Talk:Sonic (2013 film)

New movies in theaters

Sonic the hedgehog movie in theaters soon next year in 2018 Kyle sand-wanek rich (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to List of unofficial Sonic media

I don't really see how this is notable enough for its own article. I mean, the entire article is three sentences. I'm considering redirecting it if no significant improvements are made in the next couple of days. Any thoughts? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - for reasons above, especially when we've got a list dedicated to documenting this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've been taking a break from editing Wikipedia articles recently, as I've been having physical issues, so I didn't see this in time apparently. I provided three independent and reliable sources about this film, thus demonstrating notability. Just because something is fan-made doesn't somehow disqualify it from getting its own article. What this page needs at this point is a plot summary. Maybe you can help me make it better instead of just deleting the page.--FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Nobody said that it couldn't have an article just because it was fan-made, we merely stated that the unoficially media article was a logical redirect target. The lack of plot wasn't really the issue either, if anything, it's more of an issue now, as the article is almost entirely plot, which violates WP:JUSTPLOT/WP:PLOTSUM - articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to be mostly in-universe plot summaries. That's not what encyclopedia articles. (Go look up The Lion King in an encyclopedia. You'll notices its not just one big paraphrasing of the plot.) The main issue is that there is very little in the way of sourcing or actual content about the subject. There's a few sources, but they're all very short and all just say the same few basic factoid. (It's a fan game! It's 18 minutes long! Jaleel White does the voice again!) Which is why its probably more appropriate to just have it as a small entry on the unofficial media list. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I added more information, in the hopes the page won't be deleted a third time. (Here's hoping!) The Lion King page is gigantic, because it was a major motion picture and there are gigantic amounts of things to say about it. I'm very curious to know why you guys are all vying for this article to be merged, while ignoring, say, 9 (2005 film) and Lifted (2006 film). --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I primarily work on video game related media - Sonic being an area of interest. I do very little in the realm of editing movie articles - I have little interest. Not that it matters, as no one has any responsibility to fix all of the problems of a certain content area. I have no idea what would possess you to think I'd be aware of issues at these very randomly selected articles, but you should read probably read up on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as it explains why this mindset is invalid on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Good point, I guess I lost my temper. Anyway, I noticed you put the "Notability" tag back on. It says, "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention" (emphasis added). If you look through the list of references, you'll see that there are quite a number of independent secondary sources, and at least three or four provide "significant coverage." --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I re-read your second post and have a better understanding of your position. However, you state that "they're all very short and all just say the same few basic factoid." The 2012 Crunchyroll article, the Inquisitr article, and the Escape Pod article are all of decent length; and as you can see by looking at the current state of the article, there are quite a number of additional things to say beyond the three exclamations you listed. I tried my best to shorten the plot summary as much as I can, so I'm not cheating the article's length.--FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT 2: I've created a request about this article on WikiProject Film (see here). If the members of that project also feel the page should be merged, I'll accept the decision. --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I've only added the notability tag once, the other time was another editor who added it. You shouldn't be removing tags like that when 2 separate editors agree with adding it, discussion are on going and no one else has agree to remove them yet, and you were the one to create the article in the first place. With a third person now questioning this having a stand-alone article below, the tag should definitely be re-added. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

FrostedPenguin87, a redirect is not the same as merge. Merge would mean that the contents of this article are worked into the contents of another. But redirecting to the list in question means that the contents must be reduced to the couple of lines the film has there plus a couple of refs. As far as I am concerned this film should be limited to the list entry. Some fan oriented sites that mention the film are not enough to make it a notable issue. Hoverfish Talk 01:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry, that's what I meant, I just used the wrong terminology. For future reference, what kind of citations would make this article considered notable? I've spent quite a bit of time reading up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines and really thought I had a firm grasp on them, but this experience has made me realize I have the wrong idea. First of all, it seems to me that the vast majority of pages related to video games reference fan-oriented sites for their sources. Also, the review on Escape Pod is definitely more than just a mention. If this film were notable (by Wikipedia's standards), what kind of references would I be finding? Thanks, --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, for example, sources like Eurogamer are technically considered reliable sources, it's just that, if you look at it, it is extremely short and say very little of substance. Same with the Complex source. It's extremely short, and if you readit, half of it is off-topic ramblings about 90s nostalgia. The actual content says very little other than "Here's a Sonic fan video. Watch it." You'd be hard-pressed to have people consider that to be significant coverage, which is the other aspect to be fulfilled beyond just having third party reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a link to the specific notability for films, beyond the general notability guideline, so if you haven't happened to read this yet, here is the page: WP:NFILM. I understand that if you go around category short films you will find lots that are no better than this one. Unfortunately this does not provide an excuse once the issue of notability is raised. Hoverfish Talk 16:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Hoverfish, that resource helps a lot.

I sincerely apologize for any of my previous actions that were unreasonable. I incorrectly thought I had a firm grasp on the term "significant coverage." This led me to honestly believe that the other editors were just ganging up on me to delete a page about a film they didn't like. I now see that I was just being a n00b... :P My faith in Wikipedia's democratic process has been restored, I accept the decision to redirect the page, and I'll only bring it back if I find enough significant coverage. But I still have a few specific questions:

(1) Does the Escape Pod review count as one of the necessary sources? (Obviously you need multiple, but I'm curious to know.) It definitely provides significant coverage, and looking at their About Us page, it at least looks like a legitimate source.

(2) This article on TSSZ News was removed from the page as an "unreliable source." Was this because TSSZ News is a Sonic news site and thus is biased toward Sonic? If that is the case, I don't see why that would matter in this case, since it's a direct quote from someone. Or is it that TSSZ News isn't considered reputable? They at least have an editor, and they have strict policies about maintaining factual accuracy. It would be helpful for future reference to understand how to determine if a site is considered reliable. Thanks! --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

TSSZ is not a reliable source because it's just an amateur fansite. The writer(s) have no professional credentials other than being "fans/enthusiasts".

I'm not familiar with "Escape Pod", but being a Wordpress blog started in 2017 generally isn't a likely trait of a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democratic process, although we do some "voting" to reach consensus between editors of an article. Consensus is "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." If in serious doubt about the notability of a source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is where a decision about it can be taken. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 15:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Some Wikiproject's have individual source noticeboards as well. WikiProject Video Games has WP:VG/S, and the music related WikiProjects have WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Editors can check their large lists of assessed sources, or ask/propose stances on other ones as well. I'm not sure if there's a film equivalent or not, but you can still always check these lists - many of these websites may cover film as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

To back up Serge, there's also a custom search, which only filters RSes. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, though its only based off the work done at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Custom Search would theoretically be extremely helpful; but I just tried searching sonic "eddie lebron" and it found the IGN article, but neither the Eurogamer nor the Complex articles, even though those sites are both listed as reliable on WP:VG. But those notice boards do look pretty handy.

Escape Pod is a podcast from 2005, according to the Wikipedia article. Looking at the About Us page, co-editor Divya Breed wrote the novel Runtime for Tor. The other co-editor, Mur Lafferty, wrote Six Wakes for Orbit. Looking down the long list of editors, many of them have had their work published. So even though the site is hosted on Wordpress, it seems fairly promising.--FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)