Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character)/Archive 2

message: Add in the Japanese text for Sonic The Hedgehog. --ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com
:Can anyone confirm the Japanese name, Sonikku Harinezumi?  That means Sonic Hedgehog in Japanese, but I believe they borrowed hedgehog from English, resulting in Sonikku za Hejjihoggu.  Does anyone know for sure?  -- ChessManXI 10:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: >x<ino 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was going to change the wording, since the difference between the two versions is not "romanisation" at all, but since there is no reference for the second name anyway, I removed it. JPD (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Name 

message: can some one tell me why this is here?
has seen in the manual...we dont need that
:because that image is the same has the first image appearing only in black & white
>x<ino
:It doesn't need to be there - I removed all references to it and will put it up for ifd. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pics 

message: When Mario won and Sonic lost, what did AMY ROSE do? --User:ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com
:What are you talking about? ChessManXI 06:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop wasting our time with this drivel. This Talk page concerns the Sonic the Hedgehog article on Wikipedia, not nonsensical reactions of fictional characters to real-life events, or any particular discussion unrelated to Wikipedia as this discussion is. --Shadow Hog 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario VS Sonic End 

message: What's the deal with all the archaic Sonic the Hedgehog pictures? This guide needs more pictures from Heroes, yo! -- Darth Katana X
:Actually, the article doesn't need many pictures. Only pictures that are used to illustrate important points in the article can qualify for fair use. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why replace them? Why not add? The old pics and the new pics both serve a purpose...the old pics illustrate the information on the old games, and the new pics illustrate the new games. Yeltensic42.618 00:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding too many pictures might not be covered under fair use. The individual game pages do an adequate job of illustrating the games. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs one or two examples of old as well as new, yo! Yeltensic42.618 20:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The issue isn't so much about swamping the text as it is about relevance. There was a discussion about which pictures were relevant here before. Unless a picture is absolutely critical to supplementing the text, it's not necessary and it actually may not be fair use to include it. Also keep in mind that resizing pictures could be tasking on the servers. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what *I* said: "relevant pictures". And common, there are many featured articles literally engulfed in pictures. This one isn't too bad. Quite the contrary I'd say. For the most part this page is one big block of text. It could definitely use some visual improvement. Take a look at "Super Mario" for reference. That Super Sonic image you removed actually *was* relevant because that's what that section was about. Btw, aformentioned discussion actually was about which picture to put at the top of the article.--Steerpike 01:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually referring to the discussion where there were votes to Keep or not to keep certain pictures. The criteria for featured articles doesn't require pictures at all. As a matter of fact, pictures that are used outside the scope of fair or free use may actually be detrimental to an article being made a featured article. Putting pictures just to make an article look pretty may not be covered under fair use. There's already a whole slew of pictures of Super Sonic in the relevant article. What's really important is the text. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The article says that the games take place on the South Island in the Pacific (I'll assume that means New Zealand) and that Sonic was born on Christmas Island (presumably Australia), but what is the source for that? I haven't seen that anywhere else, eg in canonical sources (I hope this doesn't sound like I'm accusing others of making things up). Yeltensic42.618 07:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the bit about him being born on Christmas Island, but the GHZ article on the first game says that the game takes place on South Island. The GHZ is a pretty reliable source about the Sonic games, drawing information from both the Japanese and American versions of the games. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I went and saw that...I also saw where they mentioned the Pacific, but they didn't say where they got that from (eg games, manuals)...probably Sonic Adventure or SA2, but they didn't say. Does anyone know where? And since it is in the Pacific, I would assume that it's the South Island of New Zealand, but does anyone know if Sega has explicitly said that? Yeltensic42.618 21:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the specifics for South Island, but IIRC Christmas Island was brought up in the limited edition for SA2. Whether that was Japanese only or US too, I don't know either. --Shadow Hog 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that the anime is canon, but only for its own continuity, not for the games...is that right? If they mentioned South Island and Christmas Island, that probably means the games are in the Pacific (a big coincidence otherwise), even if Sega hasn't said they're in the Pacific (which they probably have, since Green Hill Zone mentions it)...assuming they're on Earth. Has Sega specified that the games are on Earth (unless they've mentioned the Pacific, which would make it obvious), and not just a planet similar to Earth? I seem to recall it being on future Earth (maybe when hedgehogs et al have evolved to the point of human-level intelligence?), but I'm not sure where that was, or if it was in a canonical source. Yeltensic42.618 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The games do take place on Earth, although the manuals in the American releases of the Sega Genesis titles claim they take place on Planet Mobius. Evidence for the games taking place on Earth can be seen in the later games, in which the cut scenes leave little doubt that the games take place on Earth. Sonic X and has its own canon and tries to bridge the gap between the two storylines by making Sonic and friends come from another world and being transported to Earth. The anime movie from a while back has its own canon entirely. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think I've ever bothered reading Sonic fanfic...I used to read Zelda fanfic now and then, but then it hit me how stupid most of it was....so I don't think it was fanfic, unless maybe it was fanfic cited on Wikipedia (maybe someone wrote Sonic fanfic that involved Eggman from Earth, then mentioned it on Wikipedia, and then it was deleted as vanity after I saw it). Yeltensic42.618 23:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, speaking of Eggman, I think it's odd that a series of E-rated games has a character named after a guy whose nickname was related to his egg fetish. Yeltensic42.618 23:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: South Island

message: Is the "Theme Songs" section really necessary? I Mean, it's not as if the song's there for download. --Judacris 08:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they input a Song section, it means other Sonic titles article should have a song Section
>x<ino 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They certainly didn't deserve their own section, so I've removed them. If you must include them, add the titles to the trivia section, or (preferably) to the individual games' articles. --Nick R 15:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theme Songs?

message: To avoid flooding this page with discussion of Sonic's love life, at Darth Katana X's suggestion I have set up User talk:Yeltensic42/Sonic Love Life. Please discuss it there, not here. Yeltensic42.618 22:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonic's Love Life

message: I check the "Books" section, for this article
:seems usless
I am sorry to say this, but it is
The Comic Books was alright,
:The Gamebooks, was useless, why can't they just put, From Book 1-6, instead of listing the books and name of em
Also for the novels
It's also like encouraging people to buy/search and buy the book
Anyway, we will sort that sh@t out later:P
:Now i am saying about Sonic Games!
Because most visitors that come in, will apperciate the article, but will still wonder how many games has been produced for Sonic
So...i am say, 
*is there an article listing, Sonic titles?
*If not, i will be friendly to make one
*Or put the listing of Sonic Titles under the "Games" section in this article, because it only has information of Some Sonic games, but not the full titles
>x<ino 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books (books and fools):P 

message: I removed the section of the intro referring to a Sonic website and his various presence online. It was pretty out-of-place in the intro, especially with s seemingly random list of characters.
I mention this here onle because the concept of Sonic's online presence has the potential for a proper section within the article - as far as I've seen, quite a bit could be said about it if one were to do proper research.
I'm certainly not going to, but it'd be interesting to see what someone could come up with.
That aside, the removed section just didn't fit into the article by itself, especially in the intro.
SonOfNothing 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of things have fanbases. The rule of thumb is, if X exists, there is somewhere on the internet a picture of someone having sex with X. It's never worth documenting. --Darksasami 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But i like X:P
>x<ino 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonic's Internet Fanbase

message: I noticed, as I did an edit, that there's something that says the Sonic Page is 30kb.
Which, as the Wiki Page regarding Article size says that a page over 32kb may lead to division.
I dunno, I'm just concerned. - Judacris 03:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or remove unnecessary information. I wouldn't worry about the size, though. -- ReyBrujo 12:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Over 30kb? Is that a Problem? 

message: We seem to have a lot of information of Sonic, the sonic games, comic books, and other characters.  So, couldn't we make a portal like the Warcraft Portal?  I'd start it myself, but I'm bad at tables in Wikipedia format.  -- ChessManXI 10:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic the Hedgehog Portal? 

message: This page, I think, should focus on the character of the games, and aspects of Sonic common to all versions. Other information should be moved to the relevant page (info specific on the Archie comic character, for example, should go on that page - some of the information on relationships could do with being moved). The reason for this is that otherwise, we might end up with a structure where each section goes: "In the games... in the Archie comics... in the Fleetway comics... in Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog..."
Recently, I've had to keep reverting edits which add something about Sonic's speed coming from his shoes in the Fleetway comics. This is:
*Incorrect (in STC, his speed came from Kintobor's treadmill, like in Stay Sonic)
*Speculation ("which may be true in the games,but never confirmed")
*Irrelevent (as I said, if it was correct - which it isn't - it should be added to the Fleetway page. It also keeps getting added to the intro, which is a terrible place to put it. At least this time it's been moved to the "abilities" section!)
*Badly-punctuated. :)
So first, will anyone help keep that bit of text out of the article, and second, does anyone agree that this page should focus on the games' character and general features common to all versions of Sonic? --Nick RTalk 13:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I agree with the reasoning. I'll help keep it out. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I wholeheartedly agree. Right now, the Sonic article is a hodgepodge of different variations and continuities. Those different variations are wonderful but we need a strong, consistent, focused article if we want our blue buddy to have a featured article on Wikipedia. I say, if it's not about Sonic The Hedgehog, the videogame character, it ought to go in little notes at the end of the section with links to the articles in question (i.e. "Fleetway gives its own origin for Sonic's speed, see 'Sonic The Comic'"). Right now the article is just an impenetrable soup of competing Sonics. Even the main picture has two versions of Sonic! So I wanted to stand by what Nick R is saying. He's the man with the master plan. Cherry Cotton 09:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a big fan of all of Sonic's continuities, I would have to disagree with this.  I would hate to see any of the comic or cartoon portayals of Sonic left out of the article.  A focus on Sonic in the video games is not a bad idea, but Sonic's character and storyline within the games themselves has changed and evolved quite a bit over time, and there are quite a few discrepencies between different regions (and even within regions) over the game story, itself.  Even several of the games are based off of the cartoon series.  I just think that, bearing all of this in mind, we should be careful not to push this article too far in one way or another.  I know that when I first visited this article I found all of the information about the different continuities and conflicting versions very informative and helpful.  The article has changed a lot since then, in many ways for the worse, and some for the better.  At any rate, I do agree that there are some places where things need to be adjusted and I am always willing to compromise, but I definately don't want to see this article infected with the "SegaSonic" syndrome. PorpoiseMuffins 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue came up in the "Featured article" discussion earlier. I've got no problem with other continuities being represented, but they should really be pointed out as alternate explanations. The featured article Link (Legend of Zelda) draws mainly on the games and pools some of the common attributes of the character in its various incarnations, while pointing out his representations in other media as alternate versions. While all official Sonic continuities should be valued, preference should be given to the video game continuities, since in the end, Sonic is a video game character. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually, I was the one involved in that dicussion before :)  Focusing on the elements common to all continuities sounds alright to me, kind of like the way that I reworked the first paragraph of the personality section to make it more universal to all the Sonic portrayals (the paragraph following it about Sonic's personality in Sonic the Comic is kind of random and would probably be eliminated, though).  Again, I just don't want to see this article become biased.  That is my only concern with this line of thinking, but I do think that I understand where you guys are trying to go with this.  There are a lot of separate articles for each continuity, already. PorpoiseMuffins 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm no big fan of all the continuities. And with how the recent games have been, I don't even like the game continuity that much either. Ha ha. Being "SegaSonic" biased isn't good for the article either though. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we should eliminate mention of Archie and Fleetway and the riveting series of Sonic four-panel comics found on various soup cans in eastern Columbia which portrays Sonic as a traveling treasure hunter in search of gold and the mighty elephant muskrat mutant. I just feel like the article reads, right now, like "an impenetrable soup of competing Sonics." If we're going to cover the other versions of Sonic, we ought to put them in their own sections of the article, like "Archie comics," "Fleetway comics," "Sonic X," etc. That would be a good way to do it. Right now it reads more like, "Sonic's Hobbies: In the game, he likes to play marbles. However, in the Adventures TV show he rather enjoys wood carving. But, in Sonic X, he enjoys a good game of croquet..." Cherry Cotton 09:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on the games/Reverting edits 

message: OK, moving to (character) was nice, but the pages are still linked to Sonic the Hedgehog! We should, I don't know, use a bot and put all those links right? igordebraga ≠ 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone could use AWB. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Moved the discussion about Super Sonic (and Hyper Sonic) out of abilties to its own section. My reasoning was that Sonic's Super forms enhances his existing abiilties rather than giving him new ones: all of his 'super' abilities he has done to a limited extent while in normal form. (Flying = Jump, Swimming = Holding breath, Invulnerability = Invincibility powerup, etc.) Besides, Super Sonic really deserves its own section. --DavidHOzAu 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transformations 

message: The subsections jump from one thing to the next without adaquete subtitles. I've fixed up the relationships section, but the others seriously need some work. --DavidHOzAu 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare how untidy Sonic's abilities section is to Amy's corresponding section. I think Amy's article is pretty tidy compared to Sonic's, and its formatting should be taken as a reference if possible. I for one will welcome those brave enough to make the needed revisions. --DavidHOzAu 05:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwieldy sectioning 

message: Rather annoying quibble and not one I anticipate much can be done about, but one I felt like voicing anyway: why is there some sudden obsession to replace images with valid captions on most Sonic character pages with atrociously large pictures with no captions? I know this page tends to have that reverted rather quickly (since it's a continuation of one of the lamest edit wars ever), but I've found that some of these other pages tend to go days without any notice whatsoever... what's up with it? --Shadow Hog 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: >x<ino 09:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to say that none of the Sonic Riders images should become the main images for any character (save the Babylon Rouges for obvious reasons) as there is no evidence that these images will become the new standard for the characters. The Sonic 2006 game shows Sonic without the glasses, so I'm thinking this appearance is limited solely to Riders. -- VederJuda 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on other ''Sonic''-related pages keep getting altered 

message: This is article still isn't ready to be a good article because:
*Needs a brief overview.
*Still not enough references and notes.
*The word "trivia" isn't encyclopedia.  Needs to be somehow worked into the article.
I would like to help, but this article is so long, I'm not sure where to place the notes or how to put the trivia into the article.  BTW, getting another peer review might help, but I noticed in the last review, nobody replied to the comment, so we need to respond or at least say, "Thanks!" --anon
Why don't we change it to, "Trivia & Notes"...instead of Trivia
:>x<ino 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: >x<ino 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: The notes for the external links say it would be better to have links to sites about Sonic as a character, and not the games in general. How do we define this? Sonic-Cult, for instance, is extremely focused on the games (ROM hacking, etc.). The same goes for the Mobygames link. Shouldn't they get removed? BlazeHedgehog 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a pretty normal and informative (if incomplete) site to me, but it's not related to Sonic the Hedgehog as a character, so I removed the link. However, looking at the other external links, doesn't that apply to them too? They all seem to be a lot more about the game than the character. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sonic Ultimate has character profiles, though.  Well, I didn't really want to click on te website of Sonic-Cult because I wasn't sure if I was entering a cult or not (which I don't want to enter one). --71.105.14.51 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess my... first hand experiences with the Sonic-Cult may skew my opinion of them somewhat. Infact, I'm a little worried about continually discussing them like this, for fear one of them will actually see it and try to come after me, as they know who I am. Wouldn't be the first time. Let's just say that... although they may appear to be a fairly normal Sonic site on the surface, much of the community there is very troublesome. Many Sonic fans liken the Sonic-Cult to that of The Mafia. Cement shoes and all that nonsense. Back on subject, yeah - I guess I could see linking to the profile pages instead of the main sites. BlazeHedgehog 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links? 

message: Okay, I don't want to start any arguments, but this part of the relationship section really needs to be cleaned up!
:I agree partially, see my comments below. --DavidHOzAu 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to write, "the visual text in Sonic Adventure 2 indicates that Sonic finds Shadow to be violent, humourless, and arrogant, while Shadow finds Sonic to be foolhardy, arrogant, and irritating."  Literary scholars (professionals) make comparisons like this all the time. --DavidHOzAu 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, that wasn't me. (I have only ever added information to Wikipedia.)  However, since so much of Sonic's history with Metal has been removed in comparison to Shadow's entry, it no longer follows NPOV.  My advice for resolving NPOV disputes is that instead of deleting the entire sentences in question, which may be considered vandalism, that you restore the previous entry and edit the wording to be nuetral, or add more information to balance it out. --DavidHOzAu 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship section

message: Does this part under "Outside the Games" really need to be said?  It's a fan-dubbed character that is merely a glitch of Sonic used in only 1 zone.  It's not like Ashura is a real character. - "Tails Ohki" from GameFAQs 67.173.62.22 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashura the Hedgehog 

message: This article needs much more than 4 references, especially for a video game character article and the lead needs to be longer. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 19:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind that the article was added out of turn without addressing previous complaints. Nifboy 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the leading image not have a fair use rationale and source Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: I noticed that an external reference got lost in the crossfire way back. After much searching, it appears that this edit is responsible.
*Sonic Encyclopaedia: Sonic the Hedgehog". Retrieved 17 February 2006.
At time of writing, the reference is still referred to in abilities section, resulting in a dead link.  I'll restore it using the new reference system.  If anyone knows why it was removed, take it down and post the reason here. --DavidHOzAu 05:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason as to why it was removed. Look at the edits of the anon who did that, he didn't seem to know what he was doing. Good work on noticing the reference problem. -- RattleMan 05:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Got Deleted 

message: I also noticed that this other guy has twice deleted the external link to Sonic's character profile at Concept: Mobius, once even immediately after I removed/reverted his edit.  Worse, this link looks like a completely pertinent external link that we got some information from.  I'll restore the link, but if it goes down again we may have to take more drastic action. Note: he signs his posts with "Tails Ohki" from GameFAQs.  Does anyone have any experience with this guy? --DavidHOzAu 00:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept: Mobius 

message: because there wasn't anything like it. Posted here because no one seems to visit the series talk page. --DavidHOzAu 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template added to the category 

message: Can you put a Sonic underground or AoSth or satam tv show picture on here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.11.131.241 (talk • contribs) .
:What do you mean a picture? Of the title screen? -- RattleMan 22:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pics 

message: I almost had a heart attack when I saw the state the article was in today. 95% of edits that have gone on in the last week only serve to add fancruft.
*Primary Reason "Love Life" section is unnecessary because the information was there already. This section just adds to the fancruft factor and duplication across pages. We already decided not to put it in; if people want to know more about how Sonic fits into those series, they should go to that series' page.  Uncyclopedic Sonadow is on this page. (this title for a section will always be is prone to vandalism.)
*Secondary Reason There is a plea for people to sign a petition in "Voices". This does not belong on Wikipedia.
*Additional reason Two references need to go.
**The additional "Yuji Naka profile" reference is a "quote of quote". At the moment the linked-to page does not show the quote in context or contain any link to the full interview.
**The existing "Sega Visions Interview with Yuji Naka" reference links to a search portal.
I suggest the following:
*sophisticated revert of the entire thing to this edition with the exception of Nick R's edited lead-in section
*remove the above two references
*unrelated trace information from the article that is encyclopaedic and on topic be incorporated inside the existing (earlier) article structure if they were not already. (expected to be rare) Otherwise, relocate this to the article on the series' in question to highlight how that particular series is 'special'. --DavidHOzAu 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <del>Cleanup or remove recent edits</del> 

message: I have been looking at the other video game protagonist pages, and each one of them has the latest version of their respective characters on the top of the page. How does everyone feel about putting this pic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sonik.jpg) from Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game) at the top of the page and moving the current double pic of Sonic just a bit lower to the "design" section to highlight the changes in Sonic? --Helmandsare May 1, 2006 00:49 (UTC)
:For the time being, rather strongly against. That picture highlights the game it comes from more than it does the character - and there haven't been many good shots that fufill that just yet.
:Speaking of the double pic, though, somebody had better source that thing soon; both its parent pictures were OrphanBotted a while ago, and are probably done for if they aren't sourced. And when they're gone, that double-picture is gonna follow shortly... --Shadow Hog 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the wallpaper of Sonic on this page that corresponds this picture?  That's the most recent official render of Sonic. (someone will have to photoshop out the background.) --DavidHOzAu 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't modify the image if it is not free. -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, I suppose we'll have to wait another six months, when the next game is released, for a good shot to come out. It is not like we can email Sega for a public copy of that art with a white background. --DavidHOzAu 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a copy with a white background posted here. I would definitely be in favor of replacing the current image with this one.  I severely dislike the Sonic art from Shadow the Hedgehog. PorpoiseMuffins 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have uploaded it. (see below right) I don't think we'll have an edit war over this like last time, but just in case I think it would be good if we discussed it here (below) before we change it in the article. --DavidHOzAu 06:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Gen pic 

message: Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "--~~~~".
* Support.  I like the art and I agree with the rationale. PorpoiseMuffins 15:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and discussion

message: Accepted No objections, survey closed. --DavidHOzAu 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of discussion

message: Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "--~~~~".
* Support. I also agree that the "classic" picture of Sonic should be included in the article further down. PorpoiseMuffins 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and discussion

message: Accepted No objections, survey closed. --DavidHOzAu 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of discussion

message: I feel that the voice controversy in that some (or rather, a vast majority) fans want Ryan Drummond back as Sonic should be mentioned in SOME form.
That's fancruft, and might be WP:NPOV#undue weight. --DavidHOzAu 01:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voices