Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)

Console Wars

The following is a summation of useful material from Console Wars. If Tezero wishes to return to the project of promoting this article to FA, he may find it helpful.

• Page 63: An internal competition to develop Sega's new mascot was held, top choices included "an anime-inspired egg and a teal hedgehog with red shoes created by Naoto Oshima that he called Mr. Needlehouse". Oshima teamed up with programmer Yuji Naka (Phantasy Star) to a develop a game starring the character.
• Page 73: Mr. Needlehouse was renamed "Sonic"; the character's original design featured "sharp fangs, a spiked collar, an electric guitar, and a human girlfriend [Madonna] whose cleavage made Barbie's chest look flat."
• Pages 75–76: Sega of America removed the fangs, collar, guitar, and girlfriend. SOA product manager (page 60) Madeline Shroeder composed a thirteen-page backstory for Sonic, which states "[Sonic] had grown up in Nebraska, lost his father at a young age, trained hard to develop world-class speed, and befriended a brilliant scientist who acted as a father figure until an experiment gone awry turned him into an evil villain."
• Page 76: SOA "marketing dynamo" (pages 32–33) Al Nilsen trademarked "The" as Sonic's middle name, "on the reasoning that it would make a cool story one day".
• Pages 77–78: Sega of Japan objected to SOA's changes, Shroeder went to Japan to negotiate, and SOJ proposed allowing each branch of Sega to promote its own version of Sonic; Shroeder ultimately prevailed.
• Pages 133, 137–139: Sega's booth at the 1991 summer CES in Chicago's McCormick Place demonstrated Sonic, with two televisions displaying side-by-side comparisons of highlights from both Super Mario World and Sonic the Hedgehog. This approach was decided on after Nilsen organized a series of play tests around the United States, in which children (90% of whom were NES owners and at least 75% of whom considered a Mario title to be their favorite game) were asked to determine which was the better product—80% chose Sonic. On page 138, Nilsen tells a journalist "Nintendo may have 32,768 colors, but I think it's safe to say that Mario literally pales in comparison." If I remember correctly, in another source I can't place, Nilsen simply asks the journalist "Which has more colors?"—which is perhaps a better quote considering the way Green Hill Zone showcases every color in the rainbow.
• Pages 146–147: Sonic was featured on the cover of Electronic Gaming Monthly in May 1991, and on the covers of both VideoGames & Computer Entertainment and GamePro in June 1991. In addition, "Sega released a sixteen-page promotional Sonic comic, which not only grabbed more eyeballs on newsstands but was Trojan-horsed inside other publications like Disney Adventures and an issue of Superman."
• Pages 147–149: Because Sega's advertisement budget for 1991 was less than what Nintendo had allocated for a single quarter (page 142), the company could only afford to place an ad on one primtetime show. After a period of deliberation, Nilsen arranged a deal with producer Richard Rovsek to create a syndicated primetime special shot in Universal Studios and hosted by Scott Baio called the Sega Star Kid Challenge, in which young celebrities competed in a variety of activities to raise money for charity. Sega products—and a costumed Sonic the Hedgehog—were featured prominently, and the special debuted to high ratings in June.
• Pages 148, 142–143: This was accompanied by a broader effort to effectively "relaunch" the Genesis and Sega's brand name, with a pair of ambitious marketing campaigns beginning the same month: "Sixteen Weeks of Summer"—a collaboration with Los Angeles' 102.7 KIIS-FM radio station that included frequent Sega-related announcements and competitions as well as playable Genesis displays at the station's on-location events throughout the city, which preceded similar radio campaigns in Chicago and New York—and "Graduate to Genesis", a promotion that included a free third-party game (from one of nine companies including EA and Namco) with the purchase of a Genesis. Blockbuster Video also agreed to host in-store displays of Sega products.
• Pages 149–150: On June 15, the price of 100,000 Genesis systems bundled with Altered Beast that retailers had failed to sell-through to consumers was lowered to $149.95. The "Graduate to Genesis" promotion concluded on July 1, and on the same day Sega announced that consumers who had purchased the Altered Beast bundle were entitled to receive a free copy of Sonic by mail. Sonic shipped to retailers beginning in mid-July, but the Genesis and Altered Beast bundle was still sold to select retailers until September 15, after which the Genesis and Sonic bundle was sold exclusively for the $149.95 price. A backlog of 150,000 Genesis systems bundled with Altered Beast and sitting in Sega's warehouses were swapped out with new packaging and a copy Sonic.
• Pages 152–154: Created with the advertising agency Bozell, the first national Sonic the Hedgehog commercial featured an uptight librarian identified as the president of a fictional organization called "Humans Against Genesis" (HAG) criticizing Sonic for his attitude and recommending "that nice little Mario" instead. Per the book, Kalinske was apparently not satisfied by the ad.
• Pages 161–162: The Japanese version of Sonic came out in late July 1991, and benefited from some additional polish (which is why I recommend selecting it over the International release if you ever play 3D Sonic the Hedgehog ). It was not bundled with the Genesis in Japan.
• Page 157: Sega was relieved that the SNES retailed for $199, making the Genesis the cheaper, faster system with a larger library of games.
• Pages 168–171: Kept secret from SOJ until it was too late to pull it, SOA and Bozell developed an ad referred to as "The Salesman", in which an aggressive salesman tries to sell an SNES to a customer who is distracted by Sonic and the Genesis' lower price. Per the book, Nakayama approved of the ad when he was finally informed.
• Pages 68–71, 111–116, 171–172: Following months of a large-scale marketing campaign designed to promote Sega in Wal-Mart's home city of Bentonville, Arkansas as well as the increasing sales of the system caused by the release of Sonic the Hedgehog, Wal-Mart finally agreed to carry the system, which they had previously refused to do out of fear that Nintendo would retaliate.
• Pages 163–168, 172–173, 178: Ellen Beth Van Buskirk and Nilsen organized a "Sega World Tour" across twenty-four malls in sixteen cities, starting at the Alderwood Mall in Seattle—which was located five miles from Nintendo of America's offices. The mall tour reached over 100,000 people who were invited to play both the Genesis (with Sonic) and the SNES (with Mario World), of whom 88% favored the Genesis, and was covered by newspapers reaching millions of readers across the United States.
• Page 186: With its head start, the Genesis outsold the SNES in 1991, with 1.6 million Genesis units selling through to consumers compared to 1.4 million SNES units.
• Pages 214–215: Naka quit Sega due to his dissatisfaction with his $30,000 a year salary, Sega management's anger over Sonic's fourteen-month development cycle, and a lack of public recognition. Shinobu Toyoda hired Naka back to work for Mark Cerny's Sega Technical Institute in Palo Alto, California with the promise of better pay and more recognition. No mention in the book of the legendary Ferrari that supposedly sealed the deal.
• Page 382: Oshima "just put Felix the Cat on the body of Mickey Mouse".

Obviously, some of this is covered already, and not all of this detail is necessary. Moreover, Console Wars diverges from The History of Sonic on some points, so a more careful look at both sources might be in order before renominating the article. Posting this here is all I have time for at the moment. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting read. Thanks for that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Because I like having things in writing to absolve myself of potential blame, will I avoid the wrath of the "fraud" debate from a little while ago if I have your word that this is what the source actually says and add it thus, even if I haven't seen the source myself? Tezero (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to make the changes myself. It's just that I was in the middle of adding some of the material from The History of Sonic, when I realized that it seemed to be saying the rabbit was the final choice and "Mr. Needlemouse" only came into the picture because the rabbit didn't fit with the gameplay of Naka's prototype, although I couldn't quite determine the full story from the excerpts available. If so, then the distinction being made between "Background and character design" and "Programming and prototyping" is rather arbitrary, but I see no reason to believe the History of Sonic version is any more reliable than the other accounts. In truth, most of the stuff on the creation of Sonic that I've read seems based on vague anecdotes and mythology, and it's not clear if anyone knows exact details such as when Naka's first protoype or Oshima's first sketch was created. Although we'll never sort it all out on Wikipedia, we can try to exercise a degree of editorial discretion. For example, we know Blake Harris (author of Console Wars) is wrong when he says there were four (rather than fifteen) developers on Sonic 1. Without having read your Retro Gamer source, as summarized in this article ("Ideas proposed to flesh out the character included placing him in a rock band, giving him vampire fangs, and giving him a human girlfriend named Madonna, but Sega of America scrapped these ideas to keep his identity simple. Sega of America also expressed concerns that most Americans would not know what a hedgehog is and initially proposed a full-scale recreation of the character, but compromised with Sonic Team to simply make design changes") it sounds more credible than Harris's narrative. While I'm sure many of the anecdotes in Console Wars are true, Harris is writing from an obviously biased perspective informed by his lengthy interviews with SOA employees, and for the purposes of his story depicts the relationship between SOA and SOJ as one of SOA's brilliant plans constantly being undermined by the stubborn and inept blundering of SOJ. However, Oshima's original sketch of "Mr. Needlemouse" has no visible teeth or collar or guitar, which lends credence to the notion that these were merely proposals aimed at fleshing out the character; likewise, although Harris would have you believe SOA always saw the potential of Sonic but were simply trying to make him look less like a "serial killer", a Sega-16 interview with Mark Cerny makes clear SOA wanted the whole idea scrapped: "I heard, I kid you not, that the characters were "unsalvageable," that this was a "disaster," and that "procedures would be put in place to make sure that this sort of thing would never happen again." These "procedures" included a proposed "top ten list of dos and don'ts" to follow when making products for the American market. Additionally, I was told that the marketing group would be contacting a known character designer (I won't reveal the name, but it made me cringe at the time) to make a character that showed exactly what the American market needed. Needless to say, this character designer would have been totally inappropriate for the Japanese market. Not that great for the American market either, I suspect." A careful cross-referencing of the sources Indrian mentioned might be valuable before resuming the FAC process, although it might be unnecessary and subject to diminishing returns. BTW, I forgot to mention that page 245 covers the Eggman/Robotnik snafu.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, was AM8 really a thing in 1990? I don't think Sega even had eight separate development teams at the time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"Development emphasized speed, so AM8 eliminated character designs not associated with fast animals, as well as fast creatures like kangaroos and squirrels." Not only is the meaning of this sentence unclear, but the source doesn't appear to say anything about kangaroos or squirrels, so if I revise the development section it will be nixed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Another spotcheck: 1UP does not say the rabbit was "able to grasp objects with prehensile ears". 1UP says only "The original game concept was to have a speedy character that could pick up and throw objects at enemies". I believe this is true and that the concept became Ristar, but you've got to get your sources in order before renominating.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to question some of our assumptions. Is even the notion of fifteen members of "AM8" actually based on anything? Only eight individuals are listed in the credits (under various pseudonyms, such as Naka's "Yu2", Yasuhara's "Carol Yas", and Oshima's "Big Island"; Nakamura is named). Yuji Naka was quoted as saying the original Sonic was made by eight people in Sega Visions, August/September 1992, page 20. He also says:

• "At first we used a character that looked like a rabbit with ears that could extend and pick up objects. As the game got faster and faster, we needed to come up with a special characteristic to give our character some power over his enemies. I remembered a character I had thought about years ago who could roll himself into a ball and slam into enemies. Hedgehogs can roll themselves into a ball, so we decided to go from a rabbit to a hedgehog."

Unfortunately, for reasons beyond my control, I need to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. I would very much like to return and look into this more thoroughly, but I am simply not able to give this article the attention it deserves right now. If you move forward in the meantime, Tezero, then I can only apologize for leaving you hanging.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Japanese names

Hi! I'll comment on this edit.

Japanese names are always relevant to Japanese citizens/ethnic Japanese people. It is necessary to know how a name is written in Japanese if you want to search for Japanese-language documents (for example in Keiko (given name) you notice there are a zillion characters for "Kei" so you won't know which one a person uses unless it's provided) - In the cases of the other people they have Wikipedia articles, so they don't need to have their Japanese names displayed in the article. However Jina Ishiwatari does not have an article of her own so her Japanese name should be displayed in the Sonic the Hedgehog video game article.

While the Sonic article should have Japanese names of people who worked on it, they can be made footnotes if they are perceived as being too obtrusive. They should not be removed from the article (unless/until Jina Ishiwatari gets her own Wikipedia article) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• @WhisperToMe: They've always been removed on game articles, as they aren't relevant for an English article. (We aren't even suppose to list the title in Japanese anymore, per WP:JFN) You should post this on the talk page for Sonic so others can contribute to the discussion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: I am aware of the previous attempts to remove Japanese names. That ended up in conflict with Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan because people do, in fact, want to know what the Japanese names are. The solution was footnoting (see Kweilin incident for something similar, and countless Japanese video game articles) - So in fact Japanese names are no longer being removed. They're just being turned into footnotes. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In fact Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Readability issues suggests using footnotes for Japanese terms/concepts (unless they are seen as being very important to the concept or something) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I know this, but I ask how is Jina Ishiwatari considered notable enough for this? We may as well add kanji to everybody in the infobox. Googling 石渡 爾奈 doesn't even bring up helpful info at all, so this doesn't even have a point. I'm against the inclusion of this, as is most of the VG project, if the JFN policy has anything to say about it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I googled "石渡爾奈" and beyond a few irrelevant pages it brings up other video games she's worked on, like en:Michael Jackson's Moonwalker (JAwiki: ja:マイケル・ジャクソンズ・ムーンウォーカー) and also a page on the Sega Retro Wiki mentioning which games she worked on - I am trying to see though if there are any more in-depth articles about her (some of those may be "dead tree" works that would have to be found going through a library since she was active in the 90s)
      • According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Using_Japanese_in_the_article_body Japanese characters don't have to be displayed for a subject if it has its own Wikipedia article; if somebody who is Japanese does have his/her own Wikipedia article someone may consult that to get the text.
      • The way Asian languages (I'm speaking about Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, broadly) work, it's difficult to find info on something or somebody if you don't have the original name. If you hand something to a Japanese librarian with "Jina Ishiwatari" written on it. He doesn't know which Jina, which Ishiwatari, how it's spelled (with katakana, hiragana, or kanji), etc. You hand him/her "石渡 爾奈" and he/she knows exactly what he/she would be looking for. That's why with the Taipei Times (for example this article posts the names of murder victim Peng Wan-ru and her husband as well as and murder victims Liu Pang-yu and Pai Hsiao-yen) and scholarly works on East Asia you see almost every name of something with Chinese characters indicated.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Sega Retro isn't a reliable source, so that's a bad example. If the game's title in Japanese (way more notable) was told to not be that important in the article lead, some obscure artist who worked on a few games 20 years ago won't either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Im against this as well. We don't usually put Japaese names in parentheses for credits in infoboxes like that. We shouldn't be sourcing to fan wikis either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI the fan wiki is merely displaying code within the game file itself as part of the "Hidden Japanese Credits". In other words the source of Ishiwatari's name is the game itself, not the fan wiki.

I have stated that the Japanese name could be made into a footnote. User:Sergecross73, what do you think of that option?

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

And again I ask, how is Jina notable enough to warrant this, when we don't do this for any other person? A footnote is still too much for adding somebody's kanji that gives you zero information when Googling it, so while I understand your intent, I don't see how it's helpful in this case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean any other person who does not have a Wikipedia article? (I have already explained that people who have Wikipedia articles, and people who don't are treated differently). I scanned the article, and aside from Jina Ishiwatari there's also Eizin Suzuki, the Japanese pop artist; and the illustrator, Akira Watanabe. I also would like to include their Japanese names too (once I find them).

I ask myself "What would the Taipei Times do?" when considering these matters. That newspaper shows the Chinese names of any and all ethnic Chinese mentioned in the article and likewise I feel Wikipedia should do the same with all ethnic Japanese (except for those who have their own Wikipedia articles). While generalist video game publications don't do this, please understand this article is "shared" with WikiProject Japan. Having footnotes is unobtrusive, yet allows those who are interested to see how the names are spelled.

A listing other games that Ishiwatari worked on should be enough justification for including her name (not everything is on the internet and a Japanese video game library/etc could be a potential resource)

WhisperToMe (talk)

I think he means, why is it that you're hung up on this one person, when there's many in the infobox, and there's not really a precedent for doing this in other article's infoboxes. It puzzles me as well. Why specifically Jina specifically at the Sonic 1 infobox? Sergecross73 msg me 11:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well now it's three people, not only one (I don't know the Japanese names of the other two yet). Irrespective of the location of where the name happens (whether somebody is in the infobox or the article body) there's already precedence for footnoting "minor" names at Kweilin incident, which I assisted in developing. I wanted the Asian names to be included, so the solution found was footnoting. Another example is this Variety magazine article on an Edward Snowden film which displays the Chinese names of the four filmmakers (Cassandra Chan's isn't included, but I know the filmmakers intentionally withheld the Chinese names of at least one cast member, making them semi-anonymous, so hers was likely deliberately withheld). WhisperToMe (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• You're kind of missing the point - the question is, why do this to some, and not others? I'm counting at least 6 Japanese names in the infobox. Why just 3? And well, no, the fact that its an infobox is relevant - there's limited space and it makes things look cramped. There also doesn't seem to be much in the way of precedent with this in video game articles. I'd recommend collecting your thoughts, and making a proposal at WP:VG and getting a consensus regarding this before going any further. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Sergecross73: the above posts explain why those six don't need footnotes (they have their own articles) versus the three (which do not) - This is reflected in Kweilin incident which does not footnote the things with ariticles Sun Fo, Eurasia (airline), etc. but it does footnote the things without articles.
• I have decided to do an RFC while notifying both WP:VG and WP:JP. People from both projects need to be involved (any other relevant projects may be contacted too).
• WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Film and video game projects here are separate, we don't follow the same guidelines. And WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for something. And I while I do understand your intent, the fact is Googling 石渡爾奈 or Jina Ishiwatari brings up nothing but her Sega Retro article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is not about film, but about Asian subjects (namely China and Japan). Any discussions must also involve Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan.
• Where was WP:IDONTLIKEIT brought up?
• WhisperToMe (talk)

Should Japanese names of subjects without Wikipedia articles be footnoted?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The conversation definitely does not support a mandate to always or never follow a particular practice, even within the limited scope of video game infoboxes. Native transliterations are of encyclopedic interest, since they may help in uniquely identifying an individual or locating related sources, but are only useful to a small subset of readers. The only definite consensus is that if they are included, it should be in the least intrusive manner possible. There does not seem to be firm consensus on what style or template is least intrusive. Rhoark (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Should Japanese names of subjects without Wikipedia articles (names of people involved in the development of the game) be footnoted? In other words the article body/infoboxes only have the English names, but a user may click a footnote that will show what the name is written in Japanese. (examples of footnoting: Kweilin_incident#Notes and Sonom#Notes) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see how there is any need at all for the non-English names adjacent to minor figures in an article. I can see how it's useful to have the original Japanese next to an article's title if that title is primarily known by Japanese, but it makes no sense to an English-reading audience to put the Japanese in prose adjacent to a name just because it might be relevant to later searches. Hell, we remove all sorts of stuff for prose just for readability, and having the Japanese in-line is a no-no on those grounds alone. So, yes, footnote it, if it's even necessary to include in the first place. czar 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It clutters the infobox, and it isn't of any use to a vast majority of English readers. Virtually none of the thousands of Japanese video game articles do this, and I don't feel it's necessary to start now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the usage of footnote markers such as "[a]" would not clutter an infobox - We already have footnotes in country infoboxes such as Algeria (the "Arab-Berber" ethnic label is footnoted there) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Er... Yeah, I suppose that is an article with a footnote, I'm just saying, thousands of JP video game articles don't, including a boatload of GA/FAs. I just don't think they're helpful to 99% of readers, as Japanese is not a common second language for English readers. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support as it would provide the information without cluttering up the prose. I don't see it cluttering up the infobox, either, as infoboxes often have footnotes in them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Serge's comment. Maybe (in a special case) if this person had third-party info on them but no Wikipedia article, but that's not even the case, so the Japanese name isn't helpful at all here. Japanese kanji in general isn't helpful to the vast majority of English readers, so I'm not sure why we're so insistent in putting it in every Japanese culture related article (anime and manga ones are terrible for this). Even if this were to be footnoted, I still oppose it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Those are poor examples as they involve Chinese names, and are not video game related. And why is this being discussed on an article in which the only "nihongo foot" example is the video game title? I've never seen Nihongo applied to crew members names. Characters and terminology, yes, but not cast and crew members in an infobox. For people aliases in an infobox, yes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So in the previous discussion on infobox, Jina Ishiwatari would not need Nihongo, but in List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters the Nihongo for the main characters names such as Tails (テイルス Teirusu) is acceptable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: I used Chinese names as an example because they share the hanzi/kanji with Japanese, and because they are provided in Asian specialist materials for the same reasons as Japanese (when one converts the name to English, information about the specific characters making up the name is lost: this was also brought up in this discussion regarding the name of a Chinese-Malaysian pilot when a Wikipedian mentioned the name "Dai" could be either 戴 or 代 and when it's changed to "Dai" this info is lost)

It is true that say, in the fields of economics, politics, video games, etc. people may not care so much about the makeup of Japanese or Chinese names. When it comes to Japanese studies or Sinology it becomes incredibly crucial, as one would want to know who is who when referring to texts in the original languages (Japanese and Chinese)

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It really is unclear what you are asking. "Should all Japanese names have a footnote with the Japanese script?" No. "Should all Japanese script footnotes be removed?" No. I think it is immensely counterproductive to have rules like this which enable drive-by editors to either add or remove things according to their personal whim; rather, each case should be considered on its merits. Arguments about the number of English-speaking readers who can read Japanese forget the millions of Chinese speakers who may be reading something in English (because they can't read Japanese), but to whom the kanji are immediately recognisable. I strongly oppose mindless removal on "I don't like it" grounds. At the same time, in this particular case I can't even see any reasonable need to put the Japanese form of "Sonic the hedgehog" in a footnote. It is simply the obvious rendering of the English words into katakana; if anyone really wanted to check, there's a Japanese article one click away. (I'm more intrigued by this claim that Americans don't know what a hedgehog is... really??) Equally, I can't see that the kanji name of just one of the (minor) contributors deserves a special footnote. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Imaginatorium - For what it's worth, in the context that the RFC starter is talking about - creators of Japanese video games, there would not be any "removing" involved, as zero articles currently use that approach. (That's probably why, as another pointed out above, he keeps using examples unrelated to video games). Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, either {{nihongo}} it inline or leave it out. This proposal is unnecessary, too ambiguous (non-Japanese foreign names? Americans active in Japan? Japanese-Americans?) and essentially devotes an entire section to foreign content. We are the English Wikipedia, after all. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment | This topic has a lot of questions going for it, like,
  • Is it necessary to have Japanese transliterations on an English website?
  • And if we decide it is, what's the best way to format it? The nihongo template], or a footnote?
  • And if we decide to format them one way or the other, when is it appropiate to include this information?
• So I think that once we answer those questions, the end result of this topic will come to us naturally Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 00:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The RFC is focused on developers that don't have Wikipedia articles, not Japanese terms in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Since it's only useful to people who speak Japanese languages other than English, it's out of place on the English Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. There is no simple "No Japanese" or "Everything Japanese" answer. For a start, your comment is factually incorrect, because it is also useful to people who speak Chinese (there are a few million of them...) but cannot read Japanese. Anyway, the RfC is incoherent: it is not clear what the question means. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As I understand the RFC it focuses just on crew credits and names of developers who don't have an article, and how it pertains to the infobox. It's got nothing to do whether the title Sonic the Hedgehog should be nihongo'ed. It has nothing to do with whether Nihongo or Nihongo foot is useful in general (It is useful). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. If anything, based on the comments above, I believe its Imaginatorium that is confused over the scope of this RFC. I'd recommend reading through the discussion of where this issue first arose here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: Okay, I slightly reworded my comment. It should be 100% factually correct now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. This is not relevant to the discussion here, but masses of en:WP is "only useful to people who speak languages other than English", and such information is absolutely appropriate. So that line of argument is invalid. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If I'm reading your stance right, you also don't believe that development team members should have Japanese names in footnotes, (the ultimate dispute leading to this RFC) so I'm puzzled as to why you keep badgering him on this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Here I was just objecting to the argument that en:WP should not contain information which cannot be read by monoglot English speakers. This is plainly not WP policy, or there would be no nihongo template, for example. I was also objecting to the bad wording of the RfC, which means that "support" could mean "more nihongo in footnotes", or "less nihongo not in footnotes". As to the basic question, I think there is actually a very good case for saying that (as far as reasonably possible) all foreign names in en:WP should have their original forms recoverable. In some cases transliterations are reversible, so nothing else is needed, but in others they are not. In many cases you can go off and read the ja:WP article; but such does not always exist. For an example in the opposite direction, imagine trying to extract the names of developers of a French game from an article on ja:WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: That reply hits the nail on the head of why I (and other Asian specialists) like having Chinese/Japanese names preserved. The original forms get "lost" when they get transliterated into English. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

And my point too - that's great, but it literally doesn't affect 99% of the en.wiki reading audience. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support (partially) If a name, whether it's a person or a character, originates in a foreign language and it then translated into the Latin alphabet, I think it is appropriate. If the name originates in a language that uses the Latin alphabet, then translations don't belong on English Wikipedia. As to the format, the Note link leaves a significant gap between English words, so is no less visually jarring than having the name inline, so I don't see either one as being better or worse than the other from a readability perspective. I do think the comment above about not having an extra section in the ToC just for foreign translations would be reason enough to do it inline, also that's the pattern used in the first line of Chinese location articles, showing the various forms of the title location. (In response to RfC) --John, AF4JM (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support as plan B because I strongly believe it should be included inline, which does not seem to be an option presented in this RFC. The title of a video game can be very long and cause a lot of clutter, so the footnote solution seems reasonable. But when you are talking about a Japanese person's name, it is going to be 4 characters long most of the time, maybe 8 or 10 if they do not use kanji. A person who is not interested in the name is going to glance over the bracketed (田中花子) without even pausing to think. But it is important information for somebody who wants it, so it should definitely be included within the text of the article. An infobox should be a neat summary of information within the article; if including it there causes clutter then it should be left out, bearing in mind it will be included elsewhere later. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "But it is important information for somebody who wants it" - couldn't the same be said about the inclusion of lyrics on every article about a song? The majority of English readers (probably close to 99%) are not immediately going to wonder what a Japanese's person's name is in Japanese as they read the article. And if they actually do, they can do their own research (or just check the article for the person in question, if it exists). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, except for the major difference you are overlooking; the name of a person related to the subject of an article is information of encyclopedic value, while lyrics are not. I won't even bother mentioning the copyright problem. The inclusion of the Japanese is being suggested only for people who do not have their own article, so what you suggest is not an option. Please stop conflating these issues because, with respect, it appears to be a habit of yours. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The fact that it's not of interest (or even understanding) of 99% of readers is certainly of relevance. Even if this was enacted (not that there's anywhere near a consensus right now) I wonder if it really matters - I've created over 70 Japanese video game articles, and monitor hundreds more, and I don't think I ever recall people making these sorts of edits on any if them. People do it for game titles and fictional characters, but not dev team members. It likely won't ever even be implemented unless the participants here do it momentarily to prove a point or something. Sergecross73 msg me 11:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • It's also a WP:WEIGHT issue. Ishiwatari is merely listed as an artist in the infobox and is not discussed throughout the article as if Jina were the lead artist and it was Jina's pet project that would have folks wanting to search the name and being redirected to here. As the title has a common English version, it is sufficient to list the name as spelled in the credits there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • And like I said, if the reader actually does care to know, they can look up that info on their own outside of Wikipedia, just like with the inclusion of lyrics or other sort of indiscriminate information. The (very slim) potential helpfulness of this is outbalanced by the need to do this on 1000s of articles, when only a few people from the Japanese Wikiproject want it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

iOS/Android version

I think there needs to be a separate section for the iOS/Android version. It's a significant rerelease (I consider it a full-blown remake) and has many features that should be covered in great detail. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC))

The article currently says:

A remastered mobile port, created using Christian Whitehead's Retro Engine previously used in the 2011 rerelease of Sonic CD, was released on iOS, replacing the original port, on May 15, 2013 with an Android version released the following day. The port features widescreen graphics, the optional ability to spin dash, a time attack mode, and the unlockable option to play as Tails or Knuckles the Echidna.[55]

Was there much more to say beyond that? Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the port features a heavily expanded debug mode, a save feature, a seventh special stage, and new features to the levels. Considering the fact that Sonic Genesis has its own section, I think this one should as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoebro64 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, much of that sort of minor detail isn't really covered in an encyclopedia though, nor do sources usually cover that much. You can always try to put something together in the draft space, or the talk page here to see if its plausible, but I think you'll find that there won't be a whole lot to say that will be backed by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think what's currently in the article is enough, and anything more than one or two sentences would be too much. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Added the section yesterday. There were reliable sources covering the details I mentioned, so I put something together. TheJoebro64 talk, 5:28 PM, 1 April 2017

I agree that the section in the article is enough, but this specific version is a remake. "Remastered port" means the game is the same, just on a new platform, which is not the case. The current article isn't clear either, since it actually links to the "remake" page. I think "remastered mobile port" should just be replaced with "remake", keeping the link to the page it already links to. 151.65.21.192 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, you're responding to a half year old discussion - this was implemented months ago. And in regards to the remake/remaster wording, I've started up a discussion on it here. Feel free to chime in, but the consensus is that people don't agree with your assessment of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph itself mentions that it "was developed [...] from scratch", "using the Retro Engine" (which wasn't the original engine), and it actually links to the "Video game remake" page. Saying that it's "a port" is confusing to say the least. Just because it's trying to look as close as possible to the original, it doesn't mean that it isn't a remake. Which the article isn't trying to deny in any way apart from misusing the word "port".151.65.21.192 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A remaster insinuates that it's the same game at its core, with additional features that enhance the original experience rather than redesign and/or remove features from it. The engine was made in order to emulate the originals as accurately as possible, this isn't like it was remade in 3D in Unity with 10 more playable characters with the plot being altered, which is what a "remake" really would apply to. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I never argued against the use of "remaster", as that word has a loose definition to begin with. I am aware other words with more specific meanings are often used loosely too, but doing so while using other words properly AND "remaster" at the same time is inconsistent and uninformative. While remakes typically do add lots and lots of features and graphical improvements, that's not a basic requirement for it being a remake. In fact, the word itself gives off what "remakes" means. I could also go ahead and remind you that the game does indeed add new playable characters and that the plot wasn't part of the game to begin with, but that's beside the point. The article explains well enough what the differences are, links to the "Video game remake" page and basically gives a basic definition of what a remake is, so I have no idea why you would want it to pretend that it's a "port" when it simply just isn't.151.65.21.192 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Then what exactly is a port? Does it have to be 1:1 identical, which is almost impossible given the different underlying architectures for all the systems that the game has appeared on? And as I stated previously, "additional features that enhance the original experience rather than redesign and/or remove features from it". The addition of Tails and Knuckles and other minor changes do not contradict this. Or better yet, did sources at the time consider this to be a remake rather than a remastered port? If not, then we wouldn't be able to change this anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A port is a new version of the same game on a different hardware. If you have to recreate the game or emulate the original platform to play the game on a new console, then it isn't a port. Actually, I'm pretty sure that a port isn't even possible due to hardware limitations of the original console. Also, as I have already mentioned, the rest of the article doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's a remake.

As for sources, the official websites http://christianwhitehead.com and http://www.headcannon.com/ refer to the game(s) as "remaster" and "Re-created from the ground up". This page says "I have been working in conjunction with SEGA and Headcannon to remake and enhance the original 2D Sonic the Hedgehog". The headcannon.com homepage also says "the mobile remakes of Sonic 1 and Sonic 2". In this thread one of the main developers says the game was remade. In another thread about the Sonic 2 remake he says the same and then refers to it as a remake later on ("The only way it would ever have made it into the remake").151.65.21.192 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

European release date

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 @Metalsonic89: who originally put the source there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Protecting

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)

Legacy section

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 '06's GA review that they should be separate. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Obviously it had commercial success for Ubisoft to continue making the games, which I mentioned. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GamesRadar article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merging 8-bit version

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)

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)

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)

• Coming back to this, I've started a new, well-sourced version of the 8-bit article. Might need a bit of polishing but overall I think it has strong notability now. JOEBRO64 21:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Plot removal

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)

• Yeah, I don't really see a reason for removing it. The plot is barebones and generic, but one still exists and it gives a gameplay reason for Sonic to do what he did. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• In the words at the GA review: If Joe plans on taking this to FA, (I do) it should probably be sourced using secondary sources where possible and merged into gameplay. JOEBRO64 19:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

External links modified

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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the hedgehog 2 (1992)

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)

GDC postmortem

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... TarkusAB^talk 01:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Getting a release on Nintendo Switch soon

• https://www.techradar.com/news/original-sonic-the-hedgehog-for-nintendo-switch-slated-with-other-sega-classics

JOEBRO64 22:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/07/the_first_two_sega_ages_titles_are_launching_on_switch_next_month -Lone Guardian (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

New Shmuplations translations

http://shmuplations.com/sonic/ TarkusAB^talk 00:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

1/8th claim is wrong

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)

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)

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. TarkusAB^talk 22:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2019

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 to the proposed titles, and no consensus to move the pages to any other particular titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) → Sonic the Hedgehog (Sega Genesis video game)
• Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) → Sonic the Hedgehog (Master System video game)

– Both video games were released in 1991, leaving the title "Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)" ambiguous, and "8-bit video game" is a rather unlikely title for searches since the "8-bit" terminology would only be recognized or searched by readers who are familiar with the concept of bits. Per WP:NCVGDAB, the next step in disambiguating is to disambiguate by platform. (Alternatively, Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) could moved to Sonic the Hedgehog (Game Gear video game) since I'm not which platform release for that subject is more notable or which title is more appropriate.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per NCVGDAB as nom noted. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. The Genesis game is still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 1991 Sonic games, and we shouldn't choose one platform over the other for the 8-bit game. JOEBRO64 17:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Undecided at the moment. I'm torn. The current situation has its flaws. But so does the proposal. It's unclear to me which is more prominent, the Master System or Game Gear version of the 8 bit game, and either way we choose, I feel like we're ignoring the other. And I don't particularly like using "Sega Genesis" as disambiguation when we've got decade spanning arguments over what the "correct" name is, Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive. I feel like both changes are going to open up a whole nother can of worms that haven't previously been an issue with these article titles... Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Move the Mega Drive game to Sonic the Hedgehog (video game): clear example of the "Thriller test" from the September partial disambiguation RfC. The Mega Drive game is one of the best selling video games of all time, and has re-releases on every Sega console ever released and every major console but one of the past 15 years; the question for "what is the primary topic [for [Sonic the Hedgehog (video game)]?" is clearly this game. It also completely side-steps the Genesis/Mega Drive fight. Weak oppose move of the Master System game: it's a compromise between the MS and GG, as noted in the request itself. Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not weighing in on the larger issue, but you cannot just use the generic “video game” label for this one because there is a 2006 game with the exact same name. Indrian (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • And there are multiple albums called Thriller, but there's a clear primary topic there (the Michael Jackson album). There is a consensus that "incomplete disambiguations" can be used if one topic is clearly the primary compared by the others which can be disambiguated in the same way. This game is the only one that's in the WP:HATNOTE at Sonic the Hedgehog, and it's been there for two years. Sceptre (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • That is all fine and good, but two things: First, that goes against the video game project style guide, and what’s good for one topic may not be good for another. Second, there is a difference between multiple unconnected albums by different artists having the same name and two games in the same series or franchise with the same main character having the same name. Also, Michael Jackson’s Thriller has a cultural significance far beyond any Sonic game, so it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Indrian (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Indrian, I have to say I don't find your points here super convincing. 1) Why should video game title disambiguation should be different from albums? 2) Why does it matter that the game titles mention the same game character? We have articles for Thriller and Thriller (song) too, both by Michael Jackson. 3) Thriller is likely more culturally significant than Sonic, but Sonic is hardly small fry either, and in any case the game of "which is more famous" doesn't seem relevant. Popcornduff (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
          • I think Indrian's right to point out that we can't really move this to Sonic the Hedgehog (video game). There's already the 8-bit one, and the 2006 game is just as notable, albeit in all the wrong ways. JOEBRO64 01:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
            • I agree that makes the situation complicated and I don't really have a preference for whether to move the article or not. But the original 1991 Sonic is way more notable than the 8-bit or 2006 games. Popcornduff (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose due to all the listed circumstances above. I don't really see an issue with keeping the GG/MS game with the (8-bit video game) title either because it's not like people actually type that when searching. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose this proposal. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but what's proposed is what's worse than the disambiguation scheme being used now... That said, creating the two proposed destinations as redirects would probably be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• WP:NCVGDAB#4 says to use the platform (For platform-specific versions where using the year would remain ambiguous: disambiguate by appending "([platform] video game)"), so above proposal is going in the correct way and following the naming convention guidelines. However, the guideline does not state which platform to use as the game came out in two different ones. In TV and Film guidelines we use the "first released" information for disambiguation. So for example, if a film came out in a film festival in the end of December 2019 and then came out commercially in 2020, we will disambiguate with the year "2019". Using this logic to supplement WP:NCVG, the first platform Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) was released on was the Game Gear, which then makes the title Sonic the Hedgehog (Game Gear video game) (redirects can be created from other platforms). This happens all the time in other subjects and no one finds it bad or misleading and the same should work here. I support moving this to this title and the other title as proposed, with the incomplete disambiguation to the dab page per WP:INCDAB. --Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposal creates more problems than it does solutions. How many platforms has each of these games really been released on? Look beyond 1991 and each is on a ton of platforms, and not all just recently (the 16-bit version was on Sonic Jam for the Saturn as early as 1997). Throw on the fact that the 8-bit version did have two original platform releases, and the console naming debates per Sergecross, and we’re left with more confusion than we started. It’s worked where it’s at for a while, and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sonic "The" Hedgehog

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)

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)

Sergecross is right, plus sources overwhelmingly write "Sonic the Hedgehog" anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"South Island(Sonic)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

2013: Widescreen is not an enhancement

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)

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)

Newly found / released prototype

Can information about this be added...? 91.125.45.72 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

New Retro Gamer article incoming

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neither of those are reliable. JOEBRO64 20:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Scans of the article are here, in case you don't get RG. JOEBRO64 03:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

Requested move 15 February 2021

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) -- Calidum 04:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) → Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 Sega Genesis video game)
• Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) → Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 8-bit video game)

– Per WP:NCVGDAB, current title scheme is incompletely disambiguated and "1991 video game" could refer to two separate games. Adding the year and platform to both would make the disambiguation complete. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose - this will only rile up the "Genesis versus Mega Drive" debates again. Sergecross73 msg me 11:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the previous move discussion. The current naming scheme is fine as-is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. JOEBRO64 12:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons mentioned above. Also, this is the most widely recognizable Sonic the Hedgehog game of 1991. It has also been ported to a number of platforms, so is no longer exclusive to the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive anymore. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title. I'd be fine with Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit video game), seeing as how there was only one 16-bit game by that title and it matches the existing page title for the 8-bit game. O.N.R. ^(talk) 18:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sergecross73. Timur9008 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Where is the evidence that this game released on June 23, 1991?

I have looked everywhere for direct contemporary evidence that Sonic the Hedgehog released on 23 June 1991 in the US — or any territory, for that matter.

I've found multiple Usenet posts from the time saying they'd bought the game on June 11th, while another got the game on June 14th in Seattle.

Unfortunately, that's not a permissible citation as it's user-generated.

I have found a piece in a UK gaming magazine, Games-X dated 4–10 July 1991, stating that the game released (in the UK at least) on 24 June and I quote, 'only a week after its American launch'.

To my mind, this plus the multiple contemporary Usenet testimonies point to the game being released earlier than 23 June, and there being no official release anywhere on that date.

If we need reliable evidence for specific dates as the infobox editing note states, then why is it okay for the June 23rd date to go unsourced?

Surely it should be a non-committal 'June 1991' in that case.

I assume this dispute was triggered by the Sonic Retro thread on the accuracy of June 23, 1991 as Sonic's release date. I'm of the mind that we shouldn't remove the release date until reliable sources document the finding, as this may be a similar case to the Super Mario Bros. North American release date. At the time, it was pretty uncommon for games to have concrete release dates: they were essentially "released" when stores got them, and some chains would get and sell copies weeks before others did. I think it's an absolute certainty that retailers received and sold copies of Sonic at least a week before the official release date that Sega's latched onto. However, given that June 23 is widely accepted by reliable sources currently, we should hold off on changing it for now, at least until it gains coverage from RSs. JOEBRO64 22:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've not seen this thread. What a coincidence, I guess other people were researching this at the exact same time as me. I found that article and those Usenet posts on Wednesday night, and this thread is from Friday.

Nonetheless, surely Games-X is a reliable source for the UK release? It's a primary source, published all of 7 days after the fact. Wazzok1 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Most print magazines are considered reliable sources...I'm just a little uncertain about using an off-hand, indirect comment like "it came out last week" from a single source to override the reliable sources that say June 23rd... Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd also refer to WP:V. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that if we find enough contemporary sources that establish that the game was likely available before June 23 (I'd say in the range of three or four), we could add a footnote saying something across the lines of: Sega's internal launch date for Sonic the Hedgehog is June 23, 1991, though some contemporary sources indicate the game was available earlier that month. Again, we should hold off until we have consistent, concrete evidence from reliable sources at the time that it was (probably) available before June 23, but this is just something to consider if we get to that point. Remember that Wikipedia prioritizes verifiability, not truth. JOEBRO64 03:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sonic the Hedgehog: High Speed" listed at Redirects for discussion

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. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Shinobu Toyoda listed as producer in the infobox

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)

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)

Platforms

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)

Hatnote

@Sergecross73: 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)

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)

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)

I think Joe's logic is sound — the article titles (1991 and 2006) provide the disambiguation. Popcornfud (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sales Data

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)

Requested move 4 April 2024

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)

---

• Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) → Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 16-bit video game)
• Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) → Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 8-bit video game)

– As both of these games were released the same year, it would make sense if they were properly split per WP:NCVGDAB. Being how there was disagreement to move these articles to specific gaming consoles, 16-bit and 8-bit are a fairer way to disambiguate these articles. JE98 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - combining both year and bits as disambiguation concurrently is not the standard in the subject area. Not a great option per WP:PRECISION either. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Move the first to Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit video game) and Keep the second one as it is. The disambiguation situation here has no precedent elsewhere that I can see, but the WP:PDAB of the first entry versus the second does not meet the general standards for partial disambiguation so we have to give both titles that cannot apply to other video games and this does that and nothing else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Oppose. Although I'd previously said I'd support "16-bit video game", this was before WP:PDAB became a prominent thing, and this page is already listed as a case of partial disambiguation. The page view ratio is 6:1, which is more than some other PDAB-ed pages. O.N.R. ^(talk) 11:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  FYI a page being listed there means nothing other than that someone has noticed the PDAB existed. It's not an endorsement of the current status. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move the first, keep the second per Pppery. 6:1 is not enough for a PDAB. If there are a few PDAB ratios that low, it is because there are other complications that confound the title selection or simply a symptom of the randomness of Wikipedia, not because there is a generally accepted ratio that low. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:PDAB, the view ratio is 6:1.

  SuperMarioRPGfan (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SLOP, WP:AINT, and WP:STICK. Why the hell do we keep having this same discussion over and over again? The consensus for the past few years has been abundantly clear that the way we have it set up is fine and every proposed "solution" makes things worse. If I'm being honest, I'm starting to find these repeated move requests more disruptive than anything else. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I see only two previous RMs here, and neither of them proposed the same thing this one is proposing. The two articles have been on Wikipedia for more than 20 years. You may not like discussing these titles, but if others see a problem they are free to bring it up. Years have gone by since the last RM, which considered a different proposal, and consensus can change. I suggest to go see Talk:Bangalore, which has had about 15 so far and will surely have more in the future. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's also been a lot of similar ones at the series and Sonic 2 article, included 1 similar one that was just rejected there. He's probably referring to those too. You're right that people are free to propose these sorts of things, but I also sympathize with Joe too - we both maintain a lot of Sonic and Sega articles, and it is tiring to see these same sorts of flawed proposals arise. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  One person's perception that a pattern of similar "flawed proposals" has been showing up for a group of articles is another person's perception that some specialist corner of Wikipedia may have drifted away from the broader project consensus. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  After a look at the Sonic 2 discussion, it was a somewhat different perceived issue – a regular WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question rather than a WP:INCDAB / WP:PDAB one. I suppose that's not so different from some people's perspective, but it is for others. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - What’s the problem here? There’s hardly any confusion - most people looking for the video game coming from 1991 are looking here because this was the true original. On the second, 8-bit is not a disambiguation I favor but I accept it as not having a viable alternative, and I reject the notion of using more disambiguators in a article title than absolutely necessary. Calling the original the “16-bit” as well, while technically true, is also pretty unnecessary as there’s not really equal footing here - it would be a different story if the Master System and Genesis versions carried equal weight, but they don’t, by a long shot. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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