Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Sales

According to VGChartz, the game managed to sell 2.14 million units. I'd like that info added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.212.111 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No, VGChartz is not considered a reliable source. You need a better source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Development section

It should be expanded. There are plenty of things in the game's development that are notable enough for mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekeyboardman (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The reception of Silver the Hedgehog

There is no reason to say that Silver was poorly received based on ONE article. The majority of Sonic characters aren't held in the highest regard, and Silver's case is no different. There is no reason to mention Silver's relegations because most Sonic characters have had similar treatment after this game.Megamachomuscle (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not an uncommon sentiment. I can dig up more sources if you're really challenging this... Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, then. But I can also prove that Silver does have a fanbase as well. And again, Silver wasn't relegated because of his reception. He's been treated the same way as most of the other characters since after this game was released. Megamachomuscle (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The information doesn't say that he was relegated because of his poor reception. It's two separate sentences/ideas. If you want to reword it, since you seem to have a problem with the word "relegated", that's fine, but it's true that he hasn't had any "starring" roles since this game. He's not being singled out, as it clearly states that Elise hasn't appeared in any games.
• When there are arguments regarding content, per WP:BRD, the challenged information isn't removed until consensus (or agreement) can be found. (Additionally, you usually don't remove the information in question because it's hard for anyone to see it and comment about it here if it's removed, right?) I'm adding the information back into the article, only remove it if there's WP:CONSENSUS to remove it in these discussions here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There are now three sources supporting Silver being poorly received. More can be dug up if need be I'm sure. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

According to what I have red,Silver had been mix received.~Tailsman67~ 74.163.16.121 (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Ratings

NO! Why did we get rid of the ratings? I don't care WHAT you say; video game ratings are probably one of the most important elements of a video game. Sure we didn't do it for movies, but that is no reason to delete it. You'll never listen to me, but I'll find a way to get it back. You wait and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you so upset about? What ratings? Sergecross73 msg me 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The video game ratings, such as ESRB and PEGIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The removals of the rating from the infobox are explained here. Hounder4 (Talk) 22:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world are you so worked up over them being removed? I figured your favorite website's review got removed because it wasn't deemed reliable or something. Why so much passion over ESRB ratings?? Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Two things

OK, so I see that you say Silver is negatively reviewed. Incorrect. Silver is mixed reviews, an the Sonic News Network has links to prove it. And don't worry, they are just as strict on links as you are. Trust me, I've been a contributer there. Next, this is highly opinional. but 06 isn't a bad game. 1/3 of it isn't. Sonic's story is the perect game thing, and graphics, presentation, visual things, and music are absoloutely positively amazing. But that's jst me. SDC1998 User talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.178.156 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Please provide these links from SNN to see if they qualify as Wikipedia's standard for being a reliable source.
2. Sorry, but Wikipedia just covers what reliable sources say, not your personal opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Screwattack

This page seems to be protected.

While it is not the total sales figures, I believe this screw attack link, shows that the Xbox 360 version sold 400,000 in North America alone, and that might be worth the inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan-Murphy (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

They said they received the figure from "Retro Gaming Blog", which is not a reliable source. Even much of ScrewAttack isn't considered a reliable source, it violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor reception of Elise and Silver

I don't understand the grounds for removal. Starting a discussion since Tezero has reverted 3 times now. (My second edit summary was a typo - I meant to say arent valid reason for removal. ) Sergecross73 msg me 22:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that neither is notable for coverage anywhere on Wikipedia; rather, I don't see why it should be there. Silver's been in way more than just '06, so his reception should all be in the character list. With Elise the situation's a little less clear because she indeed was only in '06, but I really don't think it was a wide enough criticism (it seems like UNDUE to claim that she was simply "poorly received" based on two comments, one of which was from Blistered Thumbs, which has already been deemed unreliable), and even if it were, it should be in Reception, not Legacy. Oh, and thanks for clarifying the typo; I hate when people simply revert edits with a "because I said so". Tezero (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Silver, I'll concede your point, unless I dig up some sources especially complaining about him in this game in particular. I fully disagree with Elise though. All the sources complaining about the implied romance between her and Sonic shows that critics did not approve of her as a character. Maybe her not being well received should be moved up there then? Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any just talking about her, but whatever. About Silver, I have seen a little commentary on him in this game (that's most of how he had an article in the first place - albeit it's not really as a character, moreso just gameplay) - but in order to go in Legacy, this commentary would have to not only criticize Silver, but discuss this game's role in cementing him as a recurring character, and that I think is very unlikely. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care where it goes, I just object to the outright removal. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine; I can peruse the sources for comments about them if you want. (I really don't remember Silver's reception being universally or almost universally negative, but whatever I see I'll add.) It's worth noting that I was also upset because your reversions got rid of some grammar/formatting changes I'd done, but that's in the past now. Tezero (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to your other changes. That's why its good to not make too many changes in one edit though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Silver the Hedgehog is more appreciated than Elise. Just a reminder that Worst Sonic Characters lists like by Official Nintendo Magazine or Gamespot doesn't count because they include Tails, Amy, Knuckles, Shadow, Cream, and Blaze in those lists, even though those characters are more purposeful in the series. People trash talk on Sonic characters all the time. We can only accept 3D Sonic games having problems. Silver is liked by some critics like X-ONE Magazine UK, Issue 14, pg. 82 says he's "pretty cool." "Decent" just like Shadow by Xboic. The links might be dead or published in magazines, both of these are still, in fact, posted on Metacritic. And yes, fans hate Silver, at least because of the boss battle where he can defeat Sonic before he can fight back. They do like Silver later on in the series. When he appeared in Generations, he became a fan favorite. Even he is my favorite Sonic character. About Elise, I agree that she is the worst character in the game because her relationship with Sonic. That Beauty and the Beast reference where she kisses Sonic is the scene I hated so much. Even if she's giving him CPR, we're still wondering "What was Sega thinking?" Amy would never let anyone fall in love with Sonic, at least Silver is shocked by that. Luigithemetal64 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of that is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, so we only document what reliable sources say, not our personal opinions or vague interpretations how a fanbase feels. So that eliminates most of your points above. The only thing you said beyond that is considerable is the statement by X-One Magazine UK, though though I'm unfamiliar with them, and do not know if they're a reliable source. Even if they are, I'm not sure how you'd add it to the article in a meaningful way, as its extremely brief and vague. (No reasons listed why they liked him, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Source

• http://www.gamesradar.com/8-wrongest-romances-video-games/ - Still getting bad press after all these years... Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2015

Add the following under the Development section: "The game features several CG-animated cutscenes produced by Blur Studio."

References

136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide secondary sources, as opposed to primary sources, that support your changes. Kharkiv07^Talk 19:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

76.118.87.121 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Roborule (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A question

Hey, guys. I want to say that the link for the English site is dead. Mind if you remove it? 96.52.113.151 (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2016

Add titis line to the end of the main section

Many consider sonic the hedgehog 2006 as one of The worst video games of all time

64.72.210.21 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Already done – You mean the lead/intro section? I think that line was already added there. It's at the last sentence from the second paragraph. – // Hounder4 // 02:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/reviews/88570/sonic-the-hedgehog/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304105923/http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1269/Sonic-The-Hedgehog/p1/ to http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1269/Sonic-The-Hedgehog/p1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912170009/http://www2.sega.com:80/gamesite/sonicnext/sonicnext_full/index.php to http://www2.sega.com/gamesite/sonicnext/sonicnext_full/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notes for improvement

I'll keep adding some thoughts here on what should be improved prior to going for a GA.

1. The Gameplay section is almost entirely unsourced. From what I can recall, its mostly correct any everything, but we need to find sources for it so that others can verify its correct. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Should we source the manual? The only problem is that it has a bunch of stuff that isn't even in the game (like "tag story"), so it could be slightly unreliable. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

You could, but usually you can find the stuff while browsing through previews and reviews. It could be a double-duty type thing, while you look through further reviews you could add to the reception section. Or look in the ones already present there. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've sourced it, using IGN, GameSpot and a page from the manual. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. @TheJoebro64: I have a preliminary comment about something I noticed as I skimmed the article. A significant paragraph of the "Development" section (the one beginning with After its debut, the game's development team ...) is currently sourced entirely to this entry on Giant Bomb, which appears to be a user-generated wiki. Since anyone can create an account and change its content with little editorial oversight, it most likely falls below the standards of reliability we expect on Wikipedia, especially for a good article candidate. I'm not sure whether the Giant Bomb page cites its sources (it doesn't look like it), but I would try to replace all references to Giant Bomb with more reliable sources as soon as possible. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

To help some, Giant Bomb has two separate section - some of it is a wiki, and some of it is written by actual journalists and writers with credentials. The consensus, per WP:VG/S, is that the wiki is unusable, but the stuff written by the actual writing team is acceptable to use. So yeah, stuff sourced to the link mentioned above, would need to be replaced. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed this. I replaced the Giant Bomb sourcing with Kotaku, and the rushing of the game was in an already sourced interview, which I have moved up a bit in order to keep the sourcing smooth. TheJoebro64 talk 09:07 PM, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for your quick response and to Sergecross for his input. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note, in case you are thinking about doing an featured article candidacy after this, the Russian version of this article contains a lot of details and sources that you could potentially use to expand the article and get it to meet the "comprehensive" criterion of the featured article criteria. I don't think I will require this much detail for this good article review, but I think it's helpful to note this in case you are interested in expanding the article further. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Overall, I think you have done good work towards improving the article. There are a few things I found that I think we should take a look at before promoting to GA. Please view these notes as points of discussion, not as requirements that need to be fulfilled. If you need any clarification or disagree with me on anything, please let me know and I would be happy to discuss.

I'm placing this review  On hold. Feel free to ignore that 7 day deadline; it's better to get this right than to rush it.

Lead

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(prose) the game faced multiple issues during development, which resulted in rushing the product despite existing bugs – this reads as if the issues in development caused the product to be rushed. As I understand from the "Development" section, the game was rushed because Sonic Team wanted to "release the game in time for the Christmas season". Hmm, I'm reading this over again, and this may be a non-issue. There were issues in development (e.g. the team split) that may have indeed caused the product to be rushed. Mz7 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC) (WP:NPOV) gained infamy – "infamy" is stronger and might be subjective. I suppose it's alright, but I would consider replacing this with "notable for gaining negative reception", which appears later in the "Reception" section. (reflayout) The citation for the de-list in the lead (to this MCV article may be unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE, since it is already verified in the body of the article. Regarding this edit, I meant that only the citation was unnecessary – the actual sentence about the de-listing is still okay to keep in the lead, we just don't need a citation for it since it is already cited in the body of the article. Unless your intention was to also remove that sentence. Mz7 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay section

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(free or tagged images) File:Sonic 06 gameplay.jpg – the file description page's non-free use rationale should be improved. It should explain in greater clarity the image's purpose in the article and why it satisfies the non-free content criteria. (WP:RS/WP:NOR) The sources in the Gameplay section verify the broad strokes, but some of the more specific details of the gameplay remain unverified. For example, IGN source doesn't mention Princess Elise, nor does it call Shadow's gameplay more "combat focused", nor does it mentioned that control can be switched to a friend character. The GameSpot source doesn't specifically verify that players start with five lives or that the goal of the game is to unlock the "Last Story". I would refactor this section to more closely follow the sources, or alternatively find sources that verify the missing details.

Plot section

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(prose) Shadow and Rouge find a shutdown E-123 Omega – Do the characters power on the E-123 Omega of the future? In the following sentence, it somewhat confusingly states Omega is sent from the past to assist Shadow. It took me a few read-overs to understand that there may be two Omegas here: one from the past and a shutdown one that Shadow and Rouge found in the future. If the shutdown Omega of the future isn't particularly relevant to the plot, I would omit it to avoid confusion. Also, who sends Omega from the past?

Development section

Issues addressed. I will have to trust you on the offline sources, like the Nintendo Power article, as I don't have access to them. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(RS/NOR) The replacement source for that paragraph of the Development actually cites (includes a link to) the Giant Bomb article. That may be fine, since Kotaku is on WP:VG/S, but while it verifies the broad strokes, there are a few details that aren't verified, such as the fact that Yojiro Ogawa headed the Wii team. Like the Gameplay section, I would refactor this paragraph to more closely follow the sources, or alternatively find sources that verify the missing details. (RS) Dctjoy, cited in the "Soundtrack" section, looks to me like a Dreams Come True fan's personal website/blog, which is most likely unreliable. I think the Sega of Japan website verifies the information, though, so it may be fine to just remove that source without further action. (RS) http://test.sega.jp/topics/060915_2/ should be removed or replaced, as it appears to be permanently dead. (RS/NOR) "The game was also made available on Xbox Live's Games on Demand service on August 11, 2009. is unsourced, and we should preferably have citations for the release dates in the infobox too, but I don't think that'll be absolutely necessary for GA.

Critical reception section

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(question) Why is the "Legacy" section a part of "Critical reception"? It seems like it should be its own section apart from the reception, since it isn't really about critical reception towards this game specifically. (RS/NOR) The game's more realistic tone and graphics were highlights for praise – the source doesn't seem to verify specifically that these were highlights for praise pre-release; rather, it only states in an observational manner that the setting was more realistic than previous Sonic games. I think we should remove this part of the sentence or find a better source. (prose) We could briefly elaborate on why Halverson thought this was a good game to get a better understanding of his 9.5/10 (later 8.5) review. (RS/NOR) The introduction of the characters Silver and Elise was not well received by critics. - I know there is a discussion section about this on the talk page, but I'd like to bring it up again now to be sure. The Destructoid article seems to be more about Silver's inclusion in Sonic Generations than this game. That "10 worst Sonic friends" article may not be enough on its own to verify that Silver and Elise were poorly received. Note that Tails is listed on the second page; it would seem that we would have to concede that Tails' introduction was also poorly received if we are to trust this source on its own. I would recommend finding additional sources that contain more direct criticism about Silver and Elise in the specific context of Sonic '06, or, barring that, removing the sentence. (RS) GameTrailers also ranked the game #9 in their countdown of the "Top Ten Most Disappointing Games of the Decade." – source for this one is now dead (redirects to a YouTube channel) and appears to have been a video, so I don't think the Wayback Machine can help. I would try to find the original video or remove the sentence. There is another GameTrailers video source in the "Legacy" subsection for The decision to include Sonic the Hedgehog stages and bosses in Sonic Generations was controversial (RS/NOR) Some even accused Sega for supporting bestiality, during an interview with actress Lacey Chabert, where Chabert stated – The source merely asks Chabert whether anyone might accuse the game of supporting bestiality, much less outright accusing Sega of supporting bestiality. I would change this sentence to: "When asked during an interview whether anyone might accuse the game of supporting bestiality, actress Lacey Chabert stated," (RS/NOR) Silver, however, has appeared as a playable character in the Sonic Rivals, Sonic Riders, and Mario & Sonic sub-series, and was a minor supporting character in the Nintendo DS version of Sonic Colors. – this is probably accurate, but the cited sources only verify appearances in Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations, as far as I can tell

Ping me if you need anything. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7:: I've fixed a lot of the issues you made note of. I'm going to see what I can do with the gameplay picture's non-free use rational. TheJoebro64 talk 7:26 PM, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Awesome! Thanks for being so quick to respond! I'll give the article a second look tonight. I went through the ratings in the critical reception table, and I'm looking at the GamePro review and it unfortunately looks like the 3 stars out of 5 got cut off from the archived version (the live version is now dead). I can't find where it says 3 stars out of 5 – instead, there's a blank space right next to the text "GamePro Score". Maybe it's just my computer – do you think you could take a look? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-review

•  In progress. I've collapsed the issues I've checked are completed and am still in the process of looking through the improvements. Feel free to bring an issue out of the collapsed box at any time. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• @TheJoebro64: (WP:NOR) The conclusion that Most characters introduced in the game have made no further appearances in the Sonic series is supported only by primary sources (i.e. the games themselves). This may be a violation of WP:SYNTH if the games are used together to support a conclusion that none of the games explicitly make on their own. Is there a secondary source like a review that also makes the observation that Most characters introduced in the game have made no further appearances in the Sonic series? Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheJoebro64: I've been thinking this over some, and while I still think it would be preferable to have a secondary source here, I don't think it's a huge deal, because only a handful of characters were introduced in the game, and it is more-or-less easy to verify that these characters didn't have reappearances. For this reason, it may not be so egregious an WP:NOR violation to remove, unless another editor objects and says "actually, most of the characters introduced did have reappearances", in which case, we would have to find secondary sources and reevaluate. Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• And with that being resolved, I'm happy to promote this to GA. Thank you for your responsiveness and hard work throughout this process! Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Source

In case I forget:

• http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2016/11/09/where-sonic-went-wrong.aspx?PageIndex=2&PostPageIndex=3

~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

TFA request

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)

JOEBRO64 23:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)