Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sega/Archive 1

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

Non-free images

I have gone through and removed the fair-use only images from your userboxes and project pages. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use states in part:

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace.

Feel free to replace them with free images; commons:Category:SEGA and subcategories would be a good place to start looking. Anomie⚔ 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We are going to slowly fade out the non-fair-use images, as for now we will keep a few up Gaogier Talk! 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not allowed. The policy is clear on this, if you don't have a free image for your templates then you'll just have to do without until you find some. Anomie⚔ 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur, having gone through and removed some of the images a second time without realizing there was a first time. Nifboy (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoted from User talk:Anomie:
“ I changed the image to the gold sonic and you removed that too, what can i use? Gaogier Talk! 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC) ”
You can use any image that is under a free license. If it needs a fair-use rationale to be used in an article, you can't use it. You're not likely to be able to find any image of Sonic that fits this requirement, since even a hand-drawn reproduction of a copyrighted character is still copyrighted. Also, BTW, it was Nifboy who removed your gold Sonic image, but I would have too. Anomie⚔ 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

thats bad Gaogier Talk! 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Anomie THAT TAILS WASNT A NON FREE IMAGE!!! Gaogier Talk! 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is non-free. Go look at the image description page and read the big box that begins with the symbol. Anomie⚔ 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I FOUND A NON FREE BUT IT IS UGLY, CAN YOU HELP ME GET A NICER ONE Gaogier Talk! 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm interested, but what sort of nicer one are you wanting? Anomie⚔ 00:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoted from User talk:Anomie:
“ Sorry not good with code accidentally deleted the top of your page, you better fix it without removing my comment, i need a picture of sonic asap, im not very good at trying to draw my own sonic characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) ”
I can't help you with a picture of Sonic, as Sonic is a copyrighted character. If you want a picture of him, you would have to convince Sega to release an image under a free license (and send an official statement of that release to OTRS). Anomie⚔ 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here, no one is "attacking" this project or trying to delete it. You do have to follow Wikipedia's non-free content policy, however; we're trying to help you do so. Anomie⚔ 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please refrain from making personal attacks on the project page. It is immature and against Wikipedia policy to do so. If any editor of WP:SEGA feels "attacked" by an editor from the video games project, it is best to seek dispute resolution such as a WP:Third opinion, not to make obscene statements on a project page. Also, keep in mind to assume good faith. I can assure you that many of the video games project members would like to see this project become active and productive, and are merely trying to help. User:Krator (t c) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the Segaproject banner

the {{Segaproject}} banner when 'nested' on a talk page, says that it's from the playstation project? Also there's other small problems with other templates, like the "assesment scale" link in the Segaproject banner thingy, I guess this is a problem from them being 'borrowed' from other projects, is there anyone who knows how to fix these prolems, or anywhere that we could ask, such as the video game project?
 Doktor  Wilhelm  01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That has all been fixed except the assessment banner, it does link to our page but our page is a replica of video games one as we borrowed that part from them. Gaogier Talk! 09:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Hi, I'm Redphoenix526. I'd like to help start up an assessment department for the Sega Project, as it is what I do best, having assessed over 60 previously unassessed articles as part of WikiProject Video Games and done a couple reassessments (I also leave a paragraph of explanation text whenever I reassess). I am currently listing articles from B-class to Stub-class (as well as list-class), and if I think an article is A-class worthy, I will ask on this page for another person to look and agree with me if they do see fit. I think it would be appropriate to create categories of all of the article classes and importances and list what's in those categories in an assessment department page linked to the main page. Now, I'm not sure how to do this, so I could use some help if you guys agree with me on doing this. Also, I have a personal request for someone to review an article that I recently listed as part of the project that I've put a lot of time into, along with Radman622, the article about Crush 40. We're getting another WP:VG assessment soon, but I'd like another opinion, the opinion of this project. Anyway, I'd be happy to help start up an assessment department here and start assessing articles on behalf of the project. I'll find what I can and assess it in the meantime. Redphoenix526 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we do have a assessment page we will be adding to the links menu but it is a complete copy of the WikiProject video games so we do need a lot of help and i would appreciate it, i am trying to give a feel to my WikiProject as kind of fun with the layout so people do not feel overly serious in the project but serious enough to do the work, thats why our design is unique. maybe if you could follow our page layout for the assessment page so we can carry on our ways ?, i think we need a good assessment team but we do follow the rule of no user can assess more than a B-Class without talking about it so you need to chat with us about this too when you are ready, Thank You Gaogier Talk! 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, when you get the assessment page up, I'll head up the assessment team. I can develop the page and keep it up to task, using a similar format as the WikiProject Video Games page. Just can you make sure to add a list-class (and maybe a disambig-class) to the categories of articles? WikiProject Video Games doesn't have this, but many other WikiProjects do (such as WikiProject Rock music) and I think it would be a useful class for assessment with these articles. Redphoenix526 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To-Do New Placement

Moving the location of our to-do list corrupted its location, i'm looking into the matter. Gaogier Talk! 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Priority

Ehem, I just noticed Sega Mega Drive to be a High priority article... not that I want to object that, but all home consoles and first party games should be classified as top priority, after all Sega is mostly known for them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably my fault, I didn't want to assume that everything it Top priority, so High seemed a good enough starting point, I'm just adding |nested=yes to a load of articles, I think I'm going Article Blind or something...  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've made the same mistake before, too, with the Dreamcast. Needless to say, Gaogier chewed me out with it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a template of Sega stubs {{Template:Sega-stub}}, it shows as this at the bottom of the article:

This Sega-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

I think that we should have co-opt it into the Sega Project, if it's not already a part? Also, on the category page (at Category:Sega stubs) there are a lot of sega pages that arn't already a part of the Sega Project, as does Category:Sega games? (there are more Sega related Categorys, but I've lost track of them), Also worth co-opting into this project might be the Portal:Sonic?  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Two more things of interest to us could be Category:Sega game series templates and Template:Sega (There's a lot more of this stuff on wikipedia, it all needs to be sorted out!?)  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sega Category list

Category:Sega

Whoo, now that's a list! I'm sure there's a lot that I have missed, but I'll find them soon enough!  Doktor  Wilhelm  04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have used Template:Sega before i was on the BETA version of our project. Gaogier Talk! 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Elven6's Contributions To Our Page


Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Did you know
Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Things you can do
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sega/Quotes
I don't think we need them but i'm will to take different peoples opinions. Gaogier Talk! 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think they're necessary, either. They're just not really practical or worthy of the project. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Logs Page

We now have a logs page, HURRAY!
To find it go to the main page and click Logs on our navigation bar.
Gaogier Talk! 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Look for people who have made substantial contributions to pages in the sega scope and invite them to the project!, an invitation can be found on the awards tab on the main page 

Gaogier Talk! 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Any other ideas to get more members? Gaogier Talk! 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of main page content

This list has now been removed from our LowerLeftPanel And this talk page view has now been removed from the Left Panel due to large content box Everyone with me?

Gaogier Talk! 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User box

Doktor_Wilhelm:I've created a user box, to keep in style with the usual info box style:

File:Hereimage.png
 This Wikipedian is a Member of
The Sega Project.




Gaogier:That userbox does look good with the old sonic and everything, definitely better than prior but its still not amazing.

I am a member of
The Sega Project!

,




OPINIONS ON CHOICE FOR OUR USERBOX, DOKTORS USERBOX HAS CHANGED SINCE AND IT HAS HAD A FEW EDITS FrOM NUMEROUS USERS AND WE HAVE DECIDED TO GO WITH THAT

Give me your opinions which ones we should use or if we should use both?
Or why we should design a new one or post your design?
Gaogier Talk! 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Doktor Wilhelm's design looks good. Until we decide, I'm going to use both. Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

TTN has re-opened a disussion for the merger of Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)‎ in to the List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) article (The discussion is at WikiProject Video games).  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll help contribute to that argument. Doesn't make any sense to me why it should happen. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is up to us not them! we are wikiproject sega this goes through us!

I think we should merge, what do you others think? Gaogier Chat! 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, but not the way TTN did it. It's a little too stripped down in his example. 149.159.73.23 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops, that's me above, sorry. Redphoenix526 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cream the rabbit is in the scope of WikiProject mammals

Talk:Cream the Rabbit

looks like she's a mammal :S crazy, also sonic is not, how does that work :S Gaogier Talk! 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, they're a weird project, I guess. Oh well. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems like she was added by someone playing silly buggers!  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving .gif of gameplay?

On Wonder Boy (video game) there is "A short example of Wonder Boy's gameplay"[1] (it's also used on Platform game), is this viable for something to do for other Sega games? say like a few seconds of Sonic The Hedgehog to show how it plays (like how fast Sonic moves), though I'm sure it'd need a short section describing why it's relevent to the article? Sorry, just seen it and thoght "wow, that's a good idea".  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but you're going to have to include a good fair use rationale for the images. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The F.U.R. would have to be pretty water tight too.  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could include something about it explaining the fast gameplay that Sonic the Hedgehog brought to the world. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Council Members

Is there some sort of voting system?  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. This was all Gaogier's idea, and I was just told yesterday that I'm a council member. Probably just establishing a system. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you need further information Gaogier Chat! 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe further information should be put onto the main page?  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Chat On Merging Phantasy Star Online, Phantasy Star Online ver.2, Phantasy Star Online Episode I & II & Phantasy Star Online Episode I & II Plus. Gaogier Chat! 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They are all the same game. (Plus Blue Burst is already a part of the main article).  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So... You have not told me your opinion you just told me what you know..., i know we should merge the dreamcast ones defiantly. Gaogier Chat! 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is Merge, as they are all the same game, Blue Burst is a PC only version, so the main article is already multi format! and the seperate articles are all stubs that could be nicly worked into sections of the main article (I placed the merger tags).  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually happen to own this game, and yes, they are all the same. As long as there are separate sections about differences between each, then my opinion is Merge. If it highlights the differences and some info (such as PSO1&2's addition of a second story line, the famed Episode 2), then it has a better class of becoming a higher-class article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In our scope?

Camelot Software Planning, Is it? Gaogier Chat! 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I say that if it is or was a part of Sega, it is within our scope!  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay then! Gaogier Chat! 02:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sega article

I find it a little odd that for as big as the company is and as important as it is to our project that the article Sega is not even a Good Article. I've put it up on the to do list to bring it to GA status, if nobody objects to it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion. I advise getting a reassessment, or a peer review in order to get a direction to go in. By the way, I mean reassessment by the VG project, not this project. Signed RADMAN622 76.105.204.255 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Clashing Colours

I think the Template that is being placed on all Sega Project pages needs to be changed, "less is more", the clashing colours of Purple and Red arn't making the pages very easy on the eye, also why it there a several pixal large red border around everything? I propose a compleate rework of the template used, to match Sega's corporate colours as shown on the Sega of America] website! If colour names can't be worked out from viewing the site I have posted the CSS code at User:Doktor_Wilhelm/Sandbox, though I will be removing it soon! And maybe something a little more tastefull as displayed at Wikipedia:Musicians or understated like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The red and purple is a little bit overdone, but it's Gaogier's project, so I say that if he wants to design it like this, it's up to him. I actually find that I'm used to the features like the navigation bar (by the way, I'm still thinking about what to do with that last spare page.) We'll just have to see what happens, and ask Gaogier. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
also the use of things like {{User:ReyBrujo/Styles/Footer}} in the coding, as well as other problems could undermine the project! it's not just Gaogier's project, wikipedia is public, and nothing belongs to anyone on here (well beside the non-fair images, but that's another matter), I think the actuall features of the style are good, but as Gaogier has taken them from other projects and users (and often just links to their templates), we have inherited several problems! Also the colour layout seems rather vain to me!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Point taken; I didn't even see that in the coding before, so I've removed it from everywhere I could. The colors definitely could use a change (blue and white for SEGA colors, anyone?). Gaogier, if you're reading this, there do need to be some changes for two reasons: to keep us out of trouble and to make us not seem like a bunch of wackos with the colors. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also even though Gaogier started the project, should their personal user pages be listed on Category:WikiProject_Sega? I second the blue and white idea, I also think that the borders should be removed, as they create problems with the page layouts on different browsers!  Doktor  Wilhelm  07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to talk to Gaogier about it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have taken it into my own hands, and now instead of using four or more templates in each headed (includding templates within templates), I have began the use of just {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sega/Header}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sega/Styles/MediBar}}, hopfully the 2nd template can be worked into the first (as it's ugly with all the red wikilinks) so that we only need one template per page! Hopfully well be able to build up the WikiProject:Sega to be a serious and respected force for improvement of all Sega articles on Wikipedia (and also I have removed any un-sega-related pages from Category:WikiProject_Sega).  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to fix the red wikilinks. I think many of the pages are already there but not linked right, so I'll do what I can. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega/Awards.  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A Message to our Project's Creator

I'm sure he's still reading out there while appealing his ban, but this message is for our project creator, Gaogier. Well, we are sorry that you can't help us with the project you created anymore, but I would not call the recent changes to the pages vandalism. It's a change, and while I didn't make the changes, I think it looks much nicer than what was up. I'm sure this is also the consensus of most of the full-time project members. We can't always have our way, especially with free universal content. But that's partly why we have userpages. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in appealing your ban, and I hope you appreciate the changes to the Sega Project, even though you probably don't now. We look forward to your return and hope you will be able to accept what I would call "improvements" to the project. Redphoenix526 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Virtua Fighter Article Merger Suggestion

Now I'm not a Mergist like TTN (though I do respect his points of view), but having worked in the assessment department, I've run across a lot of Virtua Fighter characters with either stubs or start-class articles which barely even qualify as start-class. In fact, none of them are above start-class, and I'm not sure any one of them should have an article to themselves. Would it be logical to fuse all of the articles about Virtua Fighter characters into one list, since they're all pretty much stubs anyway? I'm going to ask for a consensus here first, before anyone proposes a merger. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's no need for all the characters to be so spread out, merging them into List of Virtua Fighter characters would be the best bet!  Doktor  Wilhelm  —Preceding comment was added at 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Added comment: Of course, all the information about each of the characters would be brought into this, and a much more comprehensive list would be constructed than what is currently present. Just thought I'd make this clear. Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add merger tags to all of those articles, since there hasn't been any objections yet. If some turn up, we'll discuss it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any objections, I'm going to start this merger when I get back. You're probably wondering why I'm still here, well, I've decided to start my sabbatical on Friday rather than earlier this week. Guess I'm more addicted to this than I thought. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've got a merger concept set up in my sandbox. Since this is my first merger, I was wondering if some of you guys could take a look and tell me what you think. Redphoenix526 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems good, that list seems much better, though maybe some seperate sections for each game (like the list already has), would space them out a bit (though I don't now much about the Virtua Fighter games or chracters, so maybe that'll not work)! also for formatting, would the images work, alternating between left and right (it may fix the bleeding of images into sections) or a nicly placed <br clear=all> at the end of each section (hmmm, bleeding of articles sections and images is a bugbear of mine).  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to separate everything and put everything there because most of it is excessive plot summary. I just took enough to provide an apt understanding of each character. But I don't see why the images can't be alternated, I'll make sure to do that. I don't really know much about Virtua Fighter either, but maybe someone who does will step in and fix things if they're wrong right now. Redphoenix526 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Merger complete now. Redphoenix526 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on Chaos Control

Does the article even need to exist? All of the information is clearly written in in-universe with no out-of universe information and it's only about a fictional ability. The "Users of Chaos Control" doesn't even need to be there. I don't think the article really qualifies into WP:FICTION. Magiciandude (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

it's one of the plot ellement that there's no need for, like the spin dash, every character does it nowadays! I guess the individual chracter sections could be trimmed and merged with their chracters main articles, if it really needs it...  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've got a little different idea. Since it's an effect that's closely associated with the Chaos Emeralds, why not just merge it into Chaos Emeralds? That might be the better route. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But lets shorten it by getting rid of the users section the rest I think should be kept.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Okay. so we're merging from Chaos Control to Chaos Emeralds? But without the 'users of' parts? how about trimming down the Other Chaos Powers and Other Uses of Chaos Control sections aswell?  Doktor  Wilhelm  15:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other uses I can agree to but other Chaos powers I think should be kept.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

You know something? I want to take this a step further, and I'll help when I get back from sabbatical. We've got other articles like Master Emerald, Super transformation, Special Stage, and so on that can be merged in. Seeing as how relevant these articles are to each other, I think it would be a good idea. What do you think? Redphoenix526 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Master Emerald and Super transormation deserve there own articles the special stage I think should just be deleted, that or merge it with the game it's come from.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

I think the Master Emerald should be a part of the 'normal' emeralds (I'm surprised it isn't already), I'm not sure about Super transormation, as it's very much between Chaos Emeralds and the singular character articles. Special Stage (Sonic the Hedgehog) and Blue Sphere could be merged together, but special Stage could easily just be deleated, or merged as Fairfieldfencer mentions. (Redphoenix, seems like you enjoying your time away from wikipedia!?)  Doktor  Wilhelm  11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is Super transformation even referred to by that name in any of the games? I think we should at least change something, the name just seems awkward and I didn't even think it was a Sonic article until i read it. The merge was just a suggestion and I just wanted some opinions, but something does have to be done, because that is kind of weird, in my opinion. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How about Channeled force of the power contained within the Chaos Emeralds, for the specific reason for transformatin into a Super form, by various characters, used within the fiction of and related to Sonic the Hedgehog? Hehehe! but I agree, the name just doesn't seem to fit, I thought that too when I first read it. I know it's awful, but as I've said; I think it'd all be better as one article (with special stages as a foot note, of sorts! Maybe Blue Sphear should just stand alone, but it may just be merged with the Sonic & Knuckles game article). Argh, the (wiki-)worlds gone merger crazy!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Or Massively absurd power change by the use of several objects to change Sonic characters into a superior form? Just kidding, of course, though I must admit that was funny, Doktor Wilhelm. On a serious note, a Blue Sphere merger should be very careful because it is a game, as it is written, not just a series of special stages. As for the name, we'll have to come up with something. Someone want to put up something on the talk page there to ask about it? Redphoenix526 (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure (series)

I thought you all should know that I've put this article up for deletion, and seeing how it concerns this project, I thought I should bring your attention to it. Please discuss it on its AFD page, not here. Redphoenix526 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a hand in that article, but I really can't do anything for it, besides the fact that Sonic Adventure (series) as a name causes so much trouble (The Sonic Advance games tie in with the Sonic Adventure games, as does the Battle and Hero games, and Shaow the Hedgehog! based on Characters and events), the article shouldn't really be about plot either (it should be about the elements that tie the games together, and how each build on the 'series').... I just gave up the ghost on it and hoped that some kind soul would pass by and delete it!  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, can you help me with that? There seems to be a consensus to keep that article on the AFD page, but they're missing the point. The point is it's all regurgitation and no real amount of work can save it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just tell them that the article doesn't matter just so long as the other articles, (the games themselves) are still there which supply much more info.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Delete Rouge

I've found a page that needs deleting. Rouge (Sonic The Hedgehog)Fairfieldfencer (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's part of several contributions of dubious intent by: 31Gabe (talk · contribs), it'll try to tidy it all up!  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I inform him about the article getting deleted.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

it's already done!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sonic interactions and personality

This guy Bridies from the merger discussion, (whom I'm guessing is one of TTN's goons) keeps deleting the interactions with other characters and personality sections without notification.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification is not necessary, a valid reason has always been provided in the edit summary. If you have an issue with any particular edit, you can post it on the talk page (or my talk page) and I will respond (again this shouldn't be necessary since I've always given a valid reason, but whatever). Bridies (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just making sure you don't carry out TTN's doings, one TTN is enough, (with him being the Adolf Hitler of wikipedia). You two do have similar intrests such as using the rules of wikipedia as your personal enforcers.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise you against making such comparisons, kid. As well as being potentially offensive to TNN (or I), you are trivialising Hitler's actions and victims. The rules not my 'personal enforcers', it's the other way round: I obey the rules, as should all editors. Bridies (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about following the rules without rules or boundries things would end up in turmoil, (and sorry about what I said). Anyway were moving away from the topic in general, when you delete personality or interaction sections you need to notify people, (I mean if I'm against this then some other people are going to be against it to, minus the stubs like Sally).Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So, is no form or reference towards plot allowed on wikipedia?  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT There can be a concise plot summary, yes. The articles already have this in the 'appearances' sections. In theory, a concise plot summary should be used only if it's required to understand the article; the bulk of the article should be about things such as critical reception. In any case, it's when the article has a disproportionate bias towards plot that is the problem. The plot sections I removed were too long and there was no indication that that particular aspect of the plot was somehow especially important (i.e. sources). Secondly, not all the stuff I removed was due to plot issues; a lot of it was because of original research. Bridies (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Fairfieldfencer, this is what I mentioned to you when I did the assessment for E-123 Omega, which you had me review for you. As I said, keep plot summary short and sweet, hit the important stuff, and cite what you can. Oh, and Bridies, are you sure that the content you removed would not be able to be cited anyway? Sorry if this seems to be an odd question, but when it comes to Wikipedia, I would oppose it if valid citations are out there even if they're not found yet. Guess we'll see if some ever turn up. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of it, yeah, and that's still in the article. Bridies (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's good. As long as you're mentioning what you're doing in the edit summaries, I don't see what the fuss is about up here. Yes, it is nice to include notification on an article talk page, but the edit summary is enough. And Bridies, isn't his name TTN instead of TNN? Just a little pointer (sometimes I'm a stickler for spelling). Redphoenix526 (Talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I just read an edit summary of what is being discussed at the E-123 Omega article, in which you cited WP:NOT, and I don't think you're being as thorough as you should be in your explanation. Please explain what part of the Wikipedia policy you cite is being violated and the part of the article you're removing for that reason. It makes life a little easier for everyone. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an accidental exception. The other times I linked WP:NOT#PLOT, which should make things pretty clear. Bridies (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. sorry about that, then. WP:NOT#PLOT is much more clear. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sega Studios & Video Games

This article was supposed to be a "writing in progress", but there hasn't been an edit since the first of January (except for me, I did a little work today). Opinions on what we should do? Here's the options I think we have to consider.

  • Cleanup Add to the Sega Project's To Do list for cleanup.
  • Deletion Information might be redundant, I'm not sure.
  • Merge into Sega, information overlaps, complete their "franchises" table and merge.
  • Separate the franchises and studios, expand coverage on both after separation.

Whatever happens, this article needs a lot of work, so we need to know what needs to happen. We need a consensus, because I really don't know what to do, and I don't really favor any of these four. I would be willing to work on the article in any of the four directions above, though. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say merge the the Studios with the sega article and the Video Games could be separated into a list maybe? (and maybe the Games on the Sonic Team article could be up-rooted and merged with that?)  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that there's a few studios already on the Sega article, so that information can go there. Maybe someone (probably me) can finish the franchise list that they started and move it to something different named "List of Sega Video Game Franchises" or something? The notable people of Sega can have much of that info deleted since most of it is original research. I'll get working on finishing the table, and I'm going to be bold here and merge the companies, finish the list, and move it, along with removing original research. This will take a little time, though, and I'll be delayed if objections come up. But I doubt there should be any. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 02:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I've accomplished: The R&D Studios were successfully merged into Sega, though it could use some work to better integrate the information. Turns out most of it was there already. The section about developers was removed completely as original research, as it contained no sources whatsoever. As for the franchise list, it's been moved to List of Sega Video Game Franchises. It still needs lots of work, but it's a start. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Sega video game franchises

This new article, moved from the scraps of the scrapped Sega Studios & Video Games article, really needs a lot of cleanup and more work. I'm working hard on it, as it's a Top-importance list (the only one we have). I've finished the table formatting that the previous editors had set up for the list and wish to keep it, as it's a good setup that gives a lot of information. Please help add information to the list and fix the red links if you can, I think several of them are just linked to a nonexistant article when one exists by a different name. Thanks for your help, this list is very important to our project. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sega Superstars Tennis

Does the Sega Superstars Tennis article have too many templates at the bottom of the article? --Silver Edge (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I'm just going to remove all of those and change it to the {{Sega}} template, it's much more appropriate. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 15:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on Chaos Control (continued)

Alright, so, as discussion, what does the general consesues say? Because I saw was merging. Also, what about articles like Angel Island and Master Emeralds? Do they really merit their own articles even though there's not enough real-world information? Magiciandude (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you get real world information if it's a video game.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He means sources from third parties. My opinion is still this: Chaos Control and Master Emerald can be merged into Chaos Emeralds, and the game information for Angel Island can be put into each individual game's article where it contains the island, though not covering too much per WP:PLOT. But that's just my opinion, and I won't make any changes until I have a consensus. Likewise, if a different consensus appears here, I would be glad to help shape the articles in that direction, too. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Same here, but for now, I have added a merge tag for Master Emerald. Magiciandude (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you've added a merge tag; this merge we're talking about might get controversial. Not as controversial as the Sonic character merge discussed above, but controversial nonetheless. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll offer my help for yours

Obviously I haven't had any help with List of Sega video game franchises, our newly born list that is Top-importance. It's mostly going to take repetitive work to finish it-opening the respective articles, getting the info, and plugging it into the table. So I'm willing to offer this for help finishing it: you help me finish a few, and I'll give you some cleanup help on whatever article you're working with. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 22:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll help for more assitance on the E-123 Omega article. Just tell me what to do and I'll try my best.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get started later today, probably. Anyway, with the list, a lot of it is repetitive work, but here's what you do:
  • Start by opening up in separate windows or tabs a few of the blue linked games that don't have any information on the table yet.
  • Get information on the console of the franchise, the developer, and the year the game was made, check to make sure either the publisher or the developer is Sega or a subsidiary of them, and add that information to the table in its spot on the list.
  • Make sure that whatever game you open did not have any sequels or prequels; if it has, you need to collect console information and the year of the earliest and latest games in the series, as well as any additional developers.
  • If you find an article while looking that is the article for a red link, fix that link. I didn't make the list, so I can't be sure that all of those games are real or not, or anything about them.

That's kind of the basics. Just follow the table's formatting, and you should be okay. Make sure to add '' to the beginning and end of every piece of data besides any year numbers, it makes the article look nicer and more organized. Thanks for your help, and I'll be helping you as soon as I'm out of class today (I'm a college student). Redphoenix526 (Talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Fairfieldfencer, just so you know, if I help you with E-123 Omega's article, I can't be the one to give the article a second assessment if it improves because I'll have had a hand in improving the article. It's something minor, but I'm sure you can get Doktor Wilhelm to do it once we're done. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog characters

I guess I can give this a try. I assume everyone here is aware about the the game lists, but I also want to go deeper into this. Every single character article besides Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Doctor Eggman, Shadow, Metal Sonic, and Amy needs to be merged to their respecive lists. That includes any alternates like Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series & Archie comic). Each specific piece of media will have one list that will describe its respecitve characters. Those seven articles will sum up the other versions of the character, but the list will cover it in more detail. That will leave us with seven character articles and seven lists as far as I can count (Video games, Archie Comics series, Sonic the Comic, Sonic X, SatAM cartoon, Sonic Underground, and Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog). That'll be the neatest and most organized way to deal with these characters. TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are worked into the main game articles, then I think it'll work out, but just compleatly removing any mention of one game characters (as has been proposed in the past) will not work. A list of all articles that are effected by this needs to be drawn up, if only so that either information or whole articles, do not go missing in any merger (as has also happened in the past, with these articles and TTN's unannounced merger, and as is happening here, as this effects more than just the seven articles TTN has highlighted). I can't see people/fans being happy with the removal of several of the singular character articles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The one game characters do not have any impact outside of their one game, so listing them is essentially just repeating the plot over again. That is not encyclopedically relevant. You're free to find a WP:EL acceptable Sonic wiki to provide in external link sections, though. The articles that will be merged can be found in Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters; only fourteen will be left. Fans and other interested parties are inconsequential in this discussion. They can use a Sonic wiki or play/watch/read the pieces of media in order to get the information. TTN (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've a feeling TTN is nearing WP:SPIDER over this subject! Care to state which 14? and why are they notable? I am truly sorry that I do not follow TTN's views that all articles relating to fiction on wkipedia, should be condenced into one single article, but as I have stated before, wikipedia is open to the public, and the public will add (back) what they find relevent, regardless of the old guards views and urges to have wikipedia as an online version of the dusty old books that have no relevence to anything in the modern world!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I explained which ones in the first message. The main seven characters and the seven lists from the different pieces of media are what are going to stick around. My god, stop with that damn argument. I don't care if I'm being uncivil here, but that argument is the epitome of any word relating to stupid. Nobody with a decent viewpoint thinks that fiction deserves less than any other topic, and this site is not to be used to flesh out every minor part of a topic. What is special about this site is that we can cover things like pieces of media, passing memes, and topics that most would not consider eternally relevant. That does not mean that we need to have to write the same plot summary over twenty times in order to understand a topic. We provide what is necessary to understand a topic, not to act as a substitute. TTN (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
But can you please expand on it, I don't quite understand what you are getting at! Please forgive my lack of faith in your views, but I have seen how you go about making Wikipedia into your own ideal!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you want explained further? We'll have articles for the seven most important characters and one list per piece of media. That is the gist of it. TTN (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Also by "needs to be merged to their respecive lists", are you still looking to merge Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) & Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) into List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)? as you make no mention of this here!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you reread my first comment because I clearly explain everything there. TTN (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Before I make any commentary, let me just say thanks to TTN for coming over here and discussing it with WikiProject Sega, as this concerns us probably more than WikiProject Video Games. Anyway, I'm just not sure if a couple of the characters, particularly Cream the Rabbit, Rouge the Bat, Silver the Hedgehog, and Blaze the Cat should be condensed into that list. First off, I know this has nothing to do with notability, but none of these characters are single game. In particular, Rouge the Bat serves several roles of importance in each of the games she's been in since Sonic Adventure 2. The others are relatively recent characters and don't have much history yet, but given the role of Cream as the new innocent, polite character that Amy originally way, and that Blaze and Silver have only been around since 2006 but have games with their own storylines (in Blaze's case, two), I think they are developing importance in the series and may yet be even more so notable by the next game, if they're not already. Everyone else probably needs to be fused in to that list, and I don't have any objections. And as for the condensed list, I understand how one-game characters usually don't have notability, but I think some of the more recent ones, like Marine the Raccoon, have only recently appeared and may yet show up as a popular character, much like Shadow did in Sonic Adventure 2. Of course, this is all depending on what happens, but I hope you see my point with this. I do agree that some action does need to be taken on these lists to bring them together, but I don't like all the condensing you've put with it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The one game characters being removed and non-notable characters being merged are two different things. The first has do with arranging information and the second has to do with satisfying out notability requirements. The characters that are not likely to have real world information need to be merged because they show no real world relevance, unlike the other characters which should have creation an reception information. If any of the one game characters make recurring appearances (i.e. if Marine develops a role like Blaze's), they can be added to the list. While it may not be exactly to your liking, if we do this, and have a Sonic wiki as a common external link, it should work out. I suggest that you work on one anyways, so you can have deeper information that is more expanded than what we currently have here. TTN (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


My problem with this starts here, which started with TTN removing articles with out notification and ended when TTN failed to get a concensus to merge the articles, just under a month ago! They then reopened the discussion for a merger on the Video game projects page, without any kind of notification on the articles in question! I think first and formost merger tags need to be placed on the effected articles, so that more articles do not vanish over night!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I was forced to do that because you are too focused on covering the information that interests you as a fan of the series, and you think that a consensus is based upon the number of people that agree with one side. That does not allow for discussion actual discussion. I really suggest that you just focus your time on a Sonic the Hedgehog wiki (if you can find one, I'll help move anything that needs to be moved), so you can just have the information that you want. TTN (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As we are sharing views on what people should do, once again may I suggest TTN should go and edit dusty old books in the back room of some forgotten library! I have never forced anyone to do anything, being sneaky is your own choice! As I have said, the fist I know of any of this was when I was informed that articles had gone missing without warning!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are trivializing the purpose of this site. This is not meant to be a fan guide. You have thousands of websites for that. This is meant to cover the characters in an encyclopedic light, which does not require close to one hundred articles. TTN (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"close to one hundred articles"? Wow, care to expand on just what these "one hundred articles" are. as I beleive you are being a bit dramatic! Again I beleive you may be in danger of attempting WP:SPIDER if you don't get your own way! Please just calm down! You do not have to change my views, and that is all that I am stating!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I understand what you're talking about, but I don't believe in merging something if there may be enough real world information to be notable. Just because it's not there now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Wikipedia is a working project, and not everything's been found yet, and if there's a more practical solution in finding sources, then that's what needs to happen, not merging. As for the one-game characters, yeah, I can see that one really does need to be merged one way or another. I'm not so much concerned with one-game characters as I am with the fusion of these character, so that's more or less what I want to talk about, if that's all right. I think you're being a little narrow-minded about the topics in question. And what Doktor Wilhelm said, it is just common courtesy to get a consensus, but I'm not here to make personal attacks; I'm here to debate a possible merge. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The way that fictional topics should generally work goes like this: The main article is formed --> the characters section cannot hold the characters --> a list is formed --> character sections grow too large from the inclusion of real world information --> they are split into articles. While we ignore that process most often, it should be utilized here. When the characters obtain enough info to stand with the main characters, they can be split back into articles. The article do not need to exist for that to happen. As for consensus, it comes from discussion based around policies and guidelines, which could not be done at the time. TTN (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, I know this is off topic, but TTN, could you explain the consensus situation? This is completely a question I'm asking for improvement of my own skill at editing Wikipedia. You can respond on my talk page so we leave space for discussion here on topic. But back on topic, I guess I'll have to go through and get some real world information myself, if I can find the time. If I can find significant real world information for these characters, would that prevent a merger of them? Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus means a understanding between editors. That does not mean that it is always an understanding between editors on a single page. Policies and guidelines represent a larger consensus that cannot be overruled by five users on one talk page. That is what I'm talking about in this case. The policies and guidelines are clear that these do not belong, but the users are not really willing to follow them. That does not allow for discussion.
If signifcant real world info is provided, the pages will have asserted notability and will be worthy of staying. It's unlikely that you'll find anything work keeping an article, though. While the fact that Silver went through various designs is real world information, it is pretty much all you're going to find besides some minor reception information comparing him to the other two hedgehogs (that's better suited for a list entry at this point). TTN (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps the vast majority of users (including myself) either don't understand the guidelines or disagree with you on it. I'm not here to debate it, though, as I wasn't involved in it. Anyway, we'll see about the information. I'd like to have a couple of days to find some sources, if that's ok, since it's sure to be a little difficult, and I don't know much about formatting references beside adding a basic inline citation and citing one source multiple times (check out an article I worked extensively at, Crush 40, about that one.) But I'll take a look, and if after a few days I can't find anything, then we'll discuss it again. Is this okay with you, TTN? Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with TNNs proposal, particularly with regards to merging the non-notable characters. My reasons are on the VG project's equivalent discussion, but to reiterate: there's next to nothing written elsewhere about these characters (as far I can see; redpheonix may yet prove me wrong but I doubt it). This leads to the articles being largely composed of slavish regurgitations of plot details; furthermore a lot of the prose style is embarrassingly bad. Cut all that away, which would make it actually readable nevermind comforming to guidelines, and whatever scant information is left should fit easily into a bigger list. It's the logical thing to do. Bridies (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll do what I can. It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, Bridies, but I don't think some of the characters are non-notable. The articles for these characters are just not yet showing notability, and if you take a look at my userpage, you'd see one of my philosophies is not deleting pages if notability can be established. So I'm going to give it a crack, if I can find the time. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to "sit on my hands" on this matter, my only problem is if TTN is allowed to do the merging, the list will end up as it did when they did this previously.  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to just give up with the argument. I can't win, and I know that now. But I will put in relevant information if TTN is the one that does it. I did tell TTN, though, that he would have to convince you, Doktor Wilhelm, about the change before he did it because you're probably going to end up in an edit war with him. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to read this entire argument, so I won't. The only thing I have to say is inarguable. A characters notability is NOT determined by how many games they are in. If it were, Big the Cat could be under "major characters" from all the cameos he's seen. We all know, (even if we won't admit it) that Big is NOT a major character, and he is currently on the "List of Minor Sonic the Hedgehog Characters" article. A characters notability is determined by exactly how much history, coverage, fanbase, usage, and impact in the series they have. Characters like Tails, Amy, Shadow, and Eggman, have huge amounts of impact, their own fan/cult followings, and are frequently and consistenly portrayed, and have been for years. However, Silver, Blaze, Marine, and the like need to be featured more often, with more consistent impact on the series to be considered "major" characters. However, a character does not neccessarily have to be major to be notable. Omega is somewhat notable, and as far as I know, he still has his own article, and he is NOT as of now, a "major" character. Just be careful not to judge entirely on how many games a character is in, but for that to be PART of the equation. Signed, RADMAN622 76.105.204.255 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ready to start?

So, are we ready to start or what? This really needs to happen, but I really not want to drag this discussion through five more places in order to obtain a number consensus necessary to override you guys. I'd rather that you just try to work with it and possibly also work with a Sonic/Sega wiki in order to keep some of the information that you want. The plan is seven articles and seven lists. How does that sound? TTN (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Though the seven articles and seven lists, sounds like a good idea, there's going to be so many issues, if only caused by fans/editors who TTN has not yet told to go away and edit a wikia. Before anything happens, I really think merger tags are in order, if only so the scope of what is being merged and were it's being merged to can be shown (and a list of articles to be deleted without merger would help too), I'm worried that 14 articles will not addresses the full spectrum of media in which these fictional characters are depicted. And threats to "drag this through 5 more places", just make this sound like a childish argument! If draging the discussion through five different places is what is needed for user TTN to get backing for all this deleting/merging and such, them maybe it's all just better off being kept un-merged! And these threats and 'army building' tactics should be reported?  Doktor  Wilhelm  04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Any problems will be dealt with as we go. This will not be a smooth process any way that we do it. As you guys are the only ones that are likely to comment besides random anons, there is no need for merge tags. The articles will cover everything in the maximum amount of detail necessary. The Sonic wiki will be there if you guys need more fan related info. By dragging this through other pages, I mean project pages and the dispute resolution pages if necessary. If you guys are unwilling to let it go through, it just means that we need to go elsewhere. TTN (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't deal with problems though, you just run off to somewhere else with you tail between your legs when things don't go your way, and it's either you way or once again you run off and gather 'troops' to your 'war' on diffrent "project pages"! If you remove content without first providing Merger tags or a fair reason for removing the content of articles, then it's just going to end up with edit wars, and pages "dissapearing" without any reason/merger happening! I've a feeling this needs to go to the dispute resolution pages, if only by the tone you keep taking with editors that don't follow your ideals...  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not just TNNs 'ideals', it's policy and consensus. Valid reasons for removal of the content are given in the discussion on the VG project's talk page. Bridies (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you show this policy and consensus that you speak of? maybe provid links!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, VG Project Talk Page (see 'sonic the hedgehog characters') Bridies (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So what parts of WP:NOTE, WP:FICT and the VG Project Talk Page are you quoting? I can't see anything that says that all seperate versions of the same character in different media, must have one single article! And I can't see anyhting that says that all characters that have appeared in less than 5 videos games arn't notable enough to feature on one of seven lists of chracters from seven different media, and maybe if you could quote some form of consensus from the VG Project Talk Page, that out weighs the concesus reached here and on this very talk page, then I'll not continue believing that you're refering to your own comments (as well as TTN's) on the VG Projects talk page!  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have problems with reading comprehension that's your problem, don't take it out on me. Here is an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, however: 'Articles on a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewings or sales figures, development and other information from reliable sources' (from WP:FICT). Notability has nothing to with the ammount of games characters have appeared in. Currently the articles on various cats and rabbits have no sources demonstrating notability and never will do (see VG project talk page for more detail). They are comprised solely of original research and pointless plot regurgitations (generally written in an embarrasingly bad prose style). Regarding the VG project talk page, you seem to have missed posts from jappalang and krator (as well as redpheonix here) supporting the merge. The page you linked does not demonstrate any consensus not to merge; these things are not decided by votes. It just consists of you and a few others ranting that you want the articles kept without providing a valid reason. There is also support for merging/deleting on that talk page, again refering to notablility guidelines. As soon as any impartial (i.e. non-fanboy) editor sees this it's pretty obvious what should be done; which is why all this reporting and dispute resolution stuff you're threatening isn't going to help you. Bridies (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Your qoute from WP:FICT, is about works of fiction and not the chracters within them. Consensus is An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, So you do not have your consensus, and it seems to me that for the most part the groups opinion on this matter is to keep! As for talk pages: I have problems with reading huge walls of text on a PC screen, I am not taking that out on you, I am just asking for you to show me examples of what you are saying is fact. besides anything, my issues is with the compleate removal of content (with minimal refrences), without any form of warning! (and you win nothing by using the term "fanboy", besides showing that you can not discuss anything without childish name calling) the dispute resolution is TTN's idea. not mine! and the reporting will be for tone (such as name calling) and removal of content without warning!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The characters are part of the work(s) of fiction. Articles about fictional characters are articles about works of fiction. Read the WP:FICT section entitled 'Notable topics merit individual articles'. The need for reliable third party sources to establish notability applies to pretty much everything anyway, not just fiction. The proposed deletions, as far as I can see, are of content comprised largely of original research and overly detailed plot 'summaries' (read 'Demonstrating notability for fictional topics' in WP:FICT; the first line of the second paragraph). This content, especially original research, can be deleted; if you have a problem with this you should complain to policy/guideline makers. There's really no need for any 'warning' and in any case there has been at least three different discussions (this is what you mean by 'warning'?) on this topic; TNN has stated he will work to move stuff to a sonic fansite/wiki if need be. None of the 'minimal references' I have seen in these articles are to reliable third party sources; some of them are broken links anyway. Bridies (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
And? Just because the sources aren't on there doesn't mean they don't exist! If notability can be established (even if it isn't yet), there's no reason to merger. I know I'm supposed to be on sabbatical right now, but darn it, I have to say something. I guess I would have just let the articles I worked on die if I didn't think notability could be established. Is Wikipedia not a work in progress? I'm sorry if it seems that I'm on a bias, but I'm not a deletionist or mergist, because I believe that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. And I'm out to save articles, not get irritated because I can't make them work and merge, delete, or redirect them just so I don't have to deal with them. Redphoenix526 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, these hypothetical sources don't exist and probably never will do. I thought you had been looking for sources these past weeks? I have looked for stuff and can't find anything. You can't just write about stuff and ask others to entertain the possibility that substantial third party coverage might yet be stumbled upon, when evidence (or rather the lack of it) is to the contrary; it's bad enough in the first place that people have to go looking for sources to back up other editors' content (or often, in practice, trawl the internet to double check nothing exists when it was highly probable anyway). Secondly, notability isn't even the main issue with the articles (although the other problems arguably stem from lack of notability). It's the fact they are comprised of pointless plot regurgitations; the fact that wikipedia isn't paper doesn't excuse this. This (combined with the terrible writing) makes the articles painful to read. If all that stuff is got rid of they will fit into a main article no problem; there's no need for a labyrinthine set of lists and unreadable, redundant articles. I am neither a deletionist nor a mergist either btw, that has nothing to do with it. Bridies (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The plot regurgitations are just poor writing; whoever wrote these articles didn't do a very good job when writing them. And no, I haven't been looking for sources these past weeks because I have a life and an education that takes precedence over looking for stuff for Wikipedia (I'm an undergraduate college student). I don't have time to do it all, and if I did, I wouldn't be human. And I don't oppose all the merges, some of them really need to happen, and even I will agree with that. Just some of the more major characters I'm opposed to that merge. Now I know main characters aren't immune to notability problems, as per WP:FICT, but it just seems there should be more out there for some of those, particularly Cream, Silver, Blaze, (maybe E123 Omega, but i'm a little iffy on that one) and especially Rouge. Everything else I don't have a problem merging, as far as I'm concerned. And i only cited WP:PAPER because it's a personal philosophy I use a lot. It's related to the situation, but even I have my limits. Also, if you're merging stuff from the comic books and TV shows, make sure you get all of the characters there, quite a few of them have their own articles. If you're going to do the job, then do it completely. Redphoenix526 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not so much the fact they are badly written, it's the fact they are far too long and crammed with unnecessary detail (this is all covered by the stuff I linked earlier). I'm sure you do have a 'life and an education'; however I was under the impression from your comments on the VG project's talk page (specifically: 'I'll take a look into finding more sources that establish notability'; and then 'I'm just a little flustered because I'm sure now you're right', in response to jappalang's argument that Blaze is not notable) that you had been looking for sources and failed to find any . If this was an incorrect assumption fair enough; which reliable sources do you suspect might have articles on these characters, maybe I can look? Bridies (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I'm sure that Blaze is not notable, I'm sure there's not enough information supported for me to make a good argument against merging. My apologies if that confused you, and unfortunately I went in a little over my head with looking for sources, as most of the stuff I found was stuff regurgitated from the article here. And they even cited Wikipedia as their source. I really wanted to look closer, but I didn't have the time; I did some looking, but not as much as I could have done.Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If Merger tags are those voting things then I agree.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

The only reason you don't want to put up merger tags is because you know that people don't want the articles merged. We've all got a say in this TTN, and those merger tags are going up and we can redirect the discussion to here so it won't be on different pages.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Read the discussion at VG project's talk page; plenty of people want them merged. Furthermore, merging conforms to the wider consensus of policy/guidelines. Bridies (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, TTN, can you tell me what seven articles and seven lists you've got planned? And though I'd really like to start and run a Sonic Wiki, I'm really not sure how to go about that or even if I would be able to run it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the first comment in at the start of the full discussion. I explain it there. Visit Wika in order to start a wiki. If you find that they don't have one, the process should be pretty straight froward. TTN (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger Plans

I don't know about information regarding other forms of Sonic media, besides what is listed here for Video Games, so here's a list of what's probably going to be kept in the list, and what is going to be deleted from wikipedia by TTN:

Any notable information from these articles that may be compleatly removed, needs to be merged into any relevent video game articles. I am not sure what will happen with E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog), though the characters featured in the artcle may be notable for small reasons, they will all probaly be lost (besides E-102 Gamma?)...

I am not even sure what is happening about Flicky (bird), as well as featuring in the Sonic Universe, it is a character in it's own right, and has featured in many games it may need to be merged with Flicky (which is a good idea anyways)...

(This is by no means a sign of my approval of this merger, nor do I believe that a consensus on the side of merging has been reached, it is just damage control for if and when TTN takes matter into their own hands, without warning)  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys missed Echidnas (Sonic the Hedgehog). And also make sure you guys save the fair use images of those characters and put them on those lists. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this entirely. Many fan are going to hate this, there are going to be edit wars and all sorts and merger tags need to be put up because if merger tags aren't put up alot of the users won't be notified, and if there not notified you might end up getting banned from wikipedia TTN. People need to know what's going to be happening.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Just thought I'd stop in to see what was going on and I have to say this to Fairfieldfencer. The edit wars will happen, tags do need to be put up, and this will be chaotic. But if you look at the WikiProject Video Games discussion of this topic, TTN does have a decent consensus, and as much as we object to this, Doktor Wilhelm, you, and myself really can't do much about it right now since TTN does have editors backing him. We tried, if you read the discussion above, but we failed, and I couldn't find enough sources to save some of the articles (though I bet they're still out there and I'm still opposed to the merger of many, but not all, of the topics. Read my philosophies on my userpage and you'll see why I'm opposed to this). If you can get a bunch of editors to argue the other way and have a consensus of not merging, there would be a chance this wouldn't happen, though this will be very difficult. You do have my support if you choose to do this, though
And to TTN, just because I couldn't find the sources doesn't mean they're not out there and that the character/topic/whatever is not notable. I've saved an article from deletion, Crush 40, because I spent some time looking for sources to establish notability, and I found what I could. Though it's not relevant to this discussion, I just thought you might want to keep that in mind, as it's a philosophy I take to heart: if notability can be established but isn't yet, establish it, don't delete. Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do plan on getting users to back us up through merger tags which'll direct the users to here to argue against this gargantuan case of vandalism. And it'd be a great help to me if people could stick some up as I don't know how to.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

For information on merging tags see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, I'll see what I can do, if I can make something work (but the high amount of pages involved makes it confusing and hard to follow what is going to be merged/remove and where each thing it going to end up!)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You're obviously welcome to argue against merging. How about actually providing some argument, rather than ranting about vandalism? Bridies (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, Bridies, that sounds like you're starting to get fighty. I could be wrong, but that's how I took it. Just let me remind you, since I'm going on sabbatical, about Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Not trying to lecture you, just reminding you because that sounded a little fighty to me. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you can take that as a personal attack. Bridies (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That itself is not, but I've seen statements like that turn into them. I was just trying to be pre-emptive and make sure you didn't go into attacks. Our project creator was infamous for a few attacks he made before being banned from editing, and I've seen people start with something like that and take it into attacks. So I'm just making sure you don't get fighty, that's all. Apologies if you felt offended by that.Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger tags still need to be put up, from what I've heard if you merge or delete an article without notifacation you can be banned from wikipedia, something I'm sure TTN has come close to on many occasion.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

There's been three discusions in terms of 'notification'. I personally have no issues with merger tags being put up. It was more a justification on why you're accusing others of vandalism, or at least some sort of argument against the merge, that I was interested in. Bridies (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been three discusions, the first time was after content and whole articles had be removed with out warning, the second discusion happened without any sort of notification on the pages effected (this was done on perpose to keep the discusion secret from editors of the articles), and the third, here, has been happening without any warning tags or such! Not all editors are associated with (or watch) project pages!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the first place there's no real reason against removing the content and the initial removal was justified (for the various reasons discussed above). The content was replaced and thus a discussion was started on the appropriate talk page; nothing untoward about that surely? The discussion on the VG talk page was started in order to get impartial opinions from uninvolved editors, after no consensus was reached in the first discussion (or so you claim, in my opinion the only reasonable arguments there support the merge, as I said before; in any case the dispute wasn't resolved); this is explained by TNN in the discussion. In any case, I don't think you're giving editors' intelligence much credit by claiming putting discussion on a project page is going to keep it 'secret' from them. The discussion here was started at the request of redpheonix on the VG project page; pretty much an extension of the discussion on the VG project. I can understand that putting merger tags will help promote the discussion on the project pages; it's just accusations that covert vandalism is being plotted i find a bit ridiculous. Bridies (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The first removal obviously was not justified, if it's created discusion in three diffrent places after the fact! I was the one who originally restored the removed content, and thus started the need for discussion on the subject! Starting a discusion about merging articles on a projects talk page, after not finding consensus on the articles talk page, without any attempt to inform editors of the formentioned articles (who still continue to edit the articles, which could be a wast of their time, if the merger goes ahead) seems rather sneaky to me! TTN has admited themselves that they did this because they didn't want the editors (who they refer to as fans) of the articles in question to be ivolved in the discusion (see Here).  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It is obviously justified. It has been explained several times why it is obviously justified by several editors in these various discussions. You (or others) have not refuted at all any of the valid, obvious reasons, merely indulging in these pedantic complaints about the need for 'warning'. Interesting you should link that quote, since it's one of those that I was was refering to regarding TNN looking for impartial editors (yes, i.e. non-fans, complain all you want). You are reading something into that comment which just isn't there; you are also taking it out of context of the comments by krator and TNN below. TNN is at most complaining that opponents to the merge on the talk page will not provide valid reasons against it, hence the need to take the discussion elsewhere (and surprise, as soon as someone other than a sonic fan looks at them there is nothing but support for the merge). It's not like he looked up a load of deletionist/mergist users and posted on their talk pages. Bridies (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The actual merger may be able to be justified, but the removal of content and merger with out discussion has been shown as being unjustified! I am not opposed to a merger of content (there is a lot of un-needed, un-notable, un-godly rubbish), but I am opposed to the removal of content without a discussion! Sevaral of the one game chracters need to have their information (the better referenced, the better) merged with the games from which they come and the list that TTN proposes (and has made) doesn't work, it's a mess at the begining, and fails to cover anything about the characters that TTN themselfs decided not to includde (whos articles/sections were removed without discussion, leaving gaps in many game articles, that simply linked out to the main lists/articles, as a means of not having the same information in two places/articles, though it would actually be better served in the game article). I am not arguing against a merge, I am worried by the lack of respect shown to editors, just because they are fans, and I think removing content with out disscussion, and opening a new disscussion so that editors are ignorant of it (and as such continue to edit and improve articles that are already ear marked for removal, with out any attempt at an actual merger) is sneaky and underhand!
Please stop getting angry, and calm down, this is a discussion, you really have nothing to win or lose (merge or not, it is Wikipedia as a whole that is effected, no matter how small), and you are not going to bring me around to your way of thinking!  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not angry and there's nothing in to my posts to suggest I'm not calm. On the other hand your amusing love of the exclamation mark makes you seem hysterical, just a style tip there... You are just contradicting yourself, ignoring the points I (and others) have made, making vague claims about content without backing it up and insinuating that I'm abusing you when I'm merely arguing (as in debating...) with you. The fact you are not arguing against the merge is the actual problem. You are using these (very tenously founded) accusations as a means to oppose the merge by proxy, attempt to needlessly stall the merge and to detract attention from the fact you can't come up with a valid reason for the proposals just to go ahead without all this needless 'warning' and 'discussion'. I like how you borrowed TNNs 'win or lose' argument, but it's not quite applicable to your viewpoint, nor especially relevant to what we're talking about here. There's nothing wrong (or 'fighty') about taking exception to unsupported accusations of vandalism (I'm mainly talking about fairfield up there, but you seem to tacitly support him) and asking for an explanation. Anyway, since you apparently no longer oppose the merge ('I am not arguing against a merge') then I'll let everyone get back to making it happen. Bridies (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If you will notice, this sub-section was stated by myself, in an attempt to prepare for what future this merger may bring, thus it's titled Merger Plans, but I seem to be the only one planning for a actual merger of content (and not just a removal)! Yes, I whole heartedly agree that removal of content without warning is vandalism, and there are no tactics used to suport anyone in that belief! I have never opposed the merger of 90% of the articles, and I only oppose the way that TTN has gone about all this! If the result of the merge is the article that TTN originally used for the list (though I now agree with the one list per media idea), by proxy or not, I oppose a merge, unless it's done with a bit more skill! I have alrady stated a valid reason to not go ahead and just merge without warning: "Editors are continuing to edit and improve articles that are already ear marked for compleat removal", merger tags would show just what is happening, to which articles and where it's all going to end up, as things could still do with being merged into the game articles they are from and such, and as I state the tags would help with actually finding the relevent parts the merge (parts of some) sections into!
I don't Love the exclamation mark (we're just good friends), though I do use it a lot, and how do you know that I am not hysterical? I could be on fire at my end of the interweb super highways wires, but that's my choice/habit! I can also end everything with... I do that...  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Doktor Wilhelm's got a point, Bridies. You guys should really talk about actually merging stuff, not just removing content. I can understand removing repetitive plot summaries, but this isn't what you're here to discuss. Start a new section for that. I'll do it myself so you guys can discuss it; I'm starting my sabbatical at the end of the day, so I'll leave you guys with that.

The merge is not going to happen. It is has already been proven that people are against this merge, (in case your'e wondering I'm talking about the first discussion). Not everyone has had there say yet and they have a right, it needs to be posted on discussion pages where the discussion is being held, I myself wasn't aware that the discussion had been moved. I thought it was all over and done with it was only through the Dok that I found out while he was trying to salvage a page, and if it can happen to me then it can anybody.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Whatever happened to the merger discussion? Now I am against it, mind you, but I'm lost here; what happened to it? Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE DO NOT USE THESE TAGS, YET!!!

These are my ideas for merger tags, but they could be placed on all relevent articles, there are seven merger tags that could apply to chracters from each media:

  • {{mergeto | List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) | discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters }}
  • {{mergeto | List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie Comics series) | discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters }}
  • {{mergeto | List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (Sonic the Comic) | discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters }}
  • {{mergeto | List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (Sonic X) | discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters }}
  • {{mergeto | List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (SatAM cartoon) | discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters }}
  • {{mergeto | List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (Sonic Underground) | discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters }}
  • {{mergeto | List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog) | discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters }}

If there are any issues with these, then please let me know, my problem at the moment is that all besides the first tag, do not yet have articles (are there any?), but the discussion wikilink on each one leads back to here, and the top where TTN's first comment is (this can be changed to a less cluttered talk page, or maybe a sub-tak page here!), the original seven articles to be kept (Sonic, Tails, etc) need to have merger tags created to be placed on the aricles for that character in its various other media, so that it's know that only one article is going to be used for all of the information on that character!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

Okay, I started this subsection for all discussion of removal of content, so it's not discussed in the merger plans above. Anyway, I think repetitive plot summaries can be removed without much hassle, but as for everything else, I want you guys to voice your opinions here. Redphoenix526 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was using 'delete' and 'merge' pretty much interchangably, since the idea was to delete content within the articles then merge what was left. But, with regard to just deleting specifically, I'll use Blaze the Cat as an example, since this is one of the articles I'm aware is considered contentious (in terms of whether to delete content and/or merge). Everything in the 'personality' and 'interaction with other characters' should be removed. These are essentially plot sections and fall under the whole not notable, innane, unnecessary, too long arguments/guidelines/policies I've been talking about. The plot content in the 'game appearances' section is quite short but considering there is nothing but plot content, should probably still be trimmed back. I'm mainly thinking about the sonic 15th anniversity section. 'Blaze appears in the 15th Anniversary of Sonic the Hedgehog': as an extensively playable or otherwise important character? Do any (third party) sources talk about her in the context of her importance to this game? If not (it's not clear), the big plot section is unnecessary. The games don't need to be subsections, at least not all the one sentence sections. Those should be one subsection (entitled, for example, 'other appearances'), which would be easier on the eyes and scrolling. To be honest the whole thing could be one section of a paragraph or two. With regards to the 'abilities' section I'm unsure. It seems like it's supposed to be a gameplay section, but due to bad writing and lack or referencing it's unclear; it could be just more plot content (refering to say cut scenes, comics or whatever). It's tinged with OR and maybe game guide info: for example, 'This has been proven in the multiplayer mode of Sonic Rush' and 'she is able to throw fireballs similar to the Hadouken'. It should at least be rewritten with reference to game manuals (for example; other relevant sources are good too) to make it clear what it's talking about. I should indeed be able to just remove the plot stuff 'without much hassle' (and post this on the relevant talk page), I'm curious about opinions though. I'd also like to know what articles members of this project oppose merging/trimming/deleting outright and which they don't (and whether they think it needs trimmed, deleted, merged, trimmed and merged, whatever). Bridies (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me just say that of the characters I'm a little awkward with in the merge, Blaze is probably the least of my concerns, though still one. I think either Rouge the Bat or Silver the Hedgehog is a bigger concern. Anyway, let's please consider the merge and deletion of content separate, for organizational purposes. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All is quiet on the merger-front

I've a feeling it's not over, but the silence says to me, that for now the attempt to merge all the Sonic articles is on hold? or has been stopped all together (if only)! Though this happened before and TTN took the discussion elsewhere!  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TNN hasn't been active for a couple of weeks. Bridies (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that merging and redirecting (and in some cases proposing deletion) isn't supposed to be done at the moment. Disputes such as the one here occur frequently, not just on the topic of video-games but on TV (for example) as well. As such, there's a few discussions going on regarding a possible change in policy that would allow articles such as these to exist, or to clarify policy making them easier to delete/redirect/merge. or something. Bridies (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit of a minefield, but if you are interested: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 is an example. WP:FICT is undergoing a rewrite, although it doesn't seem to change much as far as I can see. Bridies (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
One problem that I have with all of this, is that TTN is involved in it all, and is usually the one that a lot of the complaints, that are causing the need for change, are about! I know that "merging and redirecting (and in some cases proposing deletion) isn't supposed to be done at the moment", but when it's been about a month, without any tags beeing added (yes, that old thing again) it seems like the articles are staying as is, or a 'sneak attack' is being planed (but that may just be paranoia)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He causes plenty of complaints, yes, but you'll also find people supporting him; as well as complaints regarding inclusionists disrespecting policy and other editors. And yeah the debate is taking ages (there's a complaint about that on the arbcom page...) but still the articles are supposed to stay as they are until we hear otherwise (I think). Bridies (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
TTN gets plenty of complaints because not only is he a Deletionist-Mergist-Redirectionist, but he is also very bold. Admittedly, I would be a complainer if I had something to complain about, being an inclusionist and an eventualist myself, but he does what he likes to do and as Bridies mentioned above, he has supporters and a consensus several times. Though Doktor Wilhelm has an excellent point, and it is something to consider. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles is up for deletion.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons against merging

I'm starting this subsection because for those trying to gain a consensus against the merger, we've had some problems organizing our reasons against the merger. I'll admit that I'm not against the merger of everything, but I am against the merger of Silver the Hedgehog, Blaze the Cat, Rouge the Bat, and Cream the Rabbit (and some others, too, but much less so than any of the others.) Anyway, I believe, particularly for these four, that notability can be established, though it's not crystal clear yet. I hereby leave this subsection for any comments who are against the merge to put up logical comments that provide legitimate reasons against merging. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cream can probably stand alone, as there's enough sources to demonstrate notability. Bridies (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the Merger Front is Quiet

Here's the reason: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Looks like a short-term victory for the anti-merge group, and a chance for us to get some notability established to prevent the merge completely. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only TTN that's restricted from merging stuff. Although that may be your point... Bridies (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That is my point. He was the major proponent of the merger. I understand that you supported him with it, as did a few others, but really it was him who had this merger all set up and knew how he wanted to do it. Now that he's restricted for now, I want to use this time and encourage editors to give aid to some of those articles. I'm not saying some of them shouldn't be merged; read my points above. But those that I believe should stand alone, I've got more time to help them when I'm done with the articles I'm working on now. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 14:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Breathing a sigh of relief

I thought I'd let you all know that I finally finished filling out the table for all the blue-linked games at List of Sega video game franchises. Wow, that took longer than I expected it to. Anyway, I'd like for the members of this project to read over the list and keep an eye out for any franchises that have been missed. The list was already made before I got to it, so chances are it's not an extensive list. Thanks in advance for all your help. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 05:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Within any article related to Sonic the Hedghog there seems to be constant vandalsim, various ISP Numbers keep adding Rocky the Jaguar related sections and additions, the Rocky the Jaguar vandalism seems to be a parady of Sonic the Hedgehog (includding but not limited to Rocky X being added to the Sonic X voice casts articles and so on), I really don't know where this comes from, but it's a pain! a lot of it seems to go compleatly unnoticed for months, if anyone finds anything in a Sonic related article relating to Rocky the Jaguar, please remove it! I've a feeling the vandalism must come from a message board, or such, as it has been going on for such a long time with so many different ISPNs.  Doktor  Wilhelm  14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye out. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually monitoring the articles on my watchlist when I get the chance so you can count on me.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Hey Dok can you give me a list of where this Rocky has struck, I'm going to try and track down the guy who did it through history.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

I'm not sure, it was several Japanese Voice actors articles, where I guess editors don't pay as much notice as main game articles! I could provide ISPNs (after a bit of a search), but each time the ISPN just seems to do a quick bit of vandlism, and then goes quiet! Also the main article that gets the vandalism seems to be Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog).  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put Chao on my watchlist so I'll be keeping a close eye on it should this guy try vandalising it again.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

I've found the guy his name is 90.202.89.197, (by the way I thought I'd let you know list of Dr. Eggman's vehicles is up for deletion).Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

there's also 90.202.89.144, so it's someone from 90.202.89.???! I'm not sure about the vandalism from longer ago, but if it's from a 90.202.89.???, maybe we're onto something. Anyways, just look out for anything sneaked into articles, or already there, I doubt there's anything that can actually be done about various ISPNs, but we can make sure that the vandalism doesn't stay around for to long (they go to such legnths for it, if only they put that energry into improving articles).  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one of his identities 90.202.89.78.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, The Chao article was attacked again, with some thing different [2], it seems though it is all from 90.202.89.???: 90.202.89.78, see also [3] & [4]. There's also 90.202.89.128, 90.202.89.6 & so on and so forth! Is there anything that can be done about this? I may see if I can have the ISPN blocked, but I'm not sure where to start!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He just attacked the Chao article again.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've took this matter up with Incidents part of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
An updated link Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive382#Vandalism_to_Sonic_The_Hedgehog_related_articles. Someone there found more vandalism within the same ISPN range. though it all seems to have calmed down? though I may just be missing it?  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocky the Jaguar just struck the Chao article again going by the name. 90.209.160.198Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They also added fake voice actor detail to the Sonic chracter page, and also the voice acter involved. I've not heard anything from the Administrators' noticeboard.  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like your changing IP problem is because whoever is editing this is doing it on a dialup connection. With dialup, your IP isn't saved; the computer assigns an IP for you depending on your region/other details, which is why the IP numbers are so close. It's different every time you log on. Blocking a whole set of these numbers can be problematic for others who make edits on those IP's if that's the IP they're randomly assigned to. This is probably why we've heard nothing from the administrators. Red Phoenix (Talk) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sega Arcade Boards

I usually turn up some issues when I'm doing a lot of assessments, and this is something I turned up and thought "Hey, I see some potential here". There's a lot of Sega arcade board articles that are very short and either Start or Stub-class. Mostly, they're short system summaries with lists of the games on each arcade board. I propose a merger of these articles into one list. We will keep all of the information and the lists, but organize them, format them in a more organized way (perhaps a table), and put the articles in one organized list. Any arguments for or against it? And if we do this, I'm going to need some help organizing all this information. I'll be turning up all of the articles and creating a list, then I'll organize it in my sandbox. Everyone is free to help me if we have a consensus to merge. Anyway, what do you guys think? Redphoenix526 (Talk) 13:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, maybe this could also be done with Sega's Pinball tables? I've not seen one that is more than a stub, but I think the fact that sega produces pinball tables is rather notable? (I could have a go with the pinball articles myself? I've been rather busy of late, so it'll be nice to do something on wikipedia)  Doktor  Wilhelm  15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, do you have a sandbox, Doktor Wilhelm? You could mess with the pinball tables while I mess with the arcade boards. Any other opinions on the merger of the articles about the arcade boards or the pinball tables? I think there's about 50 of them or so, so this will be a huge merger. I'll get started, but something else (read the next topic) has got my attention for now. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list of articles to be merged. I got this from the Arcade system board article, so there are some red links, and there may even be some articles missing.


If anybody finds more, please list it here so I will know.

This turned out to be a whole lot more information than I had imagined. Would it be possible for us to merge the arcade system boards and the arcade games into two separate lists? Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Unleashed

For those who haven't heard there's a new Sonic game coming out for the Main Series. I have put it in our scope under stub class low importance.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the news; it certainly looks interesting. As WikiProject Sega, it should be our duty to watch over this article closely, as it is an unreleased game and may contain lots of speculation eventually, similar to what Super Smash Bros. Brawl did before the release. We should also keep an eye out on Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood and watch for speculation. So please keep an eye out, everyone. Red Phoenix (Talk) 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Another New List

I've finally started work on the merger of the arcade board articles (wow, the list of franchises really took a long time to finish) and I've created a new list by merging some content: List of Sega arcade games. Take a look, what do you think? I think it's better organized than having the embedded lists on every one of those system board's articles. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Art Archive

For those who would like to upload some Sonic images for wikipedia but don't know where to look here's a site to help you.

There is also a site called TeamARTAIL where you can find alot of Sonic X images.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The first link isn't working for me. it says it can't find the server. Red Phoenix (Talk) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

odd, it works for me now, too. I guess maybe I chose a poor time to click the link, when their server was down or something. Red Phoenix (Talk) 20:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It does the same thing to me sometimes.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcade board merger

It's finally ready to be put up. I'm going to call the article Sega arcade system boards. It will be up shortly, but in the mean time, it's in my sandbox. I need your help, though, because there are a couple arcade boards I'm missing because there's no article. These are Sega System 2, Sega System E, and the Sega Hikaru. If you guys stumble across a couple of sources for these boards, can you let me know? Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Behold! List of Sega arcade system boards! Red Phoenix (Talk) 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Building the Eggman Empire

I propose a merge and recreation to make a single article. What I suggest is this, we merge Eggman's robots, recreate Dr. Eggman's vehicles and flying fortresses to make a single article known as the Eggman Empire.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Care to tell us who you are? I'll presume you're Fairfieldfencer because it sounds like you, knowing how much you defended the Eggman vehicles article in the AfD. Anyway, the idea's not too bad at all, if you can prove some notability for all this content, but seriously, Eggman Empire? I'd reconsider the name, maybe like List of Dr. Eggman's creations or something of the sort. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to know me pretty well, sorry about not leaving my name. Anyway I've got 2 sources to get the info from, notification I can't give you right now.

  • A site called sonic news network that I found recently.
  • The Doctor Eggman article, recently a user put all the information from the deleted articles on to the article all we have to do is go through history to get it. And by the way, I figured we should just merge the info with the Eggman's robots article and give it a different name.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't supply notification but this person who suggested keep on the Afd can tell you why it's notable. I'm not suggesting contact him, I'm suggesting take a look at what he's written. WP:Articles for deletion/Dr. Eggman's flying fortressesWP:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles.

I'd say you can probably establish notability with all of that, though it may not be enough. I'm not saying it's not notable, because I believe that's not true. It's just establishing that that may prove to be the problem. Anyway, if you choose to get this started, I suggest you get this set up in a sandbox attached to your userpage and get it finished before you create the article, since it seems that Sonic articles like this are under a bit of an AfD attack. Although you don't have to do this, I wouldn't mind looking at it and giving you some input before you put it up, to make it better. When you have it published, I'll help you maintain it, too. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a sandbox is, is that the show preview section. (By the way I was thinking about including the Death Egg but I'm leaving out E-Series).Fairfieldfencer (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find my sandbox here. Basically, it's a space where you can set up changes to Wikipedia articles that you're working on, user page stuff, or whatever you're working with at the moment. To make one, go to your userpage and insert [[/Sandbox]] anywhere on the page. When you save the page, it will be a red link. Now you can create the page by clicking the red link and just starting it with some basic text or something. You can now remove [[/Sandbox]] if you want, but you might want to leave yourself a link to your sandbox on your userpage. On mine, I just created a table that lists all of my pages and has links to them, but there's many ways you can create a link to your sandbox. It's a very useful space to have. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started work on the article today, what do you think. User:Fairfieldfencer/SandboxFairfieldfencer (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, Fairfieldfencer, it's pretty hollow; no actual content as of now. You can't just list the games, but I think you know that and are just getting it set up, like I am with my arcade board merger (User:Redphoenix526/Sandbox). As for the enemies section, that doesn't need to be there. It doesn't fit into the article. It might be a good idea to skim over the important characters in the opening paragraph to your article, but it doesn't really plug in well to the article the way you have it formatted now. I'll keep looking at it as you make progress, though. Whenever you would like me to take another look, just say so on my talk page, and I'll take a look and leave some commentary. Red Phoenix (Talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I plan on doing the rest of the info tomorrow. So should I get rid of the allies and enemies sections and replace the army section with the info from enemy robots. You can call me FFF for short by the way saves a whole lot of typing time.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That would really be the best option, yes. But, seeing as how you've got it set up by game, you could mention Shadow and Rouge and everyone else in their respective game sections. Just make sure to cite it and not be overly abusive on plot summary, as per WP:PLOT. Oh, and did we ever get this issue about the article's name sorted out? Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at what the video gaming press have written on the subject. That will largely dictate what should (or shouldn't go) go in the articles. To be perfectly honest, I'm sceptical whether much of what you are proposing is suitable. The robotnik's vehicles list was deleted for a reason (several reasons rather). Again, I highly recommend having a look a look at what critical resources have to say about this topic. If it isn't covered, it shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. Secondary sources should be your first port of call. Bridies (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I hate to tell you this, Bridies, but I've already told FFF that he had better have sources for this. I also recommended that he make this in his sandbox first. It is at this time I'd like to point out that Bridies is an exclusionist on Wikipedia, so his philosophy is to have less articles, and the articles that are on should be determined by notability (speak up if I've got this wrong, Bridies). But this is part of why I invited him to the project, because we need people with multiple viewpoints here. For example, I'm an inclusionist, and I'm pretty sure FFF and Doktor Wilhelm also are. My belief on the subject is this: let's wait until FFF has the article completely made in his sandbox (with references) and then let's take a look. There's no need to jump the gun on something that's not finished yet. Red Phoenix (Talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Exclusionism refers to 'excluding' unnecessary content within articles. The number of articles on Wikipedia and the notability of those articles doesn't really come in to it; that's kind of the point, what differentiates it from deletionism. Articles should still demonstrate notability according to guidelines however, and more imporantly: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. (from WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT). It makes sense for Fairfieldfencer to check that the topic is valid (i.e. notable) by looking for coverage in sources beforehand (especially since a similar article has recently been deleted) and that 'real-world' information (generally only found in secondary sources) is available at all. Bridies (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Bridies. As I mentioned, I am an Inclusionist generally, though I follow a moderate form of Eventualism more than I do inclusionism. Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article hasn't even been made yet and you're discussing about deleting it. Just wait until the article is finished and then we can discuss about it being noteworthy, the only one who's time will be wasted here is mine if it proves unnoteworthy.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fairfieldfencer. And even if it proves unnoteworthy, he can save it and work on it later and maybe eventually it will be seen as noteworthy with sources. Red Phoenix (Talk) 03:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been having trouble with the reference section, (actually I haven't started the references yet, but when I make reference sections for articles the references don't go there), any idea what I'm doing wrong.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Add a {{Reflist}} or <references/> in the "References" section (example). --Silver Edge (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What to call it

I have suggested we call it the Eggman Empire. Redphoenix526 has suggested List of Dr. Eggman's creations. If anyone else would like to submit a name or give some advice please feel free to do so.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairfieldfencer, are you setting this up like a list or an actual article? That will have something to do with how this ends up. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you think would be better. (And I thought you didn't need to use the word list even if it is a list, my examples of this are E-Series, Other characters, Minor villains, and Enemy robots).Fairfieldfencer (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

'Eggman Empire' sounds like original research, i.e. a term you made up yourself. Bridies (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 'Eggman Empire' is a term Eggman used in Sonic X to define his ultimate goal of conquest. Nonetheless, I still don't believe it's an appropriate term, which is why I proposed the list term above. If you decide to format it as an article instead of a list, the "list of" part could be knocked off my original idea. I'm still open for more ideas, and I think it's still a little awkward. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it be OR when it is used in the video games and the TV series Sonic X, in fact a previously deleted article was called Eggman Empire. And if you're wondering where Eggman says it in the games it's in Shadow the Hedgehog where he says. "How can I take over the city and build the Eggman Empire if there is no city!!!"Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

not OR then, just innappropriate Bridies (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have still proven that I didn't make the name up, and that it has been used in the games making it more appropriate as the article will be about things asocciated with the Eggman Empire.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Bridies, you're a bit late on that one. I already said that. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We still need to choose a name.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still skeptical on the whole Eggman Empire name, because it seems that that article would be about the lands Eggman controls (which was always kind of random, if he ever had any at all lol). This is why I proposed the name I did, but it still feels a bit awkward. I'm open to other suggestions for this. Red Phoenix (Talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about List of Dr. Eggman's technology.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it still feels awkward. I'd feel more confident using a term out of some piece of Sonic media for this, but I doubt such a term exists. Red Phoenix (Talk) 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about List of enemy technology in the Sonic the Hedgehog (series).Fairfieldfencer (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That just feels even weirder. I guess I'd be good with "List of Dr. Eggman's creations" or "List of Dr. Eggman's technology", whichever one consensus decides is more appropriate. Red Phoenix (Talk) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me with the first one.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sega AM3 and Hitmaker

These are two articles about the same company. Shall we merge Sega-AM3 into Hitmaker? Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Never mind, I'm just going to redirect it myself, there's no actual content to merge. Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you guys know

This isn't relevant to the project, but I thought I'd let you guys know I'm now User:Red Phoenix instead of User:Redphoenix526. I'm still the same person, just with a new name (see here for the reason why). Red Phoenix (Talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Project

Nice to see what you have done with the project, its going real well, i never thought it would have this much success Gaogier Chat! - Leader & Creator

Hey, Gaogier. It's good to see you're at least making some effort to show up. Any luck on appealing your block? Red Phoenix (Talk) 20:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I need some help

Hey, I've gotten myself into a conflict with an editor at the Miles "Tails" Prower article. Sounds like he didn't take a liking to my gutting the article in an attempt to clean it up. This is going to get into a consensus discussion, anyone want to contribute? Red Phoenix (Talk) 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, guys, we've worked this out. That was easier than I thought. Red Phoenix (Talk) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad banner

I've created an ad banner for the project that we can put on our userpages to bring people to the project. It's nothing brilliant, because I'm not great with images, but here it is.


Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega
Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega

Tell me what you think. Should we use it? Red Phoenix (Talk) 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's now a part of Wikipedia Ads. Hopefully we'll get some more membership out of people seeing the ad now. Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (character)

This article is about to have its GA status delisted due to its problems. Anyone want to contribute and maybe fix it? Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaos Control

Was the article ever sorted out becuase Magiciandude has turned the article into a redirect .Fairfieldfencer (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We never really discussed what to do with it, but the discussion did go dormant for quite a while. I'm not sure there wasn't anything that wasn't useful from that article, though. We can discuss it here. We can also use this [5] to determine what could possibly be kept, as it was the latest revision prior to the redirect. I suggest that we avoid anything about translation in the references section, though. Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Magiciandude and told him it's time to discuss what we should with the article.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I also redirected Blue Sphere since it was only about a secret game. I'd say a quick brief summary of what Chaos Control is all is needed and a few examples of how it was used. Of course, it's late from where I live, so I'll think of more later. Magiciandude (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You couldn't merge Blue Sphere into Sonic and Knuckles? I'd say it's relevant information to the lock-on feature of Sonic and Knuckles. Red Phoenix (Talk) 03:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just took a look and there already is a relevant section. Red Phoenix (Talk) 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A surge of new members

To all our newer members: where did you all come from? We're glad you're here; welcome to The Sega Project. Red Phoenix (Talk) 16:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Playlists

For users who don't have certain Sonic games or haven't completed them yet I have put together this.

Sonic Playlists

It is a list of Sonic story cutscenes I've put together on youtube, (although I didn't upload them), so you can be sure you've put in the right info and undo other edits that are incorrect that you weren't sure about before. Just click on one of them and you shall see the entire story of that game. If there is a Sonic story that you'd like to see to help with edits just contact me on my wikipedia talk page and I'll see what I can do.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be very helpful. Red Phoenix (Talk) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The current playlists are listed below:

Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He's back

TTN is back.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, oh well. We'll deal with him. We've got a WikiProject with over 30 members (even if some of them aren't active members) and many more supporters, and if he brings up that merger discussion again, we'll have a consensus waiting to go against him. I've never been in an edit war before, but if it's what it takes to keep the articles I think should stay (which is at least Silver, Rouge, Cream, Blaze, and E-123 Omega, which I originally didn't think should stay but your improvements have changed my mind, Fairfieldfencer). Those articles also have more sources now than what they had the last time we heard this proposal, so we'll be better prepared if he brings it up again. Red Phoenix (Talk) 04:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't think he would join the project do you.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

TTN? He didn't do it last time, why should now be any different? The reason Bridies is part of the project is because I asked him to be, for the purpose of having some additional opinions (let's face it, while it's easier to get consensus among a bunch of inclusionists and eventualists like us, we do need one person to kind of keep us in check). I'm not going to invite TTN to the project, and I seriously doubt he'll join. We need to keep working on the Sonic character articles, though, the only thing these deletionist-mergist-redirectionist Wikipedians understand is improvement. We've made progress, but we need to make more. Red Phoenix (Talk) 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping watch on his talk page and I just found out he can't edit video game & TV aticles for 6 months. On a side note: I put up an explanation why he'd been away for so long, (I thought it was the fact that he'd been suspended), and he removed it saying it had nothing to do with that.Fairfieldfencer Click me to have a talk with FFF 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Red Phoenix

I don't think will be coming back for a long time, they have no plan to let me come back at all even when they look at all i have contributed, i may make an effort to show up now and again but the point, i feel like some sort of bandit :( when i haven't really done anything wrong, i wish i could come back but even if i did get my account back i probably wouldn't be running this project anymore would i? or would i?, and by the way i do think this layout seems to be making the project easier to get around but maybe change to a layout something more like the play-station projects layout, i will make a nicer banner for you if you like as i think the quality of the new banner isn't really good enough to make the project look good enough but its a good try, shall i make one? please reply i am reading. - Gaogier Chat! - Leader & Creator 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a few images but i cannot upload them sorry, i tried... i am reading and replying here but i will also reply to messages on my talk page, thank you, - Gaogier Chat! - Leader & Creator 12:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gaogier Red phoenix doesn't usually reply to these messages until about 9:00 PM English time, (I think its something to do with his school hours, or the fact that he lives in Indiana), so just wait a little more until he responds.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the time, I do live in Indiana in the United States, so I'm a few hours behind you guys. Also, I have my college classes in the mornings, but I'm up earlier now to take care of some Wikipedia business (it's about 8:30 A.M. in Indiana right now.) It's a shame that you can't come back; if you've learned something from this whole experience then you should be given a second chance. When I spoke with Doktor Wilhelm about it after the block, he sounded apologetic to me (you can read it here). Speaking of Wilhelm, he hasn't been on in about three weeks. Be glad it's an indefinite block and not a ban; I'm sure a ban would be much harder to repeal. Perhaps if you try to appeal it again, you should apologize to the admin and tell him you've learned something; I've seen it work before. Yeah, with some admins, buttering them up works. Sometimes I think maybe I should be an admin, and I'd like to be, but I don't think I could ever nominate myself lol. The layout looks like a good run as it is (it was Doktor Wilhelm's idea), but I'm always open to change, perhaps if you want to build a new layout, you can create it in my sandbox below the article on DragonForce that I'm working on right now. I'd love a new ad banner, as I'm not great with .gif s. And if you can't upload them, why don't you send them to my email, and I'll upload them and give you full credit for them. Do you prefer GNU, CC, or public domain? My email should be in my infobox on my userpage. You are the alpha of this project, Gaogier, and had it not been for you, the Sega Project wouldn't be the Sega Project. Red Phoenix (Talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think anyone's really "running" this project. Fairfieldfencer and I keep it alive, but things have been a little slow. Maybe it's because you're the creative spark behind the project (though to be honest, I could've done without the purple and red templates that were on the project page in the first place.) We could always use more full time members, though, regardless of who's "running the project", since it looks like Doktor Wilhelm has abandoned Wikipedia lately. The Assessment Department has been inactive for weeks now and I've turned my focus to promoting more Sega articles to GA status (including Crush 40 and Sega Mega Drive), so I think we could use some help. If you do ever get your account back, I'm sure the project will want to welcome you back. Red Phoenix (Talk) 17:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I checked the time difference, there's five hours between you guys in England and me here in Indiana. So when it's 9 PM in England, it's only 4 PM here. And I have class in the mornings, so it makes plently of sense. Maybe I'll have to check the Sega Project earlier, as I'm certainly on Wikipedia earlier than that every day (usually about noon here, or 5 PM in England). Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your appeal Gaogier.Fairfieldfencer FFF talk 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck as well, Gaogier. I owe you quite a bit for starting this project which really kickstarted my way into Wikipedia. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, is the Sega project template really necessary at the Brawl talk page?

Because Sega has very little to do with with SSBB. I brought this up because I removed earlier but someone brought it up. If you ask me, adding Sega template would be like adding Konami template (it's an example), Legend of Zelda template, Pokemon template, and other templates. But we do not use the aforementioned templates because that is not what the game article is mostly about. Magiciandude (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Super transformation

I've been watching TTN's talk page and somebody's going to try and merge Super transformation with the game and character articles, (just a heads up).Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd rather merge it with Chaos Emeralds, to be honest. Let's face it, the current system isn't exactly working as it is. It is all in universe as it is. I'll take a look. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SSBB

A while ago, I removed Sega project from the SSBB page (though I'll admit I did it too hastily), but someone in my talk page asked me to bring up in this talk page. Anyways, Sega's involved in Brawl, is barely anything. However, I ask why would Sega project give an assessment rating for a none Sega game. Involving Sonic isn't quite enough really. It's the same reason why there isn't a Legend of Zelda template or Pokemon template. Yes, the team behind the two were also involved Brawl, but the templates aren't there because the series do not affect the game as a whole. Magiciandude (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I see there wasn't a barnstar for this project so i created one, what do you think ?
Notify me for any possible improvments

The Sega Task Force Barnstar
{{{1}}}
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

-- Cradel 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Got to say I love it! Thanks, Cradel! Oh, and thanks for doing our .svg image for us. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sonic character

Here we shall discuss the issue with the aforementioned template and see if we can come to consensus on the issue. Here is the issue, for everyone who is reading: Should we or should we not include information on this template, which directly involves this project, relating to statistics such as gender, age, weight, and height? This is my opinion on the issue: while absolute statistics themselves are uncyclopedic about height and weight, they can be used relatively in this case for relation of the size of one object to another, whether it is in universe or in universe to something out of universe. As for gender and age, well, these should stay for informational purposes in the userbox (at least gender, I think). Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated the height, weight, gender and age are some of the little real world info we have and a user could delete the articles on those grounds. God knows they've tried before.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not delete the article, but certainly delete the subtrivial statistics of a level of detail we don't even go into for real people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I already said, we don't know a lot of real people's height and weight.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at Template:Infobox animanga character, which is used in the majority, if not all, anime character articles. In that template, age and gender are fields, while height and weight are not. --Silver Edge (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Age and gender could probably go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because not many cartoon characters don't give away their height and weight.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it's subtrivial crap for people fictional or non-, and encyclopedias tend to try to be encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should go. I mean the info is sourced and official. And it is encyclopedic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Age and gender should stay, at least. You make the point that it's in the article already, A Man in Black, but I'll make this example. How many times do we put stuff like aliases, record labels, etc, that are already in the article into Template:Infobox musical artist? Just because it's redundant doesn't mean it shouldn't go in the infobox. The infobox is there to give people a quick listing of the important characteristics. As for height and weight, I've already made my case: absolute values aren't encyclopedic, but they should probably stay on a relative terms basis. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the Godzilla character articles, they list height and weight, and they're cited just like the Sonic character articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It should probably be removed there, too. Encyclopedia, not database of biographical information for fictional characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Although MiB's arguement sounds like just his opinion, User:Jappalang made a good arguement on Wikipedia_talk:VG#Sonic_info that his deleting them from the infobox complies with WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS. But since critters-smaller-than-the-average-human-adolescent-defeating-skyscraper-sized-monstrosities is a big theme of the Sonic series, properly sourced info like height and weight would probably best be served in the area that describes the character. I've been considering merging all the personality, abilities, and interactions sections into a section titled Portrayal (like how Cream the Rabbit wound up) to cut out unsourced speculation and super trivial stuff (like 'so and so met this other guy once so they are friends / allies'). Unlike most of the other existing sections, the info wouldn't be awkward in a section like that. What does everyone else think? Cigraphix (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Cigraphix, your right the height, weight, etc should be kept as it is all sourced. Oh you don't have to worry about the E-123 Omega article, that I'm sorting out myself.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
FFF, I respect the hard work you did on the character sections for Omega and Blaze (which is why I didn't touch them when I rewrote most of the others' Personality sections). But it doesn't seem that you're warming up to my Portrayal idea. It was just something I was thinking about that might cut the fat, discourage the addition of more, and provide a place where the w/h info would fit in. Cigraphix (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea is a very good one, getting rid unsourced things like that, but we're here to talk about the Sonic template.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Super transformation and Master Emerald With Chaos Emeralds

Hello. I am proposing a merge with Chaos Emeralds and Super Transformation. I believe that Super Transformation does not have sufficient real world information, and that merging with it Chaos Emeralds should make that article sufficient enough if we get sources from both and combine them. How's that sound? ZeroGiga (Contact) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (Eastern Time Zone)

As you can see from the above statement the head of the project is in favour of your proposal. Unfortunately he will not be able respond himself as he is currently busy with finals at his university. And thanks again for your help with the Cosmo article, we couldn't have remade it without your help.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see... This could take a while. So you're saying that we can't continue with this until he comes back? I can deal with that. Oh, and it's kinda ironic that you thanked me for helping you bring back the Cosmo article, when I was the one who deleted it in the first place, but you're welcome anyway. ZeroGiga (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The head of the project? Well, considering the absence of Doktor Wilhelm and the indefinitely blocked Gaogier, I guess I'm the senior member of the project. Anyway, I guess I can give you some help. I just can't give you that much while this is finals week. My last final is on Wednesday, and after that I should be fully active again. We can talk about this merger in the meantime, though, because there are some things to discuss. For example, TTN really wants to merge the info into the respective character articles. I think that might work, but it also might not. Let's take everything into consideration for this, I'll be checking this page at least a couple times a day during finals week. FFF, you can also make any points against it or whatever, I'd like to have consensus and hear all points of view rather than a simple, narrow-minded section. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I myself would like the article to remain as it is, but since it's lacking real world info the only way to save that info would be to merge it, (I would prefer with Chaos Emeralds instead of the character article). I would also like it to be a section over a paragraph.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's often the problem. We have articles we really would like to save, but unfortunately if they are ever to improve, sometimes we must merge or cut back. It's just the way it works sometimes. Personally, I think what TTN does on a regular basis is going overboard, but then again, I'm generally an eventualist and an inclusionist. Speaking of this merger discussion, why don't we also talk about Master Emerald while we're at it? There's been a merge tag up for a while now, and I personally consider the Master Emerald one of the Chaos Emeralds. Of course, should it get merged, it gets its own section and a good portion of the info stays. Just another point we should discuss. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was well aware of TTN's intentions as well. But just to tell you guys before you start pointing fingers, I'm not his proxy. I'm doing this on my own accord. I believe that Chaos Emeralds and the power within them would prove as usefull articles if we combine them. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I know your not one of TTN's "goons". If you were you'd want it in the character article like he does.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Super Transformation should definitely be redirected to Sonic the Hedgehog (series)#Super Transformation and the individual sections should end up in their main articles. While you guys really should just have those two emerald articles also redirect there, that's up to you at this point. Just add a paragraph or two into one of the sections of Chaos Emeralds if you really need them. Linking to the section should be no different than the article, so I see no need for it. TTN (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must disagree with you, TTN, and we'll let consensus decide what will happen, not just what you say. If we put together these three articles we have, we have united three articles centering around one gameplay concept. Then, when all of them are brought together, real world information will be easier to find. This is my viewpoint, and I believe it is also that of ZeroGiga and FFF, except that FFF would prefer them separate. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no meaningful real world information for any gameplay topic of this series. I have no idea why people are so optimistic about these kinds of things. Find me just one non-trivial sentence relating to any of these three concepts. If you can't do that in a few hours, good luck trying to get four to six paragraphs of it. TTN (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider yourself an immediatist, TTN? I think you've got to give these things some time to develop. I guarantee you the real world information you are questioning exists, it's all a matter of finding the information and sourcing it. That's part of my philosophy, Wikipedia is a work in progress and eventually the information will be there. By the way, people are optimistic because that is the inclusionist/eventualist points of view, that it will eventually happen and to include as much as possible. It's just another Wikipedia philosophy that is widely held, and generally it tends to conflict with your deletionist-mergist-redirectionist philosophies which seemingly just reduce the amount of articles and information. I also happen to hold the inclusionist/eventualist philosophy, though I do realize when some things must be done. Another reason people don't really take to you personally is because you're a very bold user in your edits, which I'll commend you for being bold, but it is annoying to other users often. I hope some of this has answered your questions, and I stand by what I originally proposed. The info's out there, trust me. It's just a matter of finding it and retrieving it. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you weren't allowed to edit wikiprojects and their talk pages TTN.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like TTN won't be able to reply to what I said. He just got himself banned for a week for editing a video game article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
lol, I hate to say it, but he does deserve it. Anyway, let's talk seriously here. Obviously none of us here (FFF, me, ZeroGiga) is in support of TTN's plan. So, let's follow through with our own. I can't be on a lot today, I do have to study for finals. Let's talk out what we need to merge here, what needs to possibly be cut (for redundancy, original research, etc.), and how to put it together. At the end of the week before TTN is unblocked, one of us will execute the merger and end this discussion. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should get rid of users but still list the abilities they have from Super transformation. I've only just realised that the information from Chaos Control is still to be merged. We need to pull off a huge merge and we still haven't discussed what we should do with Super transformation (other media). Oh RP thought I'd let you know I've invited RattleMan to the project.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, you can invite everyone you want. This is an open project, after all. Anyway, you're right about Chaos Control. We also should find some sources for that, but we can look through the past history for the Chaos Control redirect to get the page again. As for the users, why don't we take TTN's suggestion on that (wow, first time I've ever said that lol) and merge that info, or anything that's missing, into the respective character articles. I've taken a look, and the super transformation info for pretty much each of the characters in their own articles is pretty light, not to mention that quite a bit of the users section of Super transformation is sourced. We will keep the rest of the info and reassemble the Chaos Emeralds article with all of this information we have. Then we can start addressing the in-universe issues and the sourcing. Does that sound good for everyone? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the comics and the other media article, a lot of that is excessive plot summary. If there's anything useful in there at all, we can scrap it and maybe insert it into the various comic articles or comic character articles, or maybe even into the new article we are assembling for Chaos Emeralds. But so much of that article violates WP:PLOT that it's not funny. Let's talk about that, we need to consider what to do for this article. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the Sonic X section of other media be merged with List of characters from Sonic X under Dark Super Sonic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That could work if you can source it. A lot of the other media article is unsourced, but sure, that's up to you. I really don't know much about the comics, and I've never cared to since I don't consider them canonical. And thanks so much for the barnstar, FFF, I really appreciate it. I think after I'm off my break, I'll make the project a real barnstar image with the project logo over a star. It's a good replacement for the awards system we already have (though we get to keep our old awards as they are, of course). Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say merge the two, but exactly what section(s) has it been agreed to integrate them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What articles are you refering to?Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Meant where will super transformation and Master Emerald go to? I know the proposal is Chaos Emeralds, but exactly what section(s) in the page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I think features should be kept and users should be put into a passing sentence or something like this:
  • Sonic the Hedgehog
  • Miles "Tails" Prower
  • Knuckles the Echidna
  • Metal Sonic
  • Blaze the Cat
  • Silver the Hedgehog

Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start working on this merger in my sandbox. I should be able to start helping out more now that I'm done with moving back home after a year at college. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a basic concept set up. It's pretty much a copy and paste merger, but this setup should allow us to find out-of-universe information a lot easier and add lots of sources. I've cut away some of the original research (like the Gem Cut section, what was the point in that?) and I think the Users section of the Super transformation article could be split into each character's article. As for Super transformation (other media), I seriously recommend redirecting the article or maybe a prod. So much of it is terribly written. If someone can make sure that the information is in each character's article, we'll take care of it after making sure the notable information is secure elsewhere. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the guys at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab to tweak our logo a bit. They've outlined the logo in black, per my request, and made the logo a .svg vector graphic, per my instructions. The vector graphic looks better at higher resolutions than the raster graphic .png. What do you guys think? I'm planning on us using it in all of our stuff where the original logo is. Here's the image:

File:Hereimage.svg

Look good? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, much better.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start replacing all our template logos and such with this image. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Amazing, i wish i could be here to enjoy this *crys* - Gaogier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.235.247 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Task Force

Today, WikiProject Sega has given birth to the Sonic Task Force. It is currently an expanding task force and branch of this project. There are two shortcuts to the task force: WP:SEGA/S and WP:SONIC. You can use whatever you want to get there. If you're a Sonic fanatic, feel free to join our new task force. While there's no such thing as a true leader to a project or task force (though I seem to be the de facto leader of this project lol), I would like to leave Fairfieldfencer in charge of the new task force by practice only. Feel free to help out, go check out the page, etc. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sega/Archive_1&oldid=1028798808"