Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog comic book characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article needs more than just two pictures!

Also, shouldn't you mention that Sally loves Sonic? The way you write it sounds like she loves her people more! --anon

That's because she said in the comic's she loved her people more in the story "Love and Loss". A quotation in refference to that issue has also been added. SonicMobius 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Character Make-Up

The people in North America that made up TV shows made up Princess Sally Acorn for the Sonic cartoons that were released only in North America. --ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com

I know, but you have to write that! So write that Sally loves Sonic more than her people or something like that and mention that the people in North America made her up. --anon

Vandal Attack

Okay... other than me and D1Puck1T, did anybody even notice the recent surge of vandalism at this page? The repeated attacks were severe enough to be classified as an edit war!!!!! --Luigifan 23:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, thank you for clearing it up. Any way to get this article blocked? It's been vandalized a lot in the past, after all. -Nuckles87

Well, somebody's started it up again. And, by the way, you "protect" an article. You would "block" a user who's repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia, even after being asked to stop several times. --Luigifan 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous Misspellings

Ah, just reading through and noticed that there are a couple ugly sentences, with horrible grammar, inconsistent spelling, etc. Somebody can feel freem to review my revisions, but I think we are all pretty well served. Arynknight 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, please do whatever you can. I do a quick lookover any new additions, but there's no way to catch everything (especially since I'm usually paying more attention to trying to keep opinions and speculation out of the articles).D1Puck1T 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

""Freem"? XD --Luigifan 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Squipmunk

For a while, I've been using the term "squipmunk" to describe Princess Sally. The word is a cross between "squirrel" and "chipmunk". What do you think? --Luigifan 12:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Young Sally

Have you notice that young Sally (her at 5-years-old) looks like Princess Jasmine from Aladdin? There should be some pictures of her; she's so cute! Angie Y. 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What with the release of Sonic and the Secret Rings, that's starting to look like it isn't a coincidence... --Luigifan 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Hierarchy

The sections "Love Life" and "Alternate Selves" correspond only to "Archie Sally." It would be logical to place them as a subsection of "Archie Sally", rather then as a category by themselves since they have hardly anything to do with "SatAM Sally" and nothing to do with "Fleetway Sally" or "Early Development".

Also, is it really necessary to have a "differences" section at all? Can't people draw these conclusions for themselves? --Ki11meshining 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If they did we wouldn't have people reffering to both Archie Sally and SatAM Sally at the same time. For instance, how many times does SatAM Sally get bashed for Something Archie Sally does? Many fans still don't get the fact that these are two different versions of Sally, so I doubt many new comers will automatically draw upon that conclusion SonicMobius 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sally's Clothes problem

I have heard that Sally looks more suggestive than rouge. Can someone please state that Sally isn't topless? I've edited that but someone is free to change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnathan West (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Sadly, she is topless. You're not the only one who finds this disturbing... --Luigifan 10:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sally is not topless, she's flat-out nude. A vest and a pair of boots do not change the fact that she isn't wearing a shirt or bottoms. However, it isn't really a problem, is it? Sally has no real anatomical "detail", so it's pretty benign nudity. -- Yo

Yeah, thank the Lord for fur, and for creative liberties... --Luigifan 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sally doesn't wear much clothes, but that's because of the fact she lives in a culture where nudity does not automatically imply sexuality. None of the characters have made advances on Sally in that way, let alone because of her lack of clothing. The same goes for all the other naked characters. So Sally isn't dressing more suggestive than Rouge because in her culture it's not suggestive. Whereas Rouge living amongst and working for a bunch of humans is a different story because the cultural enviornment is different. SonicMobius 07:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, long story short: Sally has enough fur to cover her... areas. Would you like to walk around with a thick fur coat while wearing a jeacket, pants and shoes? Signed: A big Tails fan July 10 1:33 PM

The only reason "Sally looks more suggestive than Rouge" is because Rouge's chest bounced in SA2, effectively calling all other Sonic-related furries into question. Not exactly fair, but that's life. >_< Johnnyfog 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(BTW Tails Fan, sign your posts by typing "~" four times in a row) Johnnyfog 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to clothes, she has a problem. I nevr liked Sally in the first place, so I can't say som much on her side. Son of Jadoja 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

well if you notice sonic, tails, knucles, shadow, big, and many other male charecters are also nude --SSBB

Seriously, the immaturity and lack of intelligence is abundant in this section. How about looking at Sonic or Tails. They are completely nude, but do you call them more suggestive than Rouge? No. How about Sally? She is more clothed than Sonic, yet she is called more suggestive than Rouge OR Sonic. What has this world come to? Dylanlip (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

This article about an anthropomorphic squirrel is longer and more detailed than the article about real-life squirrels. What gives? --Joe

Beats me. XD --Luigifan 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.32.133 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These templates are just bogus

Not to complain, but some of these ridiculous wikiproject videogame templates never get updated. EVER. Some of us have tried to succinctly summarize everything on Sally as much as we can, yet this is still a "START" article? It's even got references! It's an article about a naked talking squirrel, and it's got references!

Seriously though, can I just join wikiproject videogames and request a change of the grade myself? Or is there a more proper way? Johnnyfog 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG/A is the proper medium. A request was written there a while ago, which I am responding to below. --User:Krator (t c) 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

Responding to a request at WP:VG/A.

• Early in the lead section, various acronyms start to pop up. I found this confusing, and I think it would be better to rewrite the lead section so that it uses less acronyms.
• The whole article needs in-depth analysis for in-universe style. I observed this in various places in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more information on in-universe style, how to avoid it, and what to write instead.
• The article contains too much information on the plot and story, and too little "secondary information" (See WP:WAF again).
• The articles sources are mainly primary sources. Secondary sources are needed too (Again, WP:WAF).
• Finally, some of the images need fair use rationales. See WP:FU.

I am keeping the Start-rating for this article. A thorough read of WP:WAF, and applying it to this article, is all that is needed to make this a good article. The article is well written in general, and I have faith that the application of Wikipedia policies will not be a difficult task here. Link (The Legend of Zelda) and Captain Marvel (DC Comics) are excellent examples. --User:Krator (t c) 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sally Acorn Yardley.jpg

Image:Sally Acorn Yardley.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sally1.jpg

Image:Sally1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The image now contains a fair-use rationale. The tamplate is no longer needed. 68.196.210.94 15:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up some of the article. I'll add a cleanup tab at the top of the page and possibly a construction tab. I'll continue to do more clean-ups as time goes along. Dylanlip 15:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

do not start a breast size section

there has been discussion about sallys breast size in rouge the bats talk page. i just want to warn you to not even thinking about making one. editors are watching. be wary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.119.244 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More Cleaning

I've continued cleaning up the article. I fixed some grammar mistakes. I also noticed that the IP 83.84.45.198 is adding in things that are not fact(One of them: The future storylines are all false). Besides that, I'll continue fixing up the article. And, as a final note, I removed some acronyms from the article, which may help the rating of the article(Look at above assessment). Dylanlip (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've continued to clean-up alot of the grammar in the article. I've also undone some edits that ruined certain sections of the article. I've undone most of the things that the above IP has done, as it throws out the entire sections part in the continuity and somewhat ruined the grammar. I think that I've done mostly what I can with the article. Are there any suggestions to make it better, grammar-wise and other-wise? Dylanlip (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've nearly finished restructuring the sections in the article to fit a more out-of universe style. For instance, I put creation at the top, while putting in-universe info inside the "Character" section to try to seperate out-of universe with in-universe. The description section, and certain sections in the Character section will form game appearances, television series, and printed media. The remaining storyline info will be reduced and kept in the character section. This last part of the cleanup will probably get this article to a B or GA status. If I can do that, then this article is safe. Dylanlip (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Two words: All done. That's right. The massive cleanup that I have spent weeks on is now finished. I have redone the entire article to fit an out-of universe style. I also redid the Character Biography, which no longer has tons of trivial/fancrufty info. I've seperated appaerances in different medias, such as game appearances, tv series, & printed media. I also removed the description section, putting info from it into the stated sections and the Lead section. The abilities section states her ability to use the Sword of Acorns, and I've redone the entire section structure to put certain sections under the biography section and others under the general Character section. Some references, such as references to YouTube or references to deleted info were deleted. In short, I've redone the entire article to a much higher standard than before. I've added a personality section, so anyone can add info to it to help it out. Other than that, this entire article is finished. Once atleast something is added to the Personality section(I'll probably do it.), I'll send this article to WikiProject Video Games to be reassessed. The assessment will tell me what to do next to the article and how to improve it. Thank you. Dylanlip (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot section (i.e. the 'character' section, except possibly the 'alternate selves' subsection) is too long in comparison to the rest of the article IMO. Also there should be references to more sources outside of the comic, mainly to prove notability (also to prove NPOV). I'm not sure imbd is considered a reliable source. Bridies (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the 'personality' section: you can't really say Sally is described as nice, down-to-earth, and moderate. She is not as free-spirited as Sonic, but does like to speak her mind when she feels she needs to without providing a source (and since the resto of the secion is over long anyway...) Bridies (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. All suggestions are EXTREMELY appreciated. I'm trying to improve the article as much as possible. I'll try and find suitable references for the article besides the comic. Certain sections of the article will be easier to get refrences for. Once we get the assessment, we'll know what to do next with the article. Dylanlip (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

VG Assessment Mar 2008

Much of the article is still utilizing a great deal of in-universe context, even the design sections. There are ways to reword it so it isn't in-universe and keep the same information, just take a stab at it. But really that and for an article this size more reference citations possibly are what's leaving it at start status for the time being :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the assessment. However, I wonder if you could explain more what was wrong with the article. I'm okay with the fact that it may still need improvement, however, I just need to know what to exactly improve. Thanks. Dylanlip (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well for example, the Character section. It's chunked up a lot, and at the same time is written as though this is a character you could reach out and touch. The information itself isn't bad, but the handling of it needs to be in a less in-universe tone and speak on the character treating it as what she is: an element of fiction, being observed by a real-world perspective. I hope that helps.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've already shortened alot of it. However, I am continuing to improve it. I'm starting to work on the Love Life section, which is filled with trivial/fancrufty stuff. I'll also shorten the Biography even further if I can. At the bottom, I'll add a Reception section to show standings in character polls, and other sources that rate Sally. I'm also looking through Concept and Creation to remove storyline bits and trivial stuff. After I'm done with this, I'll put it up for Peer review before re-submitting it. Dylanlip (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortening a great deal won't be the (only) answer: you need to rewrite the content to be in a different tone. That'll have a greater impact. Also try to cite more when you comment on a character's actions or personality, using text examples from the comics in the references if you have them available.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Massive Cleanup Continues

I've continued my massive cleanup of the Sally article. I've finished the Love Life section, which no longer contains tons of trivial cruft in it and has new references. I'll start work on the concept and creation section, which will soon contain more references and less trivial stuff. After that, I'll start finishing up the work needed in the character section. Once that's ALL done, I'll submit it for a Peer Review instead of evaluation, as they tell alot more about the article. After the peer review, I'll clean up some more and then resubmit it to be evaluated. Dylanlip (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation template for comic book issues, and will begin implementing them ASAP. Dylanlip (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started up work on the Character section AGAIN!! I've removed the Love Life section, and I've added a section called Relations to Other Characters, which will give a brief description of each of her relations to other characters. I've also merged all of the sub-sections in the Biography to keep it together in one place. I've also COMPLETELY finished the Television Series section, giving a description of her role in both Sinic the Hedgehog and Sonic Christmas Blast. I'll also continue using the noted comic citation template to finish referencing certain sentences to the comic. The first citation is up, and I will replace the rest of the old citations soon. Another thing is the biography. It still contains oodles of trivial/fancrufty storyline bits. I hope to condense the biography into something WAY smaller. Also, I'm still on the lookout for references for the Concept & Creation section. If anyone has any references to any development or pre-development of Sally, please say so here. Finally, I'd like for this page to be semi-protected, as this page is CONSTANTLY being abused and vandalized. I will put it up for protection, so this article can be a more peaceful and more vandalism-free article. I'll update here again when I finish or when this page gets semi-protected. Thank you. Dylanlip (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You probably noticed that the Biography is missing, right? You're correct. Don't panic, don't be alarmed, don't revert. I am in the process of completely rewriting the Biography. It will take awhile, but it is worth it, considering the state of the old biography. Again, please do not count it as vandalism. It is being completely handled by me. Dylanlip (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Death" of Sally

The "Death" of Sally section should be readded to this board. The behind the scenes story to that turning point is interesting, and the controversy was comparable to the controversy behind the death of Gwen Stacy. Please consider this. Inkan1969 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The simple reason why was because it was trivial and crufty, and does not belong on Wikipedia. To further talk about storyline bits on an article, go to the Archie Sonic Wiki. Also, I have merged the sections to shorten the cluttered Table of Contents. Dylanlip (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's trivial? It was a big controversy when "Endgame" first came out? Where in the Sonic Wiki is discussion of this going on? I still think that section should be restored. Inkan1969 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial because it is filled with storyline bits that shouldn't be added. We need a storyline that is out-of-universe and is small enough, not a full lfe story on a fictional character. Also, it'll need references for the SEGA part. As of right now, it should not be included. Dylanlip (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please don't edit the page, as I'm still working on it. Please wait until the inuse template is taken down. Then you may edit.

Current Progress

I am sorry for the lack of updates to the page. I've had some issues to take care of in real-life(illness, etc.). However, I am now back and ready to finish this page ONCE AND FOR ALL. I will stay here and work until the beginning of June, when the page will be fully finished by then. I have noticed that some people are impatient with me and are adding back the old information originally used before the remodel. Please do not do this. I've already spent months trying to redo it all, only to have a person add it all back within a few minutes. Please people, do not do this. Anyways, I truely hope that this is the true and final end of this long overdue and delayed refurb for good. After that, I can focus on the Sonic and Mina's page, as well as getting this page a Peer Review and Quality Review. I will not be updating on the talk page here until it is all done. Any questions should be directed to my talk page. Thank you everyone, for letting me do this to help the page. See ya soon.  Dylanlip  (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to recent edits

Game appearances of Princess Sally are clearly notable. The fact that she made a cameo deserves at lest the slightest mention. To remove the section is to deny that she made a cameo.

It's unreferenced, and extremely minor to boot. And it's appearance; there was an unreferenced claim that she was going to appear in a game that wasn't released, and that's unacceptable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I leave Wikipedia for a few days for finals and the whole article falls apart. I want everyone to know that I am going to fully revert the article back to what it was when I left. I'm going to go through the history and readd the important edits that got caught inbetween this mess. A Men In Black has basically destroyed what I have been working on for several months. He doesn't understand that EVERY APPEARANCE IN ANY MEDIA IS IMPORTANT!!! So what if it's minor? It's still information about her appearances in media. Also, removing information without allowing time for people to find references for it is a big no-no. I've also noticed that you've ignored Fairfieldfencer when it came to gaining consensus for your actions. I agree with him on this. You shouldn't have done ANYTHING during my work without consulting either A) The Sonic task force B) Fairfieldfencer C) Redphoenix D) The Sega Project or E) Me. Once I am done with my work, you may see what you may like to edit, and bring up consensus to do so with either me or the Sonic task force. Thank you.  Dylanlip  (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the listed people own this article; I do not need their permission or yours to edit it.

As for the edits themselves, let's break them down.

• This edit removes {{inuse}}, which shouldn't be up unless you are actively sitting at the computer editing the article. It adds {{notability}} and {{primarysources}}, which are big problems with this article (as discussed at length on WT:CVG).
• This edit cleans up the infobox. You've misused "debut" (which is for the first appearance of a character, not the first appearance in each medium) and alliances (teams/factions only, not allies). The rest of the removals are now-defunct fields, from a revamp of the infobox from about a year ago.
• This edit replaces a sometimes-in, sometimes-out statement about the ownership of Sally, which seems like a basic fact we should be able to source. It also removes her middle name (subtrivial and unsourced anyway). It removes some waffling about her species, calling for a simple source on what species she is.
• This edit should be fairly uncontroversial; it's a rephrasing and copyedit, with a {{fact}} tag on an unreferenced claim. Still not happy about the wording, but it's a start.
• This edit is another uncontroversial copyedit/fact-tagging go. I removed the misuse of quotes. I still don't like "In the comic book" (WHICH comic book), but it's better than no context at all.
• This edit removes the Spinball mention (which was duplicated IMMEDIATELY ABOVE) and the unreferenced X-Treme mention. Should the X-Treme non-appearance be sourced somehow, it doesn't need its own header.
• This edit fixes some header formatting, removes a duplicate non-free image per WP:FUC, and adds some context to the mention of Sonic Christmas Blast (which no longer has its own article).
• This edit removes some unsourced evaluative claims, puts {{fact}} tags on the unsourced factual claims, and and fixes the header to boot.
• This edit fixes the tags, and removes explicit description of one single storyline sourced entirely to...the issues in which that storyline appears. This is not the level of plot summary we should have in an encyclopedia article. It also removes the empty "family" section; replace it if you can source it to something other than the comics themselves.

• This edit seems to be a bit too much cutting. I fully understand WP:PLOT, but I think that this was too much of a hacksaw. WP:PLOT allows a reasonable plot summary. This pretty much killed all the plot IMO. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a three-issue story from a comic running in hundreds of issues. If we had this level of plot detail for every similar storyline, this would approach novel length. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the context of this article, it's relevant. If the topic is notable (which is debatable, but I think so) then there is no reason not to include the basic plot summary per (what's left of) WP:FICT. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a summary of a single storyline among many, one which fans like to write fanfic about. It isn't notable, just well-liked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the context of the character, is it one of her most notable storylines? Hobit (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's not important to the development of this character; it's a one-off storyline that deadends. It doesn't feature this character in particular, either; it fills in a future for the whole cast. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• This edit fixes a template, removes a 404 link, and removes some inapplicable categories.

Now, let's can the grandstanding and talk about practical matters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Other than the one edit I commented on above, I find the rest to be anywhere from very helpful to the article to being fairly neutral in value. A bit more on the history of the character (in-universe) seems helpful to those of us that know nothing about the character. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying again

Given the heated nature of the discussion, I'd strongly suggest that the three of you use this talk page to go over each section and come to an agreement rather than edit waring. As an outsider to the topic, I think that both versions are reasonable and that the issues between them are minor. Which section would be the best to start with? Hobit (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is dreadfully sourced, dreadfully written, and dreadfully laid out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on a section to start with? Hobit (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All of them. This article is currently oversectioned into tiny slices.

I've made a list of concerns, along with the edits that go with them, above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dylanlip is the one working on this article and should be informed about this discussion.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a little better than the whole revart war going on. The lead that I use flows better gramatically. However, I do agree that your version of the Television series section is better, so that'll be kept, with some tweaking that I've done. Next, the Concept & Creation section. I think that my version is slightly better. Another thing. The Game appearances. Even a cameo in a game needs to be noted. Next is the Printed Media section. This one is a bit more odd. This section may need some work soon, but for now, it's fine the way it is (my version). The final section, the character section. Keep it the way I did it. The Relation section will be staying, along with the biography (and future). Something that I've seen you doing with these edits is remove information ALONG with their references! Now where in Wikipedia are you supposed to remove information that has references, especially ones that are relevant to the info given? Another thing that you've been doing is doing these massive edits in the first place, without saying so in the the talk page, or gaining consensus to do these, or contacting me (since I'm working on it currently). You've also ignored the 3 Revert Rule, and your actions could be considered vandalism. I've worked on this page for TOO LONG (Since December) for this article to be ruined after everything I've done for it. Once I finish my work, I'll get a peer review taken, and THEN you begin working on it yourself using the help given from the peer review.  Dylanlip  (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than "Sally" becoming "she", the only difference between the ledes is that I've removed a ton of unreferenced claims.

The concept and creation section has a slight rephrase emphasizing relevance immediately and a fact tag, and a rewrite to get rid of this unprofessional "'Pink' Sally" nonsense.

The game appearances section is entirely redundant. There's a mention of Sonic Spinball, which is mentioned in the immediate previous paragraph, and an unreferenced mention that she was supposed to appear in a game that was never released.

The only "referenced" information I've removed is a "future history" of the character, which is one single storyline in one of the long-running series in which she appears, sourced only to the comics in which she appears. That's excessive, unencyclopedic plot detail, sourced to your interpretation of a fictional work.

And I listed each of these edits and more with reasoning above and you failed to respond at all.

"I've worked on this page for TOO LONG (Since December) for this article to be ruined after everything I've done for it. Once I finish my work, I'll get a peer review taken, and THEN you begin working on it yourself using the help given from the peer review."

You don't own this article. You don't have right of veto to any edits made to it, or editors coming to it. Until you realize this, we are going to have difficulties making any progress. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He/she is not saying he/she owns the article. He's/she's saying that the work he's/she's is relevant to the article. And I must agree about how you perform major without notification. Like your edit to the Chaos Emeralds article. You turned that into a redirect without any form of notification. And I'm betting that is against some sort of Wikipedia policy.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that discussion with others editing the articles is a good thing before making significant changes and should have happened here. I'm also concerned that even now no significant discussion by either party is happening. IMO the future history section was too wordy, but reasonable for the article. That the issues was minor in the series is less important than the relevance it plays for this character (which I'm unsure of). Hobit (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The story isn't particularly important for this character, no. It's a one-off storyline describing a "possible future" for all of the characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record I agree with AMIB on the ownership issue. This needs to be done as a group. Hobit (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I own the article. I've simply been working on this article for a while and it would be better if I were to complete my work, and then after an evaluator does a peer review stating what needs to be done, then we can collaborate and work on this article together, because I'm really wanting to simply finish my work before someone does something major to it, something that may contradict my work, or may interrupt it. I'm still annnoyed at the fact that you do not gain consensus for doing massive edits. That goes for ALL articles, not just this article. Even if a game appearance is a cameo, it's still an appearance, and gives the game appearance section a reason to still stay. Even though you may be doing a good thing by finally bringing up discussion, you are still going on with your edits while we should halt everything and discuss a compromise/agreement. This is getting EXTREMELY out of hand. I just want this conflict to end.  Dylanlip  (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that nobody can edit the article in a way you don't approve of, until you're convinced to approve of it.

Wikipedia doesn't have evaluators, and you don't get to lay sole claim to an article until you feel it's time to collaborate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I don't know enough about the area to be comfortable writing this stuff (for example I think some things vary between the comics and the games), but I'll place any potentially useful sources here:

• http://www.archiecomics.com/sonic/allabout_sonic.html (primary source, but does a nice job on the overview)
• http://www.amazon.com/Stay-Sonic-Fantail-M-Pattenden/dp/0140903909/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215053628&sr=1-1
• http://www.amazon.com/Sonic-the-Hedgehog/dp/0721434398/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1215053135&sr=11-1

The last two are also primary (I think) not third party and older, but that's what I can find... Hobit (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• "These three "Freedom Fighters" can really kick bot-butt and take names later. Problem is none of Robotnik's Swatbots have names, only numbers. How ironic!! Sally is independent, headstrong and extremely intelligent. She knows that the only way the Freedom Fighters can defeat Robotnik is to work together by combining brains and instinct... Sally's smarts... Bunnie's strength...Sonic's speed...and the entire group of Freedom Fighters' spunk... Sally knows that smells of victory are within reach!!! And only if you can keep a secret: Sally's got a real crush on Sonic -- and you know what?-- the hedgehog likes her almost as much as chili dogs! WAY COOL, HUH??!!!"

  Not sure this is terribly useful for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• There was some useful stuff above the part you chose to quote:

Sally Acorn (also know as Princess Sally Elisha of the House of Acorn) prefers to be called just "Sally". 
Being of Royal Blood, this fifteen year-old, part squirrel (her father)/part chipmunk (her mother), has far 
from "fallen out of her Royal family tree". She continues her endless quest to return her world to its 
original state and find her father, the King. He was exiled into the Zone of Silence by the evil Dr. Robotnik 
during his coup d'etat, in yesterday's Mobotropolis. To achieve her mission, Sally organizes a group of Freedom
Fighters, who under her leadership, "strive to survive" and help Sally achieve her goal. Together, with her
half-robotic side-kick (ouch!...metal side) Bunnie Rabbot and her "user friendly" pocket computer Nicole.

It gives race, family, and a different middle name. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It gives conflicting information on trivial details (indicating only that these details are minor and inconsistent, and probably don't bear mention), mixed in with a lot of dross. I'm not sure how useful it will be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring & ownership let's start with the lede.

There are three of you edit warring over these articles. Let's stop that and discuss each section one at a time. Could each of you post your proposed lede here? Yes, I could post them myself, but I'd like some kind of indication that you are both willing to discuss this (and no, a set of diffs isn't really a good way to hold a discussion.) Ideally we can hit one or two sections every couple of days. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in a "personal version" of the article. If I turn up a claim I can reference, I fit it wherever. If I see someone add an unreferenced or poorly referenced claim, I do something about that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What you do is delete it on the spot, which isn't the way to go about things. You should look it up else where to see if it's true then add a better reference.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for a personal version, I'm asking you two to discuss how the article should be written rather than just reverting each other. And I'm proposing to go section-by-section. Do you have a different suggestion for moving forward? Hobit (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• With no objections other than broad sweeping claims, there's little to discuss. I broke down my edits one by one above, and am waiting on some sort of response to that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I listed my objections above. And now I'm asking that you discuss your edits in detail. Are you willing to do that? Hobit (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, an objection; I replied to that objection a bit further down but duplicated it above. I'm game to discuss, just waiting on replies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I dislike is that AMIB isn't actually helping the articles he's just stripping them of information. Surely you can agree that just removing information isn't helping anything?Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can agree that kicking puppies is bad?

Sourced claims are good and stay. Badly sources or unsourced claims are not and tend to get dumped. This is WP:V in a nutshell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do think going section by section is the way to go. AMIB, I take it you disagree? My goal is to get past "broad sweeping" (which both sides are doing) and get to details. Are you willing to do that? Hobit (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  I was trying to do it with my second edit to this talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  It looks like AMIB isn't wanting to compromise bacause he still has not added his version of the lead. I'll wait a little longer, but I'm growing wary.  Dylanlip  (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not going to compromise on UNREFERENCED FACTUAL CLAIMS. Everything else is pretty much secondary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  Not every non-contraversial thing needs a source. That makes articles largely unreadable. Also, primary sources are generally acceptable for plot and other things that are synthesis. (She went to the store is fine, she often went to the store is synthesis).

  A list of every time she went to the store, with no sources commenting on her going to the store, is excessive. That's the point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's an example. Saying that her parents were Bob and Judy (for example) can be sourced to a primary source. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dylanlip lead

Princess Sally Alicia Acorn is a fictional character appearing in the American saturday morning cartoon Sonic the Hedgehog from 1993 to 1995, as well as the ongoing Sonic the Hedgehog comic book series published by Archie Comics. In the television show, she is voiced by Kath Soucie. In the two-part episode "Blast to the Past", however, her younger self was voiced by the late Dana Hill.

She is a female, anthropomorphic, humanoid squirrel, though her exact species differs from depiction to depiction. She has brown/tan fur, with red hair and blue eyes, and is usually seen sporting a blue vest and knee-high boots.

(This is without references added.)

Comments

• Two things:

1. Could you please include the references?
2. Is the squirrel right? Posted above is a reference that she is a cross-breed. Thoughts?

Hobit (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note the {{fact}} tags.
• Why are we mentioning her middle name in the lede? Do we know this is a consistent thing in both the comic and TV show? Is it particularly important?
• Why are we mentioning her voice actor in one episode?
• Do we have any sources anywhere on her species? Any decent ones?
• Do we have sources for the basic factual claims (character from so-and-so series, dates, voice actors, etc.)?
• SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES ARGH. -

A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• We do have a source on species, though you seem not to like it and Dylanlip seems to disagree with it.
• I moved your proposed lede and restored Dylanlip's. On the whole it would be best if you didn't change what other people proposed as it gets confusing.

Hobit (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my problem with this article. I don't have any particular opinion on form or wording. THIS ARTICLE MAKES MANY IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT FACTUAL CLAIMS WITHOUT SOURCING THEM TO SOURCES OF ANY VALUE. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Where is this claim of species coming from? That guide is a fan guide; who's writing it? Is it about the cartoon and comic both? Is this guide based on the intent of the writers, an attempt to reconcile conflicting species claims in the comic, a retcon, what? Who wrote this guide and what was their intent? Since the answer to the last is "unspecified writers" and "to amuse 7- to 12-year-olds," it's not a very useful source for answering any of the other questions and is of little use other than amusing 7- to 12-year-olds.

As far as I'm concerned right now, it can be worded whichever old way as long as the FACTUAL INFORMATION IN USEFUL RELIABLE SOURCES is not obscured. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your issues, are you saying you will not be proposing any actual text? Hobit (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm proposing removing anything that isn't SOURCED TO A USEFUL RELIABLE SOURCE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, true or false:

• You won't be providing any proposed text for this section.
• You don't plan on providing proposed text for any section.
• You object to using primary sources as sources.

Hobit (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be okay if I placed my lead in the article if AMIB doesn't show us his idea? We need to show some progress with this article.  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say it's fine, but he's correct you do need to source things. In particular the race part as that seems in debate. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand for a lede that makes unverified claims, particularly ones of such trivial quality that they don't bear mention in the body of the article.

Please remember that you don't own the article either. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to primary sources; I object to misused or unhelpful sources. Consider each source critically, scan them for relevant factual claims about the real world we can use, then add those claims to the article. You're going to find that very few such sources are written about supporting characters in licensed comics, but the fact that this is so does not mean that the sourcing standards should be relaxed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sourcing things. And another thiing, that lead that I am showing DOES include references, just that they're not currently added because this is a talk page. I keep saying that I DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE. How many times do I have to say this? All I'm saying is that we need to start making some progress here, or we'll never get finished. I'm going to start by adding in the lead that I proposed. And also, it seems that AMIB still has not responded to Hobit fully about not adding info, and has also not yet added his version of the lead. I'm getting very frustrated at this whole ordeal that it is making m go insane. So please, let's just get this over with.  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I DON'T HAVE A VERSION OF THE LEAD. I OBJECT ONLY TO ADDING UNREFERENCED AND TRIVIAL FACTUAL CLAIMS.

I'm not interested in the "AMIB has a version, Dylan has a version, let's put the halfway point in the article" game. I'm interested only in removing unreferenced factual claims. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So, true or false. You are not willing/wanting to compromise with me, Hobit, and FFF about fixing up the article.  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

True or false: you have stopped beating your wife.

I am not willing to compromise on sourcing. I have no significant other positions that I would need to compromise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like a compromise, it's "Your version without all the badly sourced, original research nonsense (and typos and formatting errors)," since I have no personal interest in dictating form or content beyond what the sources have to say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He/she might get more official refs soon. According to a site someone is trying to bring back SatAM, meaning Sally could be in it. (Details here.)Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Helpful suggestion

Since establishing notability for any of the SatAM characters is more or less impossible, we should merge Sally, Rotor, Bunnie and the rest of the original characters into the Freedom Fighters article. Johnnyfog 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, merge them into this article instead. Johnnyfog 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, leave it alone. I'm sure that this article probably now qualifies for C-Class. Also, read above. There may be another appearance of Sally, in a new television series. I'll go ahead and add it to her television appearances.  Dylanlip  (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An incomplete, unsubmitted pitch shown on a fan forum is not exactly anywhere close to a revival of the show. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've begun to reconstruct all of the character bios here. If we pull together and transfer all of the relvant text, we can move all the original (SatAm/Comic-specific) characters. And there will be practically no loss of information.

You can either pitch in and help, or continue to dismiss this idea and compel me to do it without direct approval. Johnnyfog 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

edit warring

OK, can the two of you actually hold a discussion? AMIB, you've actively ignored discussion and refused to propose wording or discuss problems without using sweeping statements. If you care enough about the article, please discuss. 02:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The problems are sweeping, and I've pointed out constant examples. When what we have now isn't sourced, piling on more plot summary and speculation and OR is not the solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss not just revert. We've tried to talk to you about this article but you've not really been constructive in addressing other's ideas. Just dismiss out of hand... Hobit (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not just revert" goes both ways here. I went to a great deal of effort to clean up this article and explain every edit in detail, and I see it dismissed out of hand and reverted. See #In response to recent edits above for example.

If Dylan makes some edits that are not reverting to his preferred version, then I'll {{fact}} tag and clean out the junk, if any, as appropriate. But no amount of wishful thinking is going to make WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:V, and WP:MOS not apply to this article, and the version reverted to is flagrantly abuse of these polcies and guidelines. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who is responsible for the current state of article, or who explained their edits better, you should just re state your opinion, and explain why your version of the article is better to reach a truce, consensus, or compromise as soon as possible. Kuro ♪ 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is horrible. How come her appearance is that big anyway? Trivial shit that shouldn't be there in the first place. There should be a small reference of her being blonde, having pink fur and black hair at some point, before her turn to her appearance right now, not half a page full of it. One more thing, why is her article have the princess in the name? Other princesses (fictional or not, don't have it).

Umm, as for the having the title of Princess in the sonic universe, from what I've seen in the Sonic Universe titles are kept in names [1]. But more importantly these titles are used in a persons name in the real world as well, here are just a few examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9].

Page protected

Due to the edit warring over the past few weeks here, and since the dispute is ongoing, I've fully protected the article. This is not an endorsement of the current version, and this is not a free pass for AMiB to do whatever he likes with the article. Please come to a consensus and then either ask that it be unprotected or use an {{editprotected}} template to request a change. Thank you. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been about 8 days since this page was protected and I think we've reached a consensus on this issue. As Wikipedia:Consensus states "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." and I'm pretty sure we meet the exposure standard, I've notified FFF about this discussion and it has been open for 8 days. Not to mention that Wikipedia:Silence and consensus states "...it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." I think that it is about time to unprotect this article. Kuro ♪ 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Silent consensus it is. Unprotecting, but I'm keeping the article watchlisted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Dylanlip intends to continue reverting to his preferred version as soon as he thinks nobody is watching. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If an edit war starts again over here, I'm going to reprotect, and won't be inclined to unprotect until some discussion goes on here. Just so everyone knows. WP:BRD is fine, but it doesn't work without discussion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But now AMIB can still edit and we can't. The only reason to protect a page is so an edit war stops is if both users can't edit it. Or in other words, protecting the page is pointless since AMIB can still edit it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be an abuse of admin powers, and AMiB wouldn't do that. Besides, the page is not currently protected. lifebaka++ 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he'd abuse his powers. I'm saying that all non-admins can't do anything to help the article. That's why Dylanlip reverted AMIB's edits. So he could continue his/her work to improve the article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dylanlip's views of "improving" the article certainly doesn't agree with everyone. He can discuss things here, instead of changing the article around in a sneaky manner. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Kuro requested it

• This edit removes {{inuse}}, which shouldn't be up unless you are actively sitting at the computer editing the article. It adds {{notability}} and {{primarysources}}, which are big problems with this article (as discussed at length on WT:CVG).
• This edit cleans up the infobox. You've misused "debut" (which is for the first appearance of a character, not the first appearance in each medium) and alliances (teams/factions only, not allies). The rest of the removals are now-defunct fields, from a revamp of the infobox from about a year ago.
• This edit replaces a sometimes-in, sometimes-out statement about the ownership of Sally, which seems like a basic fact we should be able to source. It also removes her middle name (subtrivial and unsourced anyway). It removes some waffling about her species, calling for a simple source on what species she is.
• This edit should be fairly uncontroversial; it's a rephrasing and copyedit, with a {{fact}} tag on an unreferenced claim. Still not happy about the wording, but it's a start.
• This edit is another uncontroversial copyedit/fact-tagging go. I removed the misuse of quotes. I still don't like "In the comic book" (WHICH comic book), but it's better than no context at all.
• This edit removes the Spinball mention (which was duplicated IMMEDIATELY ABOVE) and the unreferenced X-Treme mention. Should the X-Treme non-appearance be sourced somehow, it doesn't need its own header.
• This edit fixes some header formatting, removes a duplicate non-free image per WP:FUC, and adds some context to the mention of Sonic Christmas Blast (which no longer has its own article).
• This edit removes some unsourced evaluative claims, puts {{fact}} tags on the unsourced factual claims, and and fixes the header to boot.
• This edit fixes the tags, and removes explicit description of one single storyline sourced entirely to...the issues in which that storyline appears. This is not the level of plot summary we should have in an encyclopedia article. It also removes the empty "family" section; replace it if you can source it to something other than the comics themselves.
• This edit fixes a template, removes a 404 link, and removes some inapplicable categories.

This is the difference between the page protected and Dylan's preferred version as of a while ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My Last Hope

This is my last offer to save this article. I've realized that relations to other characters is dumb (It's storyline info), and the character section could need some trimming, so there will be possibly no biography, and simply appearances, creation, reception, overall design, that sort of thing. I'll get cracking and hopefully finish by the end of the day. Do not do anything to edit until I say to check it out. You'll see how it is once I'm done. ;)  Dylanlip  (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

VG Project Template

I'm asking kindly for whoever keeps removing the VG Project templete to please stop wht they're doing. She's in a video game (Sonic Spinball), which by itself automatically includes her in the project, regardless of her inclusion in the comics. She is also included in the SEGA and Sonic task forces (which are both under the VG Project), so this template would STILl need to be included due to the task forces. So please stop what you are doing.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)