding and intuition and not actually reading through the sources, since the sources in use or available do not cover Chaos in significant detail. See my entry at Cream, but the actual sources used here are one-off lines amalgamated together. There is no independent notability that meets the GNG outside of inclusion in a character list. czar ♔ 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: this pile on, I want to note that I looked through every secondary reference on this article and not a single one discuss Chao independently or even outside their context from the games in which they appear. Not a single one. What's more is that over a dozen (about half) of the links were dead, so I'm doubting that anyone else gave this look nearly the same treatment. czar ♔ 02:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the Channel review does that, and I actually think how casually this happens speaks for the creatures' notability, but perhaps that's beside your point. As for the links, I haven't checked them out myself, but GameSpot archives are in limbo right now due to freaking robots.txt peeing all over everything, and I'm aware a couple of other sites have done reorganization. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The Channel review mention[a] is the epitome of a passing mention. It in no way discusses the topic as something upon which to structure an encyclopedia article. czar ♔ 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, though admit that works need to be done. I feel that Chao has a reasonable chance of fulfilling notability. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per Sergecross73 and New Age Retro Hippie's arguments. Jucchan (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: The article looks like it can be improved quite a bit a bit still. But as New Age Retro hippie's says it still needs at least some work. NathanWubs (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: More reliable sources than many other character articles (even a mention in an IGN article about Pokemon Channel!), and a fleshed-out article that's not just padded. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: This article cites to more than enough detailed reliable secondary sources to satisfy the GNG. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my above bundled arguments. Even in this case, I still don't feel it's quite notable enough or diverse enough. It's not as though Chao are talked about as significant in the digital pet field, only as an element in the Sonic games. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - For the same reasons the others who opposed this mentioned, and also per the arguments I gave for my other opposes. Whether or not coverage only context of the games they appear in shouldn't even matter, as GNG doesn't even indicate a such thing. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Au contraire, the context of its coverage is actually the first point of the GNG czar ♔ 16:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I still don't see anything indicating as such there. It just says that the coverage should be significant. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
"Significant coverage is more than a passing mention", as when articles only mention Chao in single sentences because the topic is a minor aside within a game review czar ♔ 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I find some significant coverage in there. Destructoid's review of Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood for example, goes more in-depth with the Chao. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Footnotes
  1. ^ "It's rare to find a title that doesn't offer anything that resembles a game, but replaces gameplay with a glorified Chao program." And note that most of these character mentions in RS are about how unnoteworthy they are in the first place...
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cream the Rabbit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is broad consensus for a merge for this character. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Merge - Again, no "significant coverage". All the third party sources are short excerpt paraphrasing "I liked Cream" or "I didn't like Cream", or commentary that's more relevant to the gameplay of her respective games, not her. All trivial passing mentions, dressed up to look like more... Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Medium to weak oppose: what about all the stuff about her name and appearance? That doesn't have anything to do with gameplay, nor is it a simple statement of liking or disliking her. Tezero (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's weak and really stretching it too. One reads that a reviewer exclained "Oh god" in response to hearing her name? That's pointless, and hardly even reception at all. Someone called her "cute". Someone called her "corney". More pointless passing mentions pulled from game reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Sergecross73's comment. Jucchan (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge' per my first comment above Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my original rationale as proposed that there is not enough sourcing available for this set of articles to constitute significant or dedicated coverage. Specifically, shoestring sourcing. Any mention used in the Reception is a really brief aside, like a single sentence culled from a review and then stringed together. It's information, yes, but there's nothing in those mentions that confer independent notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia as a separate entry. czar ♔ 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per arguments made. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per arguments above. NathanWubs (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per above. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my above bundled arguments. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - The same arguments I provided elsewhere within this whole merging debate can be applied here too. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This, and a number of your other responses you're referring to, have not addressed a ton of concerns on sources. Any thoughts on that? Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I did check some of the sources in the Cream article and I'm pretty satisfied with the coverage they offer. Not all reception consists of passing mentions. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • For those satisfied with the coverage, I've looked through all of the secondary sources (and since this is a GA, an effort was made to source this well) and the only (the only) two secondary sources to mention Cream more than in single sentences (usu. in the context of being a character in a game under review) are [3] and [4]. I encourage you to click through and read them. That these two listicle uses ("worst character" lists) would be satisfactory enough for the topic to meet the GNG is irrational. czar ♔ 17:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I still disagree. I've seen both of those sources already and my vote still stands. It is significant coverage in multiple (two is multiple, after all) third-party sources. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

E-102 Gamma

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is broad consensus for a merge for this character. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per Jucchan's arguments. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral: a lot of the reception, though not all, would fit in the Sonic Adventure article. The "very popular" part helps his case, although Thumbs isn't a great source, as has been stated here. So does the top-25 robot ranking. Tezero (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per my own comment in the survey above. Jucchan (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge - lack of significant coverage dedicated to it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my original rationale as proposed that there is not enough sourcing available for this set of articles to constitute significant or dedicated coverage czar ♔ 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per the arguments made. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per arguments above. NathanWubs (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge: I'm not seeing the undue weight issue Czar mentioned, but nearly everything outside of Reception is first-party, and for a specific character, we need more. Looking for more sources, I couldn't find anything new that wasn't a passing mention. Definitely notable enough to stay in Wikipedia, but not enough to get his own article as of this time. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my above bundled arguments. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

E-123 Omega

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is broad consensus for a merge for this character. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per Jucchan's arguments. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral to weak support: most of his reception is about Gamma and it'd thus be weird for Gamma, but not him, to have a page. He has appeared in an alright number of games, though, and it wouldn't be hard to find secondary coverage that states that, although the worth of such a task is unclear. Tezero (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per my own comment in the survey above. Jucchan (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my first comment above Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge - lack of significant coverage dedicated to it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my original rationale as proposed that there is not enough sourcing available for this set of articles to constitute significant or dedicated coverage czar ♔ 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per the arguments made. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per arguments above. NathanWubs (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support merge: The magazine refs sound like they'd be good reliable sources, but unfortunately, I can't check them. From what I can check, he doesn't seem notable enough to have his own article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my above bundled arguments. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wisp (Sonic)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unlike all of the other proposals in this section, there's not a broad consensus one way or the other. Taking into account both the arguments made on this page and the arguments made at the FAC, however, there is a consensus - albeit not a strong one - in favor of merging this. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - As I have already stated above for this, multiple third party sources gives them more than passing mentions (WP:GNG). I don't see the undue weight issue either. When will you ever find third party sources telling a detailed plot for anything? Not very often. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Merge - They really should be split up into the sections of their respective games. (Sonic Colors and Sonic Lost World), or even the Sonic series article. They're more of a "gameplay mechanic" with a face plastered on than an actual "character", and just about all of their reception is tied into that in their respective games. This article is like trying to create a character article out of the Chaos Emeralds or "Mario mushrooms" or something... Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge; I would call that an inverse WP:Other stuff exists: I think the Mario mushrooms easily could have enough secondary coverage for an article. The Chaos Emeralds seem not to; I briefly considered the idea of one when I first came back, but didn't find any opinions or descriptions of them as "classic". While a lot is indeed based on gameplay mechanics, some's based on their cute appearance, which continues from game to game and presumably will in any more games they appear in. Tezero (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment; I agree that Mario mushrooms could very easily be an article, but I think that Mario mushrooms are recognized at an entirely different level than Wisps, used even as an icon that represents video games in general. Wisps simply aren't as well known. Jucchan (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree per common sense; the only Sonic item that I think comes close to Mario mushrooms are rings. I'd guess that neither has much external coverage as they're just so obvious. Nonetheless, sourcing is a different issue. Tezero (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Merge per Sergecross. Most of the reception is tied to their respected games. If however, wisps are found in a few top-10-50-100 list, it could be salvaged. Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per Sergecross73's comment and my comment in the survey above, Wisps just aren't notable enough as a character right now. The article can be salvaged once Wisps make more appearances in games and merchandise and become more widely recognized. Jucchan (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per my first comment above Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my original rationale as proposed that there is not enough sourcing available for this set of articles to constitute significant or dedicated coverage. More specifically, this article's sourcing is aggregating mentions and the topic notability is in either their usage in individual games or series itself and not inherited. czar ♔ 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I... Take a few minutes to scan the articles on individual Pokémon and tell me that most of them demonstrate notability outside both their games and the series. I mean, God, look at Klefki. (Not that I want that deleted or think policy dictates it should be.) Yet those articles are scanned repeatedly with some rigor for notability and allowed to stay - because those that haven't are gone. Tezero (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Replied on your talk instead of going off-topic czar ♔ 01:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As much as I appreciate the hard work put into this article and can emphasize with the opposition, I'm going to have to support the merge. So much of this article feels like it is just about Sonic Colors. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Merge Like everyone else said, wisps are just not notable enough right now. I do also concur with what New Age Retro Hippie said, that I empathize with all the hard work that has gone into the wisp article. NathanWubs (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support All the sources are basically about Sonic Colors. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not true. There are a lot about Lost World, then a couple regarding Generations and the likelihood of Wisps being in future games. But even if it was, we have plenty of articles on characters from one game that primarily use coverage of that game as sourcing - for example, Neku Sakuraba, whose talk page implies it's allowed to stay because the article's sources allow it to do significantly more than just summarize the plot. Wisps' article doesn't come close to only doing that, nor would it even if the Wisps had been dropped after Colors. Tezero (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think what he's saying is that, in terms of its coverage, a lot of them are as a gameplay mechanic rather than something on the same level as Neku. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Mechanic or actual character, there's enough sources to keep this as its own article. Yes, many are about Colors, but there's enough coverage of the Wisps themselves in the various refs. There's way too much information here for a merger. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Sufficient reliable, secondary, third-party sources are cited that discuss Wisps and Wisp powers in sufficient detail for this article to satisfy the GNG. Whether Wisps are "characters" or "gameplay mechanics" is irrelevant to the article's notability. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my above bundled arguments. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge - For the same reasons given in the FAC. A handful of sentences culled from reviews is used to hang in-universe minutiae which only works as fan service. Sentences like "Wisps are composed of an energy force called 'Hyper-go-ons'" belong on Wikifur. - hahnchen 20:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikifur? I don't know that the furry fandom wants Sonic stuff on its wiki. If you're just listing a random wiki as a way of saying you just don't want it here, well, it's not as though the energy thing is used to show their notability. It's just another fact that's pretty essential to understanding them. And the "handful of sentences culled from reviews" part is just incorrect - numerous reviews (as well as other articles) give full paragraphs, sometimes multiple paragraphs, on the Wisps. Calling that a "handful of sentences" is like calling San Francisco "just a tiny town that no one cares about". Tezero (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You should put Sonic Colors reception in the Sonic Colors reception section. - hahnchen 21:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That could be argued for nearly any fictional character and I don't see how it relates to your Wikifur point or whatever. Tezero (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think he, like many of us, are saying that too much of the content is centralized far more about game than the Wisps themselves. (Opposed to something like Cloud Strife, which is clearly focused solely on him.) And I can't speak for Hahnchen directly, but I think he means that crap like "Hyper-Go-Ons" is jargon only understandable/of interest to the fanbase. If that's what he means, I agree. If its not, then I guess its a separate point by me. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I interpreted hanchen's comment to mean that as well. I'll point out, however, that jargon is irrelevant to an article's notability. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, jargon isn't about notability, but it is about inflating the size of an article, changing its likelihood for merging. (And it's pretty much my perpetual battle with the Sonic fanbase. They tend to have a hard time breaking it down for non-fans - tge general audiences we write Wikipedia for. It's part of why I've made over 400 edits to the "list of characters" alone.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't even see how that is jargon. It's explicitly defined and not used in an especially technical way. Tezero (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More merges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Silver the Hedgehog gained a consensus for merging. Big the Cat closed with no consensus. Rouge the Bat, Shadow the Hedgehog, and Amy Rose closed with a consensus against merging. Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some more digging into the sources, and I'm proposing a few more (Big the Cat, Rouge the Bat, Shadow the Hedgehog, Silver the Hedgehog, Amy Rose) for merge consideration (into this list article) as originally outlined in my initial post. czar ♔ 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A note to the closer (and I suppose for posterity) that no replies to my full source reviews (that demonstrate a lack of sigcov) have cited or attempted to cite actual sources that I've missed or misinterpreted. As such, those opposes are unsubstantiated arguments czar ♔ 22:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
When it boils down to it, Czar, what does or does not amount to "significant coverage" is subjective, and the same amount of sourcing can be interpreted by some editors to satisfy the GNG and by other editors not to satisfy the GNG. I've conducted my own source reviews of the articles I've considered in this discussion, and in some of them I have come to the opposite conclusion of you as to whether something is a "passing mention", even though we're looking at the same exact sources. That doesn't make my opposes any more "unsubstantiated" than your supports; we simply do not disagree about what sourcing exists, so there's very little back-and-forth to be had between us. What we do disagree about is how to apply the "significant coverage" requirement to the existing sources, and an editor stating their perspective on how to apply this requirement to the existing sources is sufficient to substantiate their arguments—and this is how everyone (including you) has been arguing in this discussion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a red herring. In every other discussion about sigcov, editors cite which specific references provide said sigcov, and that hasn't happened here, which is what I'm talking about. Instead the points are unsubstantiated in that they say the sourcing must exist somewhere and !voted on that premise but made no attempt to even substantiate such a claim. Your point would be correct if editors said that they saw the sources I listed and felt they met sigcov, which, again, hasn't happened. czar ♔ 16:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You're assuming that editors who don't respond with the magic words "I saw the sources Czar listed and feel they meet sigcov" haven't reviewed the sources and made such a determination. I agree that some editors have based their arguments on a "sourcing must exist somewhere" arguments, but you cannot cherry pick those and then generalize them to all the editors who have argued in favor of notability who didn't say those magic words. Moreover, many "Opposes" have not identified in their arguments examples of sources where sigcov is not met, and this goes back to my point that both sides appear to have equally "substantiated" arguments (or equally "unsubstantiated" arguments, if you prefer to view it that way). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Big the Cat

No consensus. Number 57 16:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support merge. I reviewed every online secondary source on this article. They are all single sentence passing mentions other than these two brief mentions: [5][6] As has been and will continue to be a theme with these characters, any coverage of more than a single passing mention usually laments how non-notable or forgettable the character is ("least popular character tournament"). Considering how the bottom of the barrel was scraped to make these characters pass muster for GA, there is no significant coverage of this character. czar ♔ 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Default oppose per the section below that discusses the proper interpretation of WP:N in greater detail. Tezero (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose without "default". I am changing the nature of my vote because the separate discussion on the interpretation of WP:N for fictional characters seems to have been abandoned, yet my counterexamples of articles whose AfDs were closed as "keep" with less sourcing going their way than these were never contested, and my points about interpreting the official definition were denounced as "interpretations" yet countered with more interpretations. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you didn't link the counterexamples, we can only guess to what you refer. If it was this, they were indeed contested and are not even counterexamples since no fictional character AfDs were cited. czar ♔ 13:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
To discussion watchers: I replied to this same comment at Rouge's section. Tezero (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - There's at least three third-party sources that gave him significant coverage. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge - The reception section for the character is just awful. The excerpts are pointless. Why do we need a direct quote from a journalist to call him fat? What purpose does an empty statement like "really, you have to love Big the Cat" serve? Cheat Code Central is referenced several times, but is not considered a reliable source. This stuff barely qualifies as reception at all. The development info, while good, is very short, and more about Sonic Adventure itself than Big. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The "have to love" one is admittedly weak, but the bulk of the rest criticizes a few things about him in a decent amount of detail. Also, the listicles are pretty substantive, explaining why the authors and other people hate the character rather than just saying "oh, and there's Big (he sucks) and also SONIC... Sonic's levels are..." Tezero (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In general, please try to give a reason against merging so that your vote isn't looked at as hollow. Tezero (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I gave it in the section below this one. (Where btw also another person declared opposing every merge here.) --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per Czar and Sergecross73. Jucchan (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge - based on the consensus that emerged above, significant third party coverage of the character is required. While some of the marquee characters in the franchise do meet that, I'm simply not seeing it with this character. As such, it should be merged. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge Poor excuse for a set of massive plot summaries. Much as the various Sonic-related character articles were when they were merged or deleted several years ago. bridies (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Barely any difference, dickhead. bridies (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Whole world of difference, troll. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Different, but only marginally better. It's still pretty awful. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I don't care if it's Niemti. He is absolutely right on this one. The article does not currently look anything like that: it's not structured at all the same and it has WAY more sources, both primary and secondary. This doesn't prove that it's enough (which is not a concession to the subject's non-notability), but it has definitely changed a ton. I would vote a clear "support" if it looked like the old revision. Tezero (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, cause I was referring only to the before-after state of this one article…. The issue with this - even if it's less awful than it used to be - is that it's a poor excuse for a plot summary. That was its issue in the past. That was the problem with other Sonic related articles in the past. It's the problem they have now, as below. My subsequent comment was obviously an exaggeration, and was merely giving Niemti's usual, redundant INCIVIL CAPS LOCK GIBBERISH the response it merited. bridies (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Your answer was merely trolling. --Niemti (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA, let's keep it civil folks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, what's wrong with the article's plot summaries? Tezero (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Same as below. bridies (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) has stated in the next level-2 section that he opposes the merging of this article. I'm listing that here for balance. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Looks like he has enough coverage to get his own article. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per czar and Sergecross73.—indopug (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rouge the Bat

There is a clear consensus against merging Rouge the Bat into this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support merge. Again, went through all the sources so you didn't have to. Again, all passing mentions and dead links other than this two fine brief paragraphs of gaming listicle journalism: [7][8] Merge for want of significant coverage. czar ♔ 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - For the same reasons I was against the other merges. And also, some dead links can easily be fixed with the Wayback Machine. I think you're judging the article too much on it's current state (WP:BEFORE). Kokoro20 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Really? I just showed you the work I did. If they can be easily fixed, be my guest. The least you can do is show me the sources I missed instead of surmising that this mythical coverage exists (as it didn't for the "same reasons" above). I put the effort in, saw no evidence of sigcov, and now the burden of proof is on those who say the sources exist. czar ♔ 22:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that you missed any sources. What I meant was you judging the article's notability partly on the dead links. My "same reasons" was referring to how I found the coverage in the article to be significant enough, like I said for the other opposes I gave. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If I wasn't clear, I was asking you to cite the sources you felt were significant enough (especially if I didn't mention them above) so I could actually evaluate your position. That was the idea of doing these one by one, right? So that we wouldn't be making vague waves at article topics without saying where the sigcov was? czar ♔ 16:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Default oppose per the section below that discusses the proper interpretation of WP:N in greater detail. Tezero (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose without "default". I am changing the nature of my vote because the separate discussion on the interpretation of WP:N for fictional characters seems to have been abandoned, yet my counterexamples of articles whose AfDs were closed as "keep" with less sourcing going their way than these were never contested, and my points about interpreting the official definition were denounced as "interpretations" yet countered with more interpretations. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you didn't link the counterexamples, we can only guess to what you refer. If it was this, they were indeed contested and are not even counterexamples since no fictional character AfDs were cited. czar ♔ 13:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was talking about that. (Here's the correct link, by the way.) Sorry; I missed your reply just as you missed mine. I'll continue my contestation of those AfDs over there. Anyway, regarding "I think it's accurate to say that schools and geographic locations get more of a pass", yes, they do tend to get more of a pass, and that's the problem. It's a double standard. It's contrary to the spirit of due weight and neutrality to assign such different standards for what constitutes adequate coverage on articles that fall into different topics. It's especially upsetting because the only real possible justification for this (and, really, it's only a common-sense one, not dictated by policy) is that real-world people and locations are supposedly more relevant to readers - yet if you actually look at the page views, Gayle Williamson, for example, gets like 45 views a day, while Cream the Rabbit gets twice that. Tezero (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Why even cite AfDs? bridies (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Because citing AfDs with less impressive sourcing than these articles shows actual consensus that we can use as a baseline. In other words, it's using other stuff without being WP:OTHERSTUFF. Tezero (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
A baseline for whether or not an article should be AfD'd, maybe. bridies (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, pretty much per my previous comment above. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and these follies need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Plenty of third-party sources (Some of them more than a passing mention, such as "A brief description of Rouge's traits"), so even though more have been requested (probably for the "In other media" section), this is still a decent article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If you follow that link, you get this, which is absoluteanime.com, an unreliable, user-submitted database. Did you look through the rest of the sources? czar ♔ 22:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - based on the consensus that emerged above, significant third party coverage of the character is required. Some of the marquee characters in the franchise do meet that, and while it's not as strong with Rogue as it is with others, this character does meet the standard. As such, it should not be merged. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge As above. Remove the 10+ paragraphs of plot and merge. bridies (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) has stated in the next level-2 section that he opposes the merging of this article. I'm listing that here for balance. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Has received more than a passing mention in a sufficient number of third-party, reliable secondary sources to satisfy the GNG. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Looks like she has enough coverage to get her own article. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shadow the Hedgehog

There is a clear consensus against merging Shadow the Hedgehog into this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support merge. I thought there would be more coverage of Shadow since he has his own game, but again I checked every online secondary source and found passing mentions and a few dead links. Anything that covers "Shadow the Hedgehog" is more about the game than it is the character. E.g., [9][10]. [11][12] are the only paragraph mentions, within listicles. There's no coverage that would necessitate more than a paragraph or two in the list and game articles. P.S. look at the comments about Shadow on the Guinness article or the context of his passing mention here. Remember what I said about Big? czar ♔ 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Same reasons here too. Both the GamesRadar and Official Nintendo Magazine sources gives decent coverage. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose; there is a large amount of reception available that isn't used, particularly surrounding his game and its place in the series (including in retrospectives of the series) but still tied to him as a character, as well as this entire article. Tezero (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Regardless of what is in the article right now, there's just no way there isn't enough coverage on him, after his game was lambasted so much by the press. There was a ton of commentary on how Sega attempted a ludicrous "make him black and evil Sonic" approach for "mature audiences" - that was centralized on the character himself. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Even if a lot of the refs are more about the game than Shadow, there's still enough in at least most of them that it's more than just a "passing mention". The third-party:first-party ratio of sources is much better here than in most articles in this same vein, as well. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, pretty much per my previous comment above. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and these follies need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge there should be a significant amount of coverage on him based on the portrayal of him in his game. Jucchan (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - based on the consensus that emerged above, significant third party coverage of the character is required. Some of the marquee characters in the franchise do meet that, and this character does meet the standard. As such, it should not be merged. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose merge - This article has more than enough sufficient sourcing, more than the others recently determined to not meet the GNG. An article's poor quality has zero bearing on whether its subject is notable. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge Over a dozen paragraphs of plot and 2-3 of maybe-substantive content tacked together from disparate, brief mentions. bridies (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) has stated in the next level-2 section that he opposes the merging of this article. I'm listing that here for balance. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose merge Looks like he has enough coverage to get his own article. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose merge - The fact that this character (unlike the others in this discussion) has starred in his own game, under his own name, convinces me beyond reasonable doubt that no matter the current state of the article, it is almost certain that there exists enough significant, independant coverage to confer the required notability to maintain a standalone article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silver the Hedgehog

It's been a month. I have weighed the statements of both sides of this discussion and found that there is a consensus for a merge for this article. Although I can understand the position of the editors who feel GNG is being enforced too harshly, a majority of editors have examined the available coverage for this particular subject and have agreed that it is insufficient to warrant the subject's standalone notability. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support merge. Reviewed all the sources and searched for more. There is no discussion about him as a character apart from his coverage within Sonic the Hedgehog (the 2006 game) [13][14]. The other sources are: [15] and [16]. Again what I said at Big. Silver has a good development article [17], but it just means that his list entry will be more robust than the rest. No significant coverage. czar ♔ 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is decent mention about. Can't expect every article to have mentions for all appearance.Tintor2 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment @Tintor2: the reception section is what helps build individual notability for the character. and even if they weren't passing mentions, its very scarce. but since the most of the reception's sources isn't really concentrating on Silver as a character, it really isn't notable even by Tezero's standards. I ask for re-consideration. Lucia Black (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Default oppose per the section below that discusses the proper interpretation of WP:N in greater detail. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose without "default". I am changing the nature of my vote because the separate discussion on the interpretation of WP:N for fictional characters seems to have been abandoned, yet my counterexamples of articles whose AfDs were closed as "keep" with less sourcing going their way than these were never contested, and my points about interpreting the official definition were denounced as "interpretations" yet countered with more interpretations. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you didn't link the counterexamples, we can only guess to what you refer. If it was this, they were indeed contested and are not even counterexamples since no fictional character AfDs were cited. czar ♔ 13:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
To discussion watchers: I replied to this same comment at Rouge's section. Tezero (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Some decent coverage is given in a few of the first-party sources. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean third-party, right? Whether I agree with you or not, first-party wouldn't count for notability. Tezero (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's what I meant, third-party. I said "first-party" by accident. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, pretty much per my previous comment above. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and these follies need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC) It was too automatic on my part. Knowing nothing about Sonic I'm not really convinced by the article. --Niemti (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge i'm not really seeing much reception from this character and more passing mention. although he does get some focus...its not really "reception" other than being considered one of the worst characters. Lucia Black (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge per Czar and Lucia Black, not coverage other than being a bad character and being in Sonic 2006. Jucchan (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge - based on the consensus that emerged above, significant third party coverage of the character is required. While some of the marquee characters in the franchise do meet that, I'm simply not seeing it with this character. As such, it should be merged. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support less egregiously lopsided than the other articles, but assuming Czar is correct on the sources, not enough substance to merit a separate article. bridies (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge- Reception sourcing very weak, much of it centered around the game he was I rather than him as a character. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) has stated in the next level-2 section that he opposes the merging of this article. I'm listing that here for balance. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Since User:New Age Retro Hippie has made a !vote in support of the merge below, I have procedurally struck this comment. Best, Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment a lot of the oppose are done automatically without careful consideration. However, rather than opposing right away, it should be proven that there is enough coverage for this article to stand as it is now, rather than opposing for a "wait and see" situation. at the moment, the article doesn't prove to have enough coverage to have its own article. Lucia Black (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    I have not yet to participate in the discussion of this character's notability because I have yet to conduct a source review of the article, but I take exception your charge that the above "Opposes" are "automatic without careful consideration". Your assertions that this topic does not have significant coverage, both here and in your "Support" comments above, appear equally "automatic" and lacking in "careful consideration"--as do several of the other "Support" comments. Concerning the substance of the arguments, most comments on both sides are little more than "This topic is notable" or "This article is not notable", perhaps with a link or two to example sources. As I've said elsewhere, this discussion ultimately boils down to how narrowly an editor interprets the GNG, and little more can be said. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    No they are not equally as automatic. if you take a consideration, the majority of the votes were predetermined by the entire idea of having group proposal, not considering if the individual article shows any notability.Most of the opposes are not done through the merits of the article. Niemti cancelled his oppose because he took a look at the article after the vote. Thats what i meant by "automatic", that the vote was done without consideration. although not "all" the votes are that oppose the merge are. Lucia Black (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    You appear to be incorrectly generalizing Niemti's unexplained "Oppose", which was later retracted, to the other "Opposes" in this section. And your statement "the majority of the votes were predetermined by the entire idea of having group proposal, not considering if the individual article shows any notability.Most of the opposes are not done through the merits of the article" is itself an unsupported assertion. There is little actual difference in how substantive the arguments "Supporting" and "Opposing" this article are. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. When I gave my opposes, I judged each article individually, not blindly opposed one, just because I opposed the others. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not prototime, and prove it by comparing some of the responces. Tezero is more against how Notability is viewed (which was then countered when other factors were considered), Tintor and Tezero are the only other ones that specifically referred to this article. Niemti again, automatically opposed similarly to Tezero until he actually looked at the article. Satellizer made no mention of the merits of this article or even brought up a point or even used the reasoning based on others. I know what i'm talking about prototime, and i'm not overgeneralizing for once comment, i'm analizing "ALL" the opposes just as much as the supports. Lucia Black (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    What? You state that all my opposes have identical wording, thus that means my opposes must be "automatic", which in turn means that I haven't looked at the article. That's leaping to conclusions and also a blatant lie. Just as Kokoro20 says, I judged each article independently and carefully, especially the sourcing, before making my judgement on each, again independently. I only used the same wording for every oppose as my views on each article are the same (meets the GNG, notability is being judged too harshly, keep the article). Due to me having already used the exact same rationale above, I used "per my previous comment above" to spare me from copypasting everything. It's simple: Meets the GNG = Keep the article. None of this "mention of the merits of this article or even [bring] up a point or even used the reasoning based on others", and I can't even comprehend what half of that even means. Not clear enough? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    That isn't really an issue of what notability really is. If you believe its wrong, take it up to the a more broader issue. but regardless, if you can mention any merits the article has that makes it clearly notable, then by all means use them as your individual point. but bring it by the article's current merit. Kokoro only defended his own comment because he believed "most" applied to him. Lucia Black (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    Because it has adequate referencing? Because it passes the GNG? Why isn't that enough? What are you trying to say? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Number of references does not mean automatically equal to notability. For instance, a character can have over a hundred reliable sources, but they can all come from first-party sources, and no third-party opinion making the character relevant or "notable". size isn't the only factor and not only that but Silver's article is incredibly small although third party sources, they don't all cover Silver the Hedgehog as an overall character, but more what his gameplay mechanics served in-game and not a strong mention at that. but the article looks incredibly small for any character article that is questioned for notability. the personality section is more or less there to "inflate" the article by using Blaze the Cat quotes. which is VERY subjective to do. the article confirms that Silver is "naive" just because blaze says so. The article also chooses to say that he gets insecure without Blaze just because he gets insecure when he's "alone" (which even if that was accurate, is still isn't appropriate). the concept and creation separates two paragraphs just so it can use the same source for both twice which is a sign of more inflating. the proper thing would do is use the official description used in the manual and combine it with creation and concept (but even then its pretty small). But the most important one is "reception". the first two cover silver as a character, but the rest is dependent on the game more than Silver himself, i might change my mind on this if more coverage of hsi gameplay varying throughout the series, but he hasn't had a lot of appearances either. Now, i'm opposing for what i'm currently seeing, and i don't think even @Tezero: can truly defend the level of inflation this article attempts to do just to survive. if more coverage can be found, perhaps. but as it stands, in general, there's little third party coverage of Silver. Lucia Black (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    I actually agree with LB for once (regarding first-party sources, that are mostly game quotes). And was more positive, stating that Silver's powers are "interesting" - that's really grasping at straws. This is actually the only of ALL of these articles that I won't defend. The rest are fine, but this one is just not. Seems to be a failed character that didn't even fail bad enough, and there isn't even much to write about him at all. --Niemti (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I opposed all merges in this discussion because I feel that there is likely sourcing yet to be found, even for articles about Silver and Big. We don't want to go through the pains of a merge, only to have to revert it later if we do find the sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Exemplar of what Lucia is talking about, it's-clearly-definitely-notable statements with no qualification or evidence. bridies (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to think that I have more standards than that, and I would recommend you cool your heels in your apparent attempt to make this a battle of supporters vs. opposition. I'd also call it quite asinine to suggest that I'm using "assumed notability," considering that I - at least of late - have busted my ass verifying the notability (or lack thereof) of numerous character articles and have merged all of the ones that have failed it. This may sound arrogant, but Silver is in its current condition in part because I haven't helped source it. I like to think that with respect to sourcing, I'm pretty good at finding them. So please do not in the future characterize my opposition as mere "I'm sure it's notable!" when in fact it's "I'm going to do the work to verify whether it's notable, and merging will over-complicate things." - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
But the voting should be done "after" some additional (more like necessary) information is found. at the moment, the article is more about "inflating" than really notable as it stands, and it wouldn't be much trouble to make a special page for silver until there is appropriate information to split it again. I'm all for opposing merges, but I've seen you searches before making a vote. i understand this is about multiple characters, but Silver is a far more obvious article. If you could make your findings speak for your vote, that would be most beneficial. I think that's what upsets me about this particular discussion. not alot of room to work with and automatic votes without any changes or proof. Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that clumping these articles together for a merge discussion is destructive to the act of improvement, as it requires that these five articles be improved based on a deadline. I am not opposing on "assumed notability," I'm opposing because I haven't had the time to do the research myself. There should be no rush to merge these articles, none whatsoever, and yet people are hurriedly trying to merge them into the list. It feels rather pointless and borders on disruption. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Its-clearly-definitely-notable-no-sorry-i-haven't-researched-that-statement, much better. bridies (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That's also not what I said. I don't know if you're too stupid to read what I'm saying or if you're just a gigantic asshole, but I could believe either one. Anyway, from this point on I shall not acknowledge your existence, because really, you're either a troll or an all-around bad Wikipedian. Of course, if you want to contribute to this discussion in a way an adult would and not an infant, I would love to have it. I doubt that you have the capacity to even consider such an idea, unfortunately. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
if you do find enough for Silver to gain, great we can just remake the article, no harm done. if you dont, then your "valuable" vote was done based on not knowing, not what we do know. Like i said, the article is so small, and most of it is inflation. Lucia Black (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
A great sentiment in a world where "it was merged based on consensus" wasn't a common argument used to impede re-splitting. The hurdles that exist for overriding a consensus to merge are in greater number than the hurdles that exist for waiting. Having nearly a dozen articles in one subject given a mass-merge discussion requires that the people involved work on a deadline and requires rather stressful and sometimes rushed work to find the sources if they exist. The harm involved in putting off a discussion until after sourcing has been verified is zilch. There is no reason to rush a majority of the Sonic characters all at once to being merged, beyond making it more difficult to demonstrate notability for them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Verified by you, you mean. bridies (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge - After doing the research on the reliable sources Google search, situation sources Google search, Google Books, and Bing News, I was not able to find a sufficient collection of sources. Perhaps the act of work/effort could rub off onto @Bridies:. Not holding my breath, however. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Amazing. I hope you found your toys, at least. bridies (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you already forget that you have no place in this discussion? Come back when your posts are at least at the level of maturity of a teenager. It's slightly embarrassing to be in this discussion when you're continuing to drag it down, Niemti. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh... why are you replying to Niemti here? Tezero (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I was saying that he was basically the "support" version of Niemti and did just as much harm to his argument with his attitude as Niemti does for his side. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Come on now. You can ask people to not make unconstructive comments, but you can't tell them to not be part of a discussion. (That being said, most everyone involved should probably cool down a bit. Especially bridies and NARH, considering you both side on "support".) Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I can suggest that if someone is making unconstructive comments, that they shouldn't be in this discussion. This discussion needs fewer bad faith assumptions and fewer uncivil attitudes. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hypocrite. bridies (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
That's so nice you compare me to assholes. --Niemti (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that one of our veteran editors couldn't find any more new information on Silver the Hedgehog, wouldn't it be better to reconsider your votes? Lucia Black (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Support merge There seems to be only one source that discusses Silver in any detail.—indopug (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Destructoid one, while not that detailed, is clearly more than a passing mention: it's all about him. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
the point is that one or two sources isn't enough. this wont even pass for GA, Tezero. Lucia Black (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not? Blaze, Cream, Gamma, and the Wisps all passed as GAs. As has been brought up, notability is not required for GA status. And I refuse to accept that one or two dedicated sources - plus lesser coverage, including passing mentions - isn't enough when, as I've shown in the general character discussion, plenty of articles get kept at AfD with less than that. I mean, this one guy got kept with ZERO sources! Yeah, I'm gonna cry foul at stuff like that! Tezero (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Tezero. if you want me to play this game of ignorance, i'll play. you know why Blaze, Cream, Gamma and Wisp have made it. Not all of them are being kept either. So it doesn't really help your case.
I know they're not being kept; that's the point. You implied that GA status was dependent on determined notability, and these articles' status show that that's not the case. Tezero (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You fully aware you're using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST a completely different article. an article about a politician who we don't even know if there's sources, which is basically the point of WP:NODEADLINE, the article was more or less kept because he could be notable, not that they ever found out that he was. Another, is it doesn't relate to characters. Silver the hedgehog on the other hand has been searched for more information and have found none by one of our veteran editors who keep in mind helped you further expand another article (that i voted to keep) so, it shows how we're not bias when we vote Silver the Hedgehog to be merged.
Wrong. OTHERSTUFF does not include citing actual discussions that show a consensus. That's just looking for a precedent and using it rather than writing every single argument out longhand. But the main issue I'm getting at is exactly what you say: "it doesn't relate to characters". You're right - our standards regarding fictional characters seem to be out of line with the rest of Wikipedia, and that's stupid. Everyone keeps chanting, "Default to the GNG! Default to the GNG" without realizing that they're advocating exactly what I am in doing so: actually being fair by referring to one single standard instead of just contesting what they don't like or maintaining some elitist notion that fictional characters deserve to face discrimination. Tezero (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all, let's remember "OTHERSTUFF" is just a Wikipedia essay, one of at least more than 1,5 thousand of them. It would nice if Wikipedia essays stopped to be treated like some sort of bible. Anyone can write anything in them, "reflecting an opinion of one or more Wikipedia users". It's not different than random people's blogs in that every single Wikipedia essay is an "unreliable source". Now, it is actually true - GA process is completely independent of notability (people also think GA is a much bigger whoop than it really is, including all kinds of of make-believe arbitrary personal standards that are being routinely applied by reviewers). --Niemti (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, i find it sad...just sad, that you would intentionally find something flawed...and try to use it to make Wikipedia even more flawed, rather than trying to fix the issue in the first place. I bet there are dozens of articles currently being kept at the moment with little to no sources. Lucia Black (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There are more than dozens; there are millions on the English Wikipedia alone. That is sad, and I wish I could use that as leverage, but I can't. What I can do, however, is show Wikipedia its standards and at least expect it to enforce them fairly if it's going to defend the old decisions. Tezero (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably not millions, there's "only" over 4.5 million content pages total. ;) If one's to click 'random articles", very many have something like 1 ref of any kind though (and tons of stub). --Niemti (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, "little to no" encompasses 1 source, I think, especially if that source is a mention in an atlas or something. Tezero (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amy Rose

There is a clear consensus here against merging Amy Rose. Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support merge. I thought this one would have fared better too, but of the 146 (!) footnotes, all but 14 (!) were primary and a review didn't show significant coverage. Choice quote: "Amy, who's been consistently regulated to a less-than-influential side character in many Sonic games"[18]. Here are the most significant mentions (as in not when Amy was mentioned once in the article): [19][20][21] (again, as Big, it would be ironic to use listicles that assert the character's unimportance as any sign of sigcov). Anything useful said in this article fits within the scope of the list. czar ♔ 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is decent mention about. Can't expect every article to have mentions for all appearance.Tintor2 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per significant coverage that discusses Amy in detail as a female character in video games as part of a Reception and impact section that's (on my 17" monitor) almost a page long. Tezero (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Definitely enough coverage here, and even coverage for her outside the context of the games she has appeared in, addressing an issue a few people had in the previous RFC. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - there's more coverage dedicated to here as a character than the other article's that were merged. (Gender stereo-types, for example.) It's another one that, much like Shadow, I'd be pretty shocked if there wasn't enough coverage after two decades and tens of game appearances. Does it need clean up? Some better sourcing? Sure. But I don't think its bad enough to warrant a merge back... Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Yes, it relies quite heavily on first-party sources, but there's still enough third-party WP:RS's there to keep an article. They don't always focus directly on Amy, but it's still more than enough to not have to be stuck in a list. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, pretty much per my previous comment above. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and these follies need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge basically per Sergecross73, I would be extremely surprised if there isn't enough coverage for her. Jucchan (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - based on the consensus that emerged above, significant third party coverage of the character is required. Some of the marquee characters in the franchise do meet that, and this character does meet the standard. As such, it should not be merged. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - This clearly has sufficient coverage in reliable secondary third-party sources to satisfy the GNG, irrespective of how many first-party primary source it relies on. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose merge that's a substantive reception section, which unlike the others is able to make points of some coherence. 20+ paragraphs of almost entirely plot regurgitation, however, needs vastly cut down. bridies (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) has stated in the next level-2 section that he opposes the merging of this article. I'm listing that here for balance. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: At 02:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I closed this section early per WP:SNOW with a clear consensus against merging. Upon reflection, I have decided that the discussion was probably closed too hastily, since User:Czar didn't get the time to respond the oppose !votes. One of the core issues under discussion is the interpretation of the notability guideline, particularly what is and isn't "significant coverage". If consensus is established in one of the above sections over what constitutes "significant coverage", it may affect the outcome of this section later. With the interest of the discussion in mind, I have   Reopened this section. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate that, but I'm fine with the snow close. Consensus, however fallaciously formed, is clearly against the proposal. czar ♔ 16:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Czar. I think that snow closes are for discussions where the outcome is so obvious that more time would only lead to more pile-on opposes. In other words, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the consensus will change if the discussion is kept open longer. However, snow closes shouldn't be performed to curtail legitimate discussion, even if it is misguided. Closing an uphill battle per SNOW is not appropriate. Here, I noticed that perhaps there wasn't enough time for a full discussion to come about. Further, I realized that this entire discussion could become dynamic if there was a sweeping change in consensus in one of the above sections. I suppose if you say it's a snowball's chance, I can agree it's a snowball's chance too. I'll reclose this section within 24 hours if there are no further comments. Mz7 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As always, you people keep to misread Wikipedia:Notability

Latest comment: 9 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

It's about having enough sources to not having to WP:OR for where it's needed (and the refs are NOT needed for most of the content at all - only when it's somehow unlogical, pontentially controversial, presenting figures/statistics, or citing someone's quotes or opinions). As long as the source says just what it is referencing in the text, it's all OK.

Then there's a need for it having several ("multiple" being "generally expected") "reliable" secondary sources that are "Independent of the subject" (which is also all defined). This one is related to WP:RS and WP:V. It's all actually quite circularly related to each other.

That's all. --Niemti (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You should start applying common sense instead of creative interpretation of the above. Like I just did with [22][23] - reason: horribly written crap, 1 source. And I can compare it with a very similar article (a D&D game thief) that I wrote: [24] --Niemti (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigcov is not that one, but two sentences. That second sentence is the part we're discussing czar ♔ 18:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
And it's defined, too: The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial. - so a single offhand sentence is what "a passing mention" is so it won't qualify as one of these "multiple" sources (that are "generally expected") for Clinton's high school band to be considered notable enough for a separate article. He it would be something "In this Sonic game, there's also a character called Blind Mouse." Whenever the sources actually discussing the character directly in any way, they do just that. These articles here are generally well written and appear referenced enough (even the one that is still incomplete) to meet and pass the minimnal requirements. One problem might be with having a majority of non-third party refs. In that case, the sources referencing to the game should be just deleted when they're not essentional (hardly everything needs to be sourced after all, the source being the games is quite obvious anyway). What needs to be only ever referenced: figures/statistics, any quotes or opinions, things that are controversial, were challenged, or are likely to be challenged. Btw, that's all GA requirements, it's not even for standard articles. Standard articles just need some (a few) minimal quality sources and that's all, then "it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list," unless there are any other entirely different reasons. --Niemti (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This point looks like it could work either for or against the articles' notability. Would use of primary sources count as original research in this context? Tezero (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is for. The difference is a notability-failing article looks like that: example. [25] The subject might actually be absolutely okay, it's just the article being shit by the way it was written (or rather: copied from Wikia). Btw I just wrote Fulgore and Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter). --Niemti (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's an incredibly important part I didn't notice: From WP:N, "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That's what I figured, but it's nice to have it in writing. Anyway, this seems to push at least a few of these characters into the safe zone as far as notability goes. Wisps demonstrably satisfy this in spades (they even are the main topic of a couple articles), although whether they are different enough from Colors to merit an article is a separate argument (granted, I still think they probably are). Tezero (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing so many people don't realize is this is not supposed to frustrate good-working people trying to make the articles properly, but it was standards-setting devised for general improvement. And it works, as you can compare, say, the unsourced Spergfest 2008 to the current form of the same article (even as most of these silly quotes for literally everything in the games are really not needed). But then somehow a meme was created about how very high standards are need to be reached for an article to even exist. Which is simply untrue. You can't say "take it to Wikia" because it was already taken there, this stuff is completely different and written for Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you freaking kidding me? This closed with a merge consensus for all of them except Chao right after we started discussing this? It didn't even get comments from outside the project! Tezero (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I wasn't expecting the RFC to close this early. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Without taking an opinion on either side, I must say I think the closing of the discussion was very premature. Artichoker[talk] 20:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Can I speak with the manager? There has to be someone outside our sphere who can inject some logic into this. I don't even care if they say "Tezero, just be quiet; you're taking WP:N out of context. None of these articles are notable, and I don't want to see you wasting everyone's time creating any more. Oh, and Zelda's better. Pfthththth!" At least then I'll know. This way... I mean, there wasn't really any policy-supported resolution. Tezero (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Although i voted for merge for Wisp (Sonic), i feel it can be brought back. for now, what can be done is bring the ones you feel strongest for keeping onto RfC. but maybe certain ones should be left not challenged. I do admit i'm shocked for Wisp (Sonic) although it did lean toward merge, it wasn't strong enough to make a decision. Lucia Black (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The RFC ran for a week. That's standard practice... Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I have made a vote of "default oppose" for Big, Rouge, and Silver that I intend to last until this discussion over how to interpret WP:N is resolved, after which I will look at the articles individually. In other words, I think it's probably reasonable per policy that they stay, and relevant reasoning will be found in this section. (It also applies to Amy and Shadow—who I feel have a noticeably better case than this—and to the articles already closed as "merge", as well as an unknown number of other fictional character articles, but that's beside the point.) Tezero (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I similarly oppose the mergers of all articles in this discussion. Even Big, I think they all have potential for expansion with quality reception. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The expressions "in detail" and "more than a passing mention" were omitted from the selective boldings of the relevant, respective quotes. bridies (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As always, a total misunderstanding what does it actually mean. --Niemti (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It means precisely what it says, in plain English. bridies (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
And this is explained in less "plain English", I guess. See above. --Niemti (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
As ever. bridies (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
What does that mean? Tezero (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So what's the gameplan for merging?

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

So, there was consensus to merge the character articles in the first wave of discussion. What's the gameplan now? Was anyone planning on doing this? I can do it...but I tend to do more with straight redirects than managing content with actual merges, so parties may not be happy with it. Thoughts? Czar? Tezero? Anyone else? Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

One aspect that concerns me is how much of the doomed characters' reception and other secondary coverage that doesn't provide in-universe information should go in their sections. I mean, the whole point of it was to prove their notability, and it could go far in clogging the list, but at the same time leaving it out altogether wouldn't provide a complete picture of the characters' roles in the real world. Tezero (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I would just keep the best examples of whatever the RS thought was worth covering. I'm happy to merge, myself—just haven't had time. I wouldn't worry about merging the wrong stuff since I'm sure there will be several eyes on it anyway. czar ♔ 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done a hack job on a few, and no one objected so far. I'll keep at it if no one else will do the rest. Tezero, do you want to merge back Wisps? I know you don't really want to, but you'll probably be even less happy in how ill do it.... Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever; I'll do it. Here or the series article? (I really think Colors or Lost World would be a poor choice.) To be honest, I don't know if I want to get into any more notability discussions of any kind or create any character articles without consensus... ever. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I'll have to think through this long and hard while I'm gone. Tezero (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You can write a section in this article and redirect it here, I have no problem with that. Same goes for sticks. I've no problem with adding to the article when they meet the inclusion criteria, I just usually focus on cleanup and maintenance over content creation here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, Sticks isn't a recurring character yet. It's been suggested that Boom will become a sub-franchise; this could pan out, like Riders, or not, like Heroes and Shadow. It's like how Emerl doesn't have a section (although maybe he could, since Gemerl is in Advance 3). Tezero (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason to think that the Boom series won't come out, or that Sticks would be removed, and it's not as formal as an AFD, so I don't have a problem with her inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters/Archive_2&oldid=1190252056"