Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)

message: I've been holding off asking this for a while, but shouldn't we require another independent source that states the European release was in July? Currently, all we have is an issue of Mean Machines that says it. I'll try and dig around for more, as Sonic Retro has a lot of these old magazines that feature Sonic scanned (and they are accepted to use as sources, I'm pretty sure). Pinging  who originally put the source there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  European release date 

message: This page might need to be protected. A lot of people keep adding July 10th as the European release date and have no regard for the notice telling them not to. Any comments? TheJoebro64 talk, 9:33 PM, 31 March 2017
:It seems to have stopped for now, so unless it starts again, it shouldn't be. Also, see my post above regarding the July date, which could be wrong too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting 

message: Does the "legacy" section need to be part of the "reception" section? I mean, it has nothing to do with how critics felt about the game, and it was stated during Sonic '06s GA review that they should be separate. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't have to be, and I generally don't make it like that in the articles I create/maintain. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a proper consensus on this? I can see it going either way depending on the editor, and stuff like this can be prone to edit warring. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a site wide consensus on deciding whether to make the Legacy section a subsection of Reception or not. It doesn't have to be the same for every article. If the Legacy section expands beyond the scope of just standard retrospective reception, then it really shouldn't be under Reception section. On Burnout 3: Takedown, I made Legacy a separate section because it discussed sequels and how the design of the later games changed for the worse—that stuff is not about reception and it seems odd to try and fit it under there. I would say that the Legacy section on this article section should not be a subsection of Reception. It covers impact on hardware, derivative games, how it ignited a new multimedia franchise, fan games and ROM hacks—none of that is about how the game was received critically or commercially. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The case-by-case basis without any proper documentation to back it up is exactly what starts edit warring. And for your last part, the game wouldn't have spawned a franchise if it was not critically/commercial successful in the first place, which falls under the game's reception. Is there not a better title we can use here instead? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A series starting because of positive reception isn't always how it goes, though. Take Just Dance for example. Just Dance was despised by critics when it was first released, yet it spawned one of the most successful franchises in all of gaming, because of good sales figures. That's considered legacy. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it had commercial success for Ubisoft to continue making the games, which I mentioned. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy section 

message: I think this merits a mention, but the wording needs to be improved upon. I know that listing what was cut is cruft, so how should we do this? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unfortunately, I think you're taking a little bit too much of a "Sonic Retro/Sonic Fansite" approach to listing all this trivial minutia to the article. Saying things like "additional unused enemies" has zero significance if we don't know anything further, (What were they? How would this have significantly altered the game? Why was it removed? Etc.) Your alternative approach, saying vague things like "additional features were scrapped" are too vague to mean anything significant. It would only leave the the reader confused with the obvious question of "What was scrapped?". Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this isn't like Hidden Palace Zone which got a lot of coverage when it was reintroduced in the remasters. All this vague stuff pretty much saying "so and so was cut from the game due to time constants" is not helpful at all, as literally every game ever released has done this to some extent. If it's not independently notable, it doesn't belong in the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why this keeps getting removed. This is EXACTLY what Dissident suggested at Sonic CD, which you said you had "no objections" to. If Dissident was suggesting this, I have no doubt you'd support it.~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? No doubt? After reading this section, and the "view history" of this article, you had no doubt about adding this again? Come on... Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, you seem to be alluding to this conversation, which barely had a discernable consensus, and my closing comment was that I was largely in favor of it because it was referring to a scrapped level, which I do find to be more noteworthy than just vague comments like "removed content for some reason" that you keep adding here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I kind of lost my temper. I really just don't like it when other users revert my edits. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken anyways. This is exactly what I, as well as other editors, have argued against on multiple talk pages. There is nothing independently notable about these specific unused sprites and features, so this doesn't belong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GamesRadar article 

message: Should the 8-bit version be merged to this article? The games aren't too different, and the 8-bit version's article is really small and a bit crufty. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose it. It's been in terrible shape since its inception. I bet someone could maybe make a good article out of it, but no one has bothered, so I support merging in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: The games "aren't too different?"  But... but they're literally completely different games.  The only similarity is that three of the six zones have the same names.  Half the zones are brand new, and the ones that aren't don't even have the same level layouts.  Or the same bosses.  Or even the same music, except in Green Hill Zone's case. 67.171.213.129 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 8-bit version 

message: Not sure what to really say here. The short plot is obviously not a case of WP:UNDUE, and establishes the basic setting of the game. That its primarily sourced is typical of all video game, film and book articles. This is a GA article, removing common and expected components of the video game guidelines requires a strong reason. -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm just not sure if the plot section is needed for this article. Plot sections are really only necessary for games in which they are highly important and reliable sources covered them in detail (Think Final Fantasy or The Last of Us). Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't really have much of a plot: just the emeralds are stolen and Sonic goes to find them. In bringing Knuckles' Chaotix to GA and Sonic '06 to FAC, me and TarkusAB heavily trimmed (or in the case of Chaotix, removed entirely) the plot sections, since they were considered undue weight. I don't think the plot here is really needed. JOEBRO64 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree with the removal there as well, especially in light of the article being promoted to GA with the plot. You removed it after the concerns voiced in the GA were already addressed. You're misapplying undue weight here. -- ferret (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *In the words at the GA review:  (I do)  JOEBRO64 19:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, that's still just an opinion that is apparently outweighed here by two other editors (myself included, although I wouldn't care much if it does get merged). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot removal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 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.ugo.com/games/lost-levels-sonic
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506030612/http://techland.time.com/2012/11/15/all-time-100-video-games/slide/sonic-the-hedgehog-1991/ to http://techland.time.com/2012/11/15/all-time-100-video-games/slide/sonic-the-hedgehog-1991/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This "Sonic the hedgehog" series continued to product a new game .
This new game was named "Sonic the hedgehog 2" because it was the II game of the series "Sonic the hedgehog"
In this new game was added "Miles""Tails"Prower" , a yellow fox with 2 tails which he turns like a helicopter .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.61.44 (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic the hedgehog 2 (1992) 

message: GDC just posted the full postmortem which covers the creation of Sonic and the development/release of Sonic 1 in heavy detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYO1ZmRuZ_U
If there were ever a time to take this to FA, this would be it... TarkusABtalk 01:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDC postmortem 

message: * https://www.techradar.com/news/original-sonic-the-hedgehog-for-nintendo-switch-slated-with-other-sega-classics
JOEBRO64 22:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting a release on Nintendo Switch soon 

message: http://shmuplations.com/sonic/ TarkusABtalk 00:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Shmuplations translations 

message: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2mgtvm/til_that_the_sega_chant_at_the_beginning_of_sonic/cm4cvuk/
This research is easily replicated, yet because it hasn't been posted on some blog it's not ok on Wikipedia apparently?
Apparently actually demonstratable research is bad, but some claim from a game designer about a game he made decades earlier posted on a video game blog is good. Nukleon (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please read our policy on Original research. You’ll need a better source to make your addition. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's policy is no original research. I understand where you are coming from. Instead of introducing original research, we can at least remove the information as dubious, which I have just done. TarkusABtalk 22:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1/8th claim is wrong 

message: All occurrences of "Sonic the Hedgehog" perhaps should be replaced with "Sonic The Hedgehog" with both occurrences of the character's name as well as the names of the games. The "T" in Sonic The Hedgehog should be capitalized as it was trademarked as such on SEGA's behalf by Al Nilsen, a former SEGA employee, in the 1990's.
Sources:
* Kent, Steven L.: The Ultimate History of Video Games. From Ponk to Pokémon and Beyond - The Story Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World. Prima Publishing, Roseville (2001), p. 428.
* http://www.sega-16.com/2008/03/interview-al-nilsen/
See also:
* https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2014/08/dukes-legacy-video-game-source-disc-preservation-at-the-library-of-congress/ "Heidi Kemps discusses the joy in obtaining online access to playable lost levels from the 1992 Sega Genesis game, Sonic The Hedgehog 2"
* https://www.alexandriava.gov/historic/info/default.aspx?id=41194 "SEGA Genesis Core System with Sonic The Hedgehog 2 with the world’s largest library of 16-bit hits?"
Nz17 (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally go by standard English language rules on Wikipedia, not various stylizations that companies or musicians tend to come up with. Sergecross73 msg me 05:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sergecross is right, plus sources overwhelmingly write "Sonic the Hedgehog" anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic "The" Hedgehog 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect South Island(Sonic). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 4#South Island(Sonic) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "South Island(Sonic)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Widescreen is just a set of aspect ratios. No aspect ratio is inherently superior to any other. Widescreen just has less height relative to its width than fullscreen does. The myth that widescreen "shows more" comes from the old practice of pan-and-scan, which is not synonymous with fullscreen. There are numerous examples of widescreen versions of things which were made by cutting the top and bottom off of a fullscreen source (a process sometimes called tilt-and-scan), resulting in the widescreen version showing less than the fullscreen version. If it can be proven that the remake has an expanded field of view, then that would count as an enhancement, but in that case, the article should clarify that the expanded field of view, not the wider aspect ratio, is the enhancement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t care much either way, but I think you’re overthinking this a bit. They just adapted the image so that it fills the entire screen of most modern devices instead of an old SD CRT. When games are adapted to modern devices, it’s generally considered an enhancement. I don’t really think it’s any more complicated than that... Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013: Widescreen is not an enhancement 

message: Can information about this be added...? 91.125.45.72 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend if any reliable sources covered it, and if anything noteworthy is different in it. If it’s just fansites talking about how theres 5 rings instead of 3 rings or that the enemies have a more reddish color or trivial stuff like that, then no. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly found / released prototype 

message: Just an FYI, the next issue of Retro Gamer (the one with a PlayStation 2 on the cover) is going to have a feature on the recently-dumped prototype of this game, which could potentially be of great use for this article. JOEBRO64 23:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, is it expected to have big news? It’s not often these prototypes get coverage like this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it's huge news, but Nick said it's going to have an interview with drx and Buckaroo, and I assume it's going to go into some detail as to how the game evolved over development. The story behind the release is interesting: Nick got an email from Buckaroo, who (from the way Nick made it sound) had obtained the cart in a collection and didn't realize it was a prototype at first (the rolling ball in Green Hill was what made Buckaroo suspicious, and he came to the conclusion it was a prototype after some research). Fun fact, Nick was like at first, "this guy's full of shit". JOEBRO64 16:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: At least two websites covered the prototype news: https://gamerant.com/sonic-lost-prototype-twitch/ & https://www.thegamer.com/video-official-prototype-sonic-hedgehog-1991/ Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those are reliable. JOEBRO64 20:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

text: *FYI, it doesn't appear to be working if you don't have a Sonic Retro account. (I don't have one, but you don't need to go out of your way for me, I was just curious.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

text: *:The post got trashed since the article is supposed to be part of the release. I know some WPVG regulars get RG (I'm gonna get a subscription soon) so it's not a huge deal. JOEBRO64 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ''Retro Gamer'' article incoming 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved.   -- Calidum 04:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't oppose changing it to "Sonic the Hedgehog (Genesis game)", as I don't see this as any less descriptive than "Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)", plus it's shorter. This would also remove any need to change the 8-bit title. Popcornfud (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 February 2021 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Sonic the Hedgehog: High Speed and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Sonic the Hedgehog: High Speed until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sonic the Hedgehog: High Speed" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I challenge that he was a producer of this game. I have full reason to believe he is not, and that this comes from a long history of internet-based falsehoods that we have already disproven through research.
Let's start with the basics: Toyoda isn't credited in the game's credits, neither is a pseudonym associated with him.  Beyond that, I have reason to believe this is associated with a fake story that was the internet's prerogative for years - the concept that there was a group called Sega-AM8 in the late 80s and early 90s that became Sonic Team.  Supposedly Toyoda was the head of this group prior to his move to Sega of America - ergo, the producer credit.  These are even things talked about in Ken Horowitz' book The Sega Arcade Revolution, and there are clear holes in his logic combined with research we have previously done on Sonic Team that makes this inconsistent.
We've already in tedious debate for the Sonic Team article shown that AM8 in all likelihood did not exist until at least 1994, when Naka was invited back to Japan post Sonic & Knuckles to run his own studio, and even then, it was CS3 and didn't receive AM8 as a designation until at least 1998.  AM Annex, associated with the later AM5 and AM9, actually held that designation before.  There's also a few issues of logic with an early AM8 - for starters the AM designation began only for arcade development, and secondly the timeline Horowitz pitches would have made AM8 the first or second AM to be started, in 1988, in a system that also had no AM7 at the time.  If it seems impossible, that's because it pretty much is.  The correct answer, we already know, is this story is false - that AM8 didn't come around until Sonic Team was already Sonic Team much later, but I remember this being a narrative that was heavily pushed on the internet as late as 2008.
AM studios aside, let's talk about Toyoda.  Even by Horowitz' own admission in his section on "AM8", Toyoda would have been gone by September 1989, as he took on the role we generally accept him to have as executive VP and COO, Sega of America. Knowing for sure this game was developed in Japan, how could he have produced the game?
I'll leave this open for discussion, especially if someone has evidence to the contrary. Red Phoenix talk 02:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments in four days, so I will remove for now and will discuss if someone disagrees. Red Phoenix talk 01:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinobu Toyoda listed as producer in the infobox 

message: Shouldn't the only platforms cited in the infobox be the Genesis and arcade like in Super Mario Bros.? Redjedi23 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platforms 

message: I have restored the previous hatnote linking only to Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) and not the greater Sonic the Hedgehog dab page, as you were previously reverted at least twice on this by myself today and by Loytra in July. The only part of the current article title that is ambiguous is that there is another Sonic game that was released in 1991 (the Master System game). Your argument that the article title could spark confusion with the 2006 game would made sense if the title was "Sonic the Hedgehog (video game)," but I fail to understand it as is. Why would a reader search "Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)", or select it from the drop-down search menu, and expect the '06 game? Chase (talk | contributions) 14:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted in the past because there hasn't been any consensus to change it. You are the one who has failed to follow WP:BRD. I'm not guilty of anything besides disagreeing with you. I think it's important to mention when two very separate games have the exact same name as each other across many years. If there's a consensus against that here, then we'll change it. It's not that serious. Let's see what others say. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I think the hatnote should only list the 8-bit game because that's the only realistic confusion that could arise from the title. Nobody is going to confuse the Sonic 1/Sonic '06 articles because they're properly disambiguated. This and the 8-bit game are an unusual case where they can't really be disambiguated by platform (the 8-bit game came out on two platforms, and people are going to argue over whether we should use "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" in the title here) and this is clearly the primary topic for 1991 Sonic games, so the hatnote is the best way to handle it. JOEBRO64 18:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Joe's logic is sound — the article titles (1991 and 2006) provide the disambiguation. Popcornfud (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: https://www.segasammy.co.jp/cms/wp-content/uploads/pdf/en/ir/ir_2023_web_all_e.pdf
Page 18, says Sonic 1 sold 4 million?
Maybe the 15 million is combining all Sonic MD SKUs then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.187.151 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales Data

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this alternate proposal.  Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) should be retargeted to Sonic the Hedgehog#Video games, incomplete disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an FYI - the "16 bit" disambiguation has been rejected in the past for not being a widely understood term outside of the video game industry. It's not really used outside of 20-40 year old enthusiasts. I oppose 16-bit as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 April 2024