Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/Archive 6

message: http://www.sonicstadium.org/sonicnews/262/
SEGA of Europe confirmed that there WILL NOT be any pc version of this game.
Maybe SEGA Will make a PC version later,Since Sonic Racers did have a PC version.--LavaBall 07:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a "nuance" of Wikipedia prodecure; verifiability is one of the pillars on which Wikipedia was founded and is the hallmark of an encylopedia.  Whether or not I "like" the letter is not the issue; the issue is whether or not Wikipedia policy allows this letter to be referenced.  To place this letter, which was posted on a forum, as a reference in this article is what is damaging to Wikipedia's credibility, not the other way around.  There's a reason why these rules exist, and why they're applied on every other article in the encylopedia (or should be, if they're not). As editors, we are obliged to follow these rules and maintain the encylopedia's integrity with reliable resources; as such, that letter should not be referenced here. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that Wikipedia policy prohibits that particular letter from being cited. I am disputing that Wikipedia policy prohibits editors from taking that letter seriously and attempting to obtain the information therein in a form amenable to Wikipedia policy. And the positive evidence cited (a generic Amazon placeholder) isn't what I would call a reliable source either, but maybe policy differs on that. Rolken 08:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The continual onslaught of misinformation has made us Wikipedian jaded.  If you think our Amazon source is unreliable, I suggest you take that up with Amazon and not us.  Inform them that you heard a rumor that a rumor was a rumor, and perhaps they will contact Sega themselves for confirmation.  –Gunslinger47 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Amazon UK just took down their listing for Sonic '06 PC.  I'm removing all references from the article. –Gunslinger47 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was going to say. The PC version isn't "fake", it's just canceled. It clearly existed at one point and was advertised in official Sega merchandise. BlazeHedgehog (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEGA Confirms PC version to be fake 

message: I've noticed that the information on the gameplay of the three hedgehogs (Sonic, Silver and Shadow) goes to excessive length to describe their abilities. I don't have the game and therefore don't quite know how to do it, but it would be a good idea to create a heading quickly describing the abilities of the various characters, perhaps in a table to show which ones are shared and which differ from each character. What do you think?
(211.30.189.31 07:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of an "abilities" heading 

message: What should be mentioned in this article, is that this game should not be confused with the Sega Genesis game of the same name. --PJ Pete
:Such as in the second paragraph, for example? –Gunslinger47 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusions 

message: I haven't played the game before, but is this true? --Coconutfred73 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was recently added by a guest.  It was reverted six hours later. –Gunslinger47 21:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The main theme is "Kids of the Future" by Jonas Brothers?

message: "According to the information disclosed on the American game site, there are a total of eleven stages, meaning there is still one unknown, unannounced stage."
You mean out of the thousands of people who have this game, noone has ever unlocked the last stage? As well as many other old things. MindWraith 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page likely need a complete rewrite.  It's far too long, for one thing. –Gunslinger47 20:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad someone noticed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.221.243 (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, three years.  Might be time to archive. –Gunslinger47 20:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is incredibly out-of-date

message: Well I'm new to wiki so I did some edits to this games story, which is too long. I also did minor edits to the Shadow the Hedgehog video game page.--S200048 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story summarization 

message: What happened?!! I come back and this article is looonger. Do you really need to put when each character plays a certain stage. You also increased the plot summary into a plot story. sheesh!!!--S200048 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened was one guy rolled back the page to a version of it that was several months old.  I've restored the current version. –Gunslinger47 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Info 

message: Uhh... someone put info about the action stages, should we get rid of it? And someone made a joke at the end of sonics story. It says sonic farted in eggmans face. I'll fix that part, but i dont know about the action stage part, I'll leave that alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S200048 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Chris288 wants the stages to be listed in the article.  You might want to discuss it with him before removing the section. –Gunslinger47 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and action stages 

message: I found some errors in the article discussing some of the stages as if the game was yet to be released.
71.241.118.226 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. –Gunslinger47 02:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's no problem.  The reception section could use a little bit more information, but until the rest of the article is slimmed down, I'll be against expanding it.  Here what the section looked like before it was cut:  –Gunslinger47 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be cleaned up in several areas 

message: I've just found something about the Computer animation in the game. It is made by the same studio who made the CG movies in Shadow the hedgehog. Umm.. i'm wondering if this should be put under the trivia section. The studios name is Blur Studio Inc. I saw it on their website www.blur.com  I guess they like sonic. Its funny b/c this game was made in japan, and they're american. But shadow the hedgehog was made in sanfrancisco, so whatever.--S200048 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CG movies 

message: You know, people, in one of the trailers of the game, there is music from Pirates of the Caribbean. Should I write it into the article? Leader Vladimir
:I don't think that trivia is interesting enough to warrant inclusion. –Gunslinger47 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability. Wikipedia lives and dies by what people think is important to an article, and a fact like that is way too unimportant to be mentioned. The Pirates music may be notable enough. It's a popular movie, after all. BlazeHedgehog 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia is sometimes acceptable inside of articles.  The threshold for trivia is that if it's not particularly notable, it must be sufficently interesting.  Even then, it should be incorporated into the article.  It should not be the main focus of any particular section. –Gunslinger47 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, Blaze?  I've had a post on your talk page sitting around for ages, and I'm still waiting [somewhat impatiently] for a reply! I really want to know; does Dracula kill Tails in Sonic: The Fated Hour?  And, also, there's something funny going on with my copy of Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX...  --Luigifan 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean]]'' 

message: Is there anyway for this game to tie in with Sonic Rush. I mean, the two games contradict eachother, yet, according to some of the more diehard Sonic fans, it is canon. That leads to another question; is it this game or Soinc Rush that is canon? Michael Mad 09:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious to me Sonicteam doesn't really care about a "canon" for their games. They just write whatever crap happens to flow out of their mouth, whether it matches the storyline of the previous games or not. Think of each game as if they were their own self-contained canon. BlazeHedgehog 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Sonic's memory transcends time and space to remember events that were canceled out due to a time paradox. Of course. Nevermind the fact that he can't "remember" events that, scientifically speaking, never happened; how can you remember something you never did? That's like eating a hamburger but remembering that you ate pizza two weeks from now. No; it doesn't work that way - you can't remember future events that haven't taken place (and, logically speaking, cannot happen). Sorry. Despite time travel being a confusing mess when used incorrectly, this is something that just isn't possible no matter how poorly the concept of time travel is used in a story. BlazeHedgehog 10:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonic Rush

message: I have read all the gamesite reviews and the best review I saw was three out of five stars. The game revieved similar reviews from other sites, showing fifty percent and 5 out of 10 point reviews, many sites even listed EVERY feature under the negative section. My dad owns a PS3, and I wanted to buy this game but now I'm not so sure. Anyone who owns the PS3 version of SONIC THE HEDGEHOG and is a SONIC fan, could you please tell me if the game is as bad as everyone makes it out to be? Thanks.
::{fun's over, deleted}
:I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as this are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. –Gunslinger47 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could actually benifite from those articles. If you could find them again, then we could include those reviews under "reception".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.98.29 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A BAD GAME? 

message: how much doewes sonic and elise remember?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.177.116 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confused 

message: Apparently, there *was* indeed going to be a Wii version of this game, but it was cancelled. Should we mention it?  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not apparent until you have a reliable source. –Gunslinger47 04:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was in a Kikizo Interview shortly before Sonic & The Secret Rings was released, or shortly afterwards. Yojiro Ogawa mentioned that initially, the plan was to simply port Sonic 2k6 to the Wii, but upon receiving the specs for the Wiimote, they split the team in half - One half went off to work on Sonic & The Secret Rings and the other stayed and worked on the 360/PS3 versions of Sonic 2k6. Yojiro recalls that, to produce the amount of content needed in such a short amount of time (9 months or something), he effectively tripled the team's size and outsourced the game's multiplayer/party mode to another developer. Really, I think this helps explain why this game feels so unfinished; they were probably understaffed because focus shifted to Secret Rings. BlazeHedgehog 12:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: XD!  Maybe this says something about Sega's opinion of Microsoft and Sony...  --Luigifan 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think Wii was around yet when this game was released. If it was, the Sega PROBABLY would have lowered the graphics to make it compatable with Wii (but there's no garentie). 58.174.98.29 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii 

message: This page has been vandalized. I can't figure out how to fix it. Smd 6710 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, looks like someone fixed it.Smd 6710 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information, see Help:Reverting.  Thanks for trying to help. –Gunslinger47 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hentai Images?

message: I saw a video on youtube that theres a squeal in development call Sonic next gen 2
I don't believe this due to Sega nor Sonic Team announcing anything about this. Don't believe everything you see on YouTube. Not too long ago, there were rumours of a new Sonic Cartoon in development, but all the smart fans knew it was a hoax due to no info on the animation company behind it, or any announcement from Sega. --S200048 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  squeal 

message: I recon the ending is a bit of a rip off of the Pokemon movie. You know, the main character dies, gets brought back to life through the power of love, a time reboot at the end and something related to the story line seems to trigger a memory of the main character, but he can't tell what. 58.174.98.29 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending 

message: This game has been referred to as "Sonic: The Disaster" by a few reviewers, should that be mentioned on the wiki page under Reception? --82.43.141.57 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I could tell, Spax3 is the only one calling it that.  Who else? –Gunslinger47 02:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrong about that, you're right, Spax3's the only reviewer using that name. Although it has gotten popular amongst Sonic fans. --82.43.141.57 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What? That's official!! I thought it was vandalism.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's "officially" a YouTube video, yes. –Gunslinger47 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic: The Disaster? 

message: Why is all the parts about the `small romance` between these two characters not in the article? even the kiss scene is not mentioned here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.105.214 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elise and Sonic and the kiss 

message: Sonic Next-Gen is actually part of a different series continued through Sonic Rivals and Sonic Rivals 2. Sega has actually stated THREE times that this game is not canon to the main series! It should be moved. If you have any questions why it isn't canon to the main series or arguments saying that it is, please ask or tell me and I'll give you an answer [in three days, im going on a mini-vacation :)]. But for now, this game should be removed from the "Main Series" section. Thanks! ^_^  Usernamesarekewl (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... okay then, I'm not really sure what you want to have done, do you want this removed from lists?(talk) (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: We're not talking about the canon's continuity when we say "Main Series- Home Console".  We're talking about a series of product; video games released by Sega.  Sonic '06 was intended as a main Sonic release, wasn't it? –Gunslinger47 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't seem to recall Sega saying that it was a side project.  What source are you reading? –Gunslinger47 05:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please excuse User. I've spoken to him. He seems to think fansite whines are the only correct sources. Please undo any edits that he makes. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The three different articles that retcon STH06 into a spin-off. 72.201.26.20 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DO NOT REMOVE MY POSTS! So, which games are these? Fangames? Back you claims. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This game is NOT part of the main series! 

message: Where exactly is Live and Learn used because I played through the game and I haven't found it. --Coconutfred73 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think too. for reference, This is main OST for SA2. --Badbread123 (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live & Learn 

message: Where's that come from? Reference, please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.164.76 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected, sorry.  This article needs a maintainer. –Gunslinger47 01:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wii?

message: Assessed as a Start; has no image demonstrating the actual game, has an excessive render of a character [which is undue weight since she wasn't the only important character], has a VERY excessive plot summary, many unsourced pieces and even sections, no development information, and other problems. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: If this is going for FAC, the writing needs to be focused like a laser. Good writing has no unnecessary words. I remove them when I see them, but TheJoebro64 tends to put them back. A few cases in point:
* " Pre-release anticipation was high" - as opposed to post-release anticipation? You can't anticipate something that's already happened.
* "the game faced problems during development, resulting in Sega rushing the product for its late 2006 release despite existing bugs" - to "rush" something, by definition, means to do something fast at the expense of quality, so "despite existing bugs" adds no information. The reasons the game was criticised, such as bugs, can be better covered later in the paragraph. (Also, "existing bugs" - as opposed to what, non-existing bugs?)
* "Since its release, Sonic the Hedgehog has been called one of the worst games of all time" - as opposed to before its release, when it wasn't finished and no one had reviewed it? "Since its release" adds no information. Popcornduff (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. I think the whole "it was viewed positively prior to release" angle probably needs to be pared back. I don't recall there being this crazy anticipation for the game (outside of the already frenzied fanbase). The series was already in a rough patch after Shadow the Hedgehog (video game). Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * fixed. And the FAC has been open for a few weeks now (only two comments, but one is a "support" and another appears to lean on supporting). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, without meaning to be insulting, my writing standards are a higher than a lot of other editors'. Popcornduff (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose problems

message: Joebro, it's edits like this that tanked your FA attempt. It's overly wordy.
*Why is it important to denote "the game's story" instead of "the story"? What other story would we be talking about? 
*Why is it important to say "the game is often informally referred to with colloquial terms when both "colloqual" and "informal" convey the exact same message twice. There's no reason to list both.
*Why is it important to say "planned but cancelled" instead of just "cancelled"? It literally can't be considered cancelled if it was never planned. 
Reverting these improvements are not helping your quest for FA status. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I don't see how they're improving the article. They're sort of unclear. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What part is unclear? I asked 3 questions. That doesn't address any of them sufficiently. Again, this is exactly what lead to the oppose votes in the FA attempt. Someone opposed on the grounds of poorly worded prose, you said something vague like "fixed", and you left them unconvinced. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your edits (and Popcornduff's) introduced typos like "platform game game". That was the main reason I reverted. And it wasn't necessarily the prose, either - sources were being questioned and needed additional fields to be filled out, which is why I withdrew it (it didn't "tank", FYI) ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Tarkus removed the double word, and yet, you reverted again anyways. And regardless of how you want to word it, the FA was not successful, and at the time of the withdrawing, had 1 oppose and 0 supports, with the main opposer focusing their rationale on things like "awkward or necessarily convoluted wording, run-on sentences, repetitious phrasing, weasel words, and the like." There's three people voicing concerns about this now. (David Fuchs, , and myself) so it's probably worth more consideration than you seem to be giving it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And the previous FAC had one support and zero opposing votes. I'm giving consideration to this; as you can see, I've removed some of the "convoluted" sentences. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Nice to have another editor making my arguments for me. Joebro, good writing has no unnecessary words. You're going to have to explain what useful information is being removed here rather than making us guess. I apologise for the typos, that was sloppy of me, but they were easily fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose in lead