The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/05/16/10-worst-sonic-the-hedgehog-characters.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20130618105327/http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/02/20/where-did-sonic-go-wrong?page=2 http://ps2.gamespy.com/articles/654/654749p1.html

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Video games: Sega / Characters Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sega task force. This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Japan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:34, January 14, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character Animals in media (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media Anime and manga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why isn't he listed? He has definitely appeared in multiple games. Endianer (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's more or less just Metal Sonic, but I guess a mention could be added there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they are separate characters, it would probably work better as a sub-mention in Metal for now unless reliable sources give it some more weight for its own section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe that's how it used to be. It might have been rewritten out at some point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds unencyclopedic to me. Even if people find them similar enough (and get them mixed up at times), they're officially considered separate characters with no ties to each other besides being Eggman creations. They've even occasionally appeared in the same game together, and Mecha predates Metal. Endianer (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is content to discuss: outside of the recent appearance in the comics, Mecha has very little to discuss and is more notable as a precursor design to Metal. Additionally keep in mind Wikipedia is not meant to be a documentation of everything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this. Step one is show how he would even meet the inclusion criteria mentioned on the top of the page. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That one is easy. He has made substantial appearances in at least two Sonic games: Sonic 2 and Sonic & Knuckles as important boss battles near the end. The Game Gear version is also a whole different game from the Genesis game (completely different story and levels), and he was in it as well, making that at least 3 games. Endianer (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial is probably an oversell, but yes, he made appearances. But reliable sources are the most crucial part, you still havent provided any of that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the real golden rule of Wikipedia: reliable sources or it's not worth covering, whether or not it exists. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should G.U.N. and the Commander (Abraham Tower) be added to the character page now (or at the very least G.U.N.)? As they've been a major part of the Sonic franchise since SA2 now with G.U.N. being in many games & are a major part of the live-action films and Commander Tower has been in at least two games (Shadow & Chronicles), is in the Dark Beginnings web series (where his name was revealed too) and has a loose adaption in the films with Commander Walters.

Also whilst she can maybe be added once she has a full fledged appearance, but Professor Victoria could later be added too under the GUN section, with her having cameoed in two episodes of TailsTube, having a cameo in Sonic Movie 3 and being confirmed to have written Gerald Robotnik's diary for Shadow Generations (through the Japanese translation). Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources can be supplied for them, then sure, I'd say that seems sound.

One thing that I think is possibly worth noting is that the name "Abraham Tower" originates from the version of the character presented in the Archie Comics Sonic series, where Ian Flynn gave him that name after making him a major character in some storylines. Flynn wrote this name into the mainline games canon after being brought on to write Shadow Generations and its tie-in prequel animation.

This is mentioned on the Sonic wiki, but only sourced to a forum post on Flynn's website, which obviously wouldn't be admissable here. It seems doubtful that we would find a secondary source confirming this fact, so it probably is out of scope to mention here, but on the off chance that a secondary source does exist, I think a brief acknowledgement of that fact in a section on G.U.N. could be worthwhile. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my only other comment is, unless there's a pretty darn substantial amount of coverage on Professor Victoria, I don't think she deserves a mention. There's not really much to write about her in this particular context at the moment; she's got more fan theories about her than actual official content to cover. (And also her existing appearances don't count towards the list requirement since they're all cameos.) We should wait till she actually appears, but even then coverage about her is probably going to be limited to the standalone article on whatever game or other media she's in. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the Abraham Tower thing, that was something Ian Flynn asked about and SEGA allowed to become canon, so it definitely is his official full name now. But yeah if I (or someone else) writes the sections, it should definitely be included in the Commander's with another source talking about it. Tribal-Mand0 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wondering why Amy Rose doesn't have an article here, I found this, and can't believe that Amy doesn't have enough secondary sources to prove notability while Shadow has as Amy was created way before Shadow and she is featured way more widely in medias than him. Even if the existing sources were not enough for proving notability, I think such a popular and widely featured character should have many other secondary sources.

Do you have other sources, and what do you think about this? (I'm currently not proposing seperation as I didn't investigate the existing sources deeply and search for new sources, but asking for sources and comments.) RuzDD (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed at length, and the consensus that keeps coming up is that she doesn't have enough dedicated, significant coverage. I believe someone was working on a draft, so you could try collaborating with them and seeing what you come up with. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you meant User:(Oinkers42)/sandbox/Amy Rose which is the redirect target of Draft:Amy Rose. RuzDD (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was one of them. I want to say Red Phoenix was helping coach a newbie on one more recently too, though I could be wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend User:Red Phoenix/sandbox/Amy Rose, which is a more refined version trimmed of a ton of cruft? It’s a lot better but I still haven’t had an opinion I’ve heard that expresses it’s appropriate for moving to userspace. Instead, it led to the merge of Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) and consideration that Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog), Knuckles the Echidna, and Doctor Eggman might all be better off merged as well due to a shocking lack of reliable source coverage outside of listicles and Valnet. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I’m also a doubter that Shadow the Hedgehog really has any better coverage than Tails, Knuckles, or Eggman, GA status be damned. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I found some mistakes in them ("computer-generated image series" and "five main characters") (both) and think Cindy Robinson's photo would be better than Shannon Chan-Kent's as Shannon voiced Amy only in Sonic Prime (yours), I feel like probably both but at least one of these drafts is/are completely acceptable for the main namespace, though I'm not certain and don't have an opinion to which one is better as I didn't inspect them deeply (I also don't think I'm good at determining quality). RuzDD (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait before publishing either, this is one that is going to fall under a lot of scrutiny because it's been discussed so many times. Neither draft parties seemed to think they were ready to publish either... Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the idea that the Eggman, Tails, Knuckles, Shadow (especially given that I wrote this one, don't know how the hell anyone could read it, look at the sourcing, and question its notability), and Eggman articles be merged ludicrous. The coverage at those articles is far better than the coverage Amy and Chao had (and there seems to be a rough consensus that the Chao Garden is notable, Chao as a species just aren't), and there's plenty of coverage regarding the film versions of the characters that hasn't been implemented. I don't have time to present sources right now, but I'll add them to the individual articles' talk pages when I get the chance. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 23:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I also find it ludicrous. But let me present my "devil's advocate" case by comparing Amy and Tails. I'd like to call this the "Tails test". Look at the reflist for Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog). What you'll find is shockingly bad - the only sources that focus on Tails specifically are Valnet sources. It's otherwise sourced to listicles, primary sources, and reviews for the games, nothing specifically about the character. Now compare that to User:Red Phoenix/sandbox/Amy Rose and its reflist. Are they any different?

No, they're not.

I removed the primary sources, for the most part, and tried to reduce how many Valnet sources were used, but they're otherwise no different - in fact the Amy draft includes some academic publishing as well on her impact in video games as a whole, and that's still not enough to change the consensus.

So where do we draw the line? I argue - legitimately - that Amy's demonstrated notability in our articles is at least equivalent to Tails. Knuckles is only marginally better in large part because he was meme'd as "Ugandan Knuckles". Doctor Eggman at least has this, but it otherwise looks much the same. Don't misunderstand me; I don't think any of them should be merged. But I now think that if this is what we're comparing Amy to, then I've at least created a draft that puts her on that standard. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, yeah, but we're comparing similar characters on the same notability standards. And if we're reiterating the discussion at WT:VGCHAR about this and they were to be merged, then I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand why that's still not enough to change the consensus while I looked there, and I didn't see a new consensus anywhere. Considering these, I think proposing seperation might not be a bad idea. RuzDD (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude but...you haven't even made an argument for notability yet, only that you don't understand the problem. What reasoning are you operating on? Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchy comparisons with articles. And, I never said that I think they are suitable for the main namespace or that I think proposing seperation isn't a bad idea (there are nuances). RuzDD (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I mean, when you say things like "I feel like probably both but at least one of these drafts is/are completely acceptable for the main namespace" or that you "didn't understand why that's still not enough to change the consensus", what do you mean? What standards or criteria are you operating off of to make these statements? Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchy comparisons with articles. As for the second, I didn't see a consensus for not moving it into the main namespace in that page. RuzDD (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent in-depth discussion is here, where there is very much so a consensus against recreating Amy Roses's article. There were multiple merge discussions prior to that which caused it to be merged in the first place. I'm sure you can find them if you search through the talk page archives. Or I can help if you need it.

In a general sense, basically we are looking for the WP:GNG to be met, and the points of WP:MERGEREASON to be avoided. What this means, for a video game character article, is loosely outlined at WP:NVGC. You'll want to make sure it fits that sort of description. If you simply say it looks comparable to other articles, you're bound to get hit with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counter-points - essentially, that just because you observe something somewhere on Wikipedia does not mean its necessarily correct or desirable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the correct course of action here would be to evaluate the notability of Tails, Knuckles, and Eggman, and improve their articles if there's room to do so (Of which there's a high possibility to do so). That way we have a baseline we can compare a potential Amy article off of.

I believe at this point, Amy isn't notable, primarily moreso due to a lack of coverage than a lack of actual notability. I'm hoping Sonic 4 will turn that around, so she's a subject worth keeping an eye on. For the time being, I believe she should be re-evaluated once the other Sonic character articles are worked on.

I believe it may also be worth putting some work into Shadow- much of his Reception is outdated and rather barebones, and the Year of Shadow + all that comes with it is bound to have given him a lot more coverage we can use to improve the article. It may also be worth looking into Chao Garden at some point, per the AfD.

I'm busy as of right now, but I'd be willing to do some work using some of the sources @TheJoebro64 found, among other sources, once I have some time. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this, thanks. I compared it with my general observation so I thought this wouldn't apply (I knew it and it was already linked) but that's not important now because looking at the sources supported this sense. I saw four sources that go deeply about her in @Red Phoenix's version (I inspected it less sketchily) (1234) and there is probably more as I didn't inspect it very deeply. The sources given in that discussion which resulted in denial were significantly worse than these, at least to me. RuzDD (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to cross-check your sources with WP:VG/S. You...probably won't like what you see. But that's exactly why I've been saying this is a tough one. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added refideas to the talk pages of each article from a quick Google search. I'll do some deeper looking over the next few days (the CSE seems to be busted at the moment and google news just gives me Screen Rant crap) but what I was able to find fairly quickly was good. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]