Jump to content

Talk:Shadow the Hedgehog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleShadow the Hedgehog has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 14, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Shadow the Hedgehog was originally going to appear only in Sonic Adventure 2, but proved so popular that he became a recurring Sonic the Hedgehog character?
Current status: Good article

Nominating the Article for deletion

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 66 § Reflections on my nomination for deleting Shadow the Hedgehog

Since Shadow the Hedgehog is not a relevant subject for a wikipedia article. I dispute it's usefulness as a source of credible information. After all much like the sonic the Hedgehog Article it smacks with Fan Fiction unrelated to the video game franchise, and if the Sonic Article was not semi protected I would nominate that for deletion to!

P.S. To the writers of this Article, you need to grow up and lay of the weed because it's clearly slowed your mind! 96.2.110.63 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While I have had virtually no involvement in the writing of this article, I will ask you to bear in mind WP:Civility and refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. That said, I agree that this article needs some work, and I just made an edit to reduce some of the fluff (in particular, the "Shadow Androids" section seemed non-notable); however, I do not agree that this article should be deleted or with your assertions. In all honesty, I do not see how your explanation validly supports deletion under any of the criteria stated in Wikipedia's deletion policy. For one thing, video game characters from numerous franchises have Wikipedia articles, and it is generally accepted that major characters are notable subjects worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, (see, e.g., Mario, Wario, Link, Midna, Master Chief), so your desire to remove characters like Shadow and Sonic for not being "relevant subjects for Wikipedia" falls flat under Wikipedia's notability guidelines and is likely to be dismissed by most editors. Also, what portions of this article are derived from fan faction? I do not see any from my review of it, though I haven't read it entirely thoroughly; but either way, perhaps a better solution would be to remove those pieces of information than to delete the entire article. For the most part, the information in this article appears to be sourced to reliable sources. Perhaps you can elaborate on your position some more, but at this time, I am unconvinced that any reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy exists (nor do I see how fixing the article's current shortcomings isn't a better solution). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article is full of 3rd Party Reliable Sources giving both Verifiability and proving Notability. The need for cleanup of is noted. CIGraphix (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 The New Approach

[edit]

I was not surprised that my efforts to have the article deleted failed. So if I can't have it deleted then I shall re-construct it so that it better educates the reader about the game franchise. What does alot of the glorified fan fiction in the article have to do with the game's marketability or impact on the user in general?

As always I expect the typical resistance from other writers but they should carefully review the revised article and see for themselves, the obvious difference.

One should not think that they can somehow bully me out of the system. I do not and will never recant o the statements I made about the individuals who crafted the article and my continued efforts with the "Shadow The Hedgehog" Article shall speak for themselves.

Thank You! 96.2.110.63 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia always needs passionate and knowledgeable editors to improve its articles with verifiable information, so your contributions are more than welcome; by all means, you should not view disagreement with your views in Wikipedia's consensus decision-making process as bullying—disagreement is a fact of life on Wikipedia for all of us editors. Thus, hopefully you will not perceive other editors who disagree with you as bullying you, and likewise you will strive not to personally attack editors whose edits you disagree with. Good luck with your edits! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You recently removed verifiable material from the reception section and replaced it with "The character and it's related games and comic books have seen modest popularity in the past few years, but has had an adverse mental health effect on it's less stable fans. It has caused some rioting in a few small Texas towns that have led to various acts of rape, murder, and cannibalism as reported on CNN August fifth 2006", sourcing it to a non-existent CNN link. Is this some sort of joke? I have restored the reception section to its previous status; if you don't have some sort of legitimate source to back up this wild claim, it will be treated as vandalism. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Please see Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters#Notability for a notability discussion that pertains to this article and its series czar ♔ 04:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Shadow the Hedgehog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Loves Guns!?

[edit]

Okay, so I know this is totally irrelevant to Shadow himself, but I've seen so many things about Shadow having closets full of MK60's! I completely disagree with this. He may have a gun in the Shadow the Hedgehog game, but that doesn't mean he loves it. It's probably the most effective way to kill the Black Arms except Black Doom. Although, I'm not so sure since I never played the game XD. Basically, guns can be more efficient, and unlike chaos control and all those other moves, guns don't require energy, except aiming and pulling the trigger and reloading. Other than that, no physical force for the wielder whatsoever. I personally agree with his chaos abilities being the most powerful. But seriously guys, an MK60 for a wife?! Really!? It's so stupid! And YES, I have seen such articles about that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega Yagami (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shadow the Hedgehog. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shadow the Hedgehog. 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:

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) 01:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent background not working...?

[edit]

So I noticed the transparent background on the infobox image is no longer functioning for some very odd reason, it was working several days ago. I uploaded two other pictures and tested them to see if it was a problem with the pictures, but it isn't. For some reason, the infobox image does not use transparent backgrounds anymore, and this is very confusing. Anyone know the solution? Coda16 04:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shadow the Hedgehog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kokoro20 (talk · contribs) 08:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, it's me again. I just noticed you had the Shadow article up for GA, so I thought I would take a look. The article is looking pretty good so far. I'll look over it a bit more soon, and bring up any concerns here before passing this. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start with the lead and infobox.
  • In the infobox, I would suggest removing "Art by Yuji Uekawa" under the image's caption. It's not really that necessary, since the image file page already states the photo is by Yuji Uekawa anyway.
  • In the lead, change the "self-titled spin-off" link to say "spin-off of the same name".
  • Unlink "do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals", per WP:Easter Egg.
  • "Shadow shares attributes with Sonic and thus controls similarly in games, but is distinguished by his uses of vehicles and firearms." - Perhaps add "many" before "attributes", considering most characters that have been playable in the Sonic series has shared some attributes with Sonic, when Shadow share's more than the other characters.
  • "Additionally, the Shadow game was panned despite strong sales." - I would suggest changing this to "Additionally, the Shadow game was met with generally unfavorable reviews despite strong sales." Some reviewers gave it a positive score, after all. And since this referring to a video game, the name should be italicized.
That should be all for now. I'll take a look at the rest of the article later. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to the first set of comments. I hope you don't mind that I formatted them using bullet points, as I think it's easier for me to respond and looks nicer. JOEBRO64 13:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Now let's continue into the rest of the article.
  • First of all, in the "Description" and "Character biography" sections, try not to have so many citations. Some of these can be cited to the games themselves, not needing an in-line citation, kind of like how we do with the plot sections in film articles (even GAs and FAs). See WP:FILMPLOT. Of course, the things that are more open to interpretation or may not be so obvious, like Shadow being an antihero, and him having amnesia, should remain cited. Also, try stacking some of these cites one after another, rather than every sentence. But that's pretty much the only concern I have with those sections.
    • I know the citations aren't necessary, but I'm against removing them because it's still good to have them. In my time on Wikipedia I've been taught that while plot sections/character biographies don't necessarily need secondary sources because they're assumed to be cited to the work itself, it's still good to have them to demonstrate notability/the information's significance. Joker (character), Batman: Arkham City, and Doomfist are GA/FA-level articles with secondary citations in their plot sections. JOEBRO64 01:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Development", change "good-vs-evil" to "good vs. evil" (with the quotation marks).
  • In "Reception and impact", change "the 2005 Shadow game was poorly received" to "received generally unfavorable reviews," similar to the lead.
  • "Reviews for Shadow the Hedgehog criticized numerous aspects of Shadow" is kind a redundant sentence. I would suggest changing that to "Reviews for Shadow the Hedgehog criticized numerous aspects of the character."
  • Who is East? That could use a little clarification.
Anyway, I think that's everything. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kokoro20, thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 01:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to one of your points above. Once that's addressed, the article should be good enough to pass. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. JOEBRO64 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. You passed. A bot should be adding a GA icon to the article soon. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petition for Selection Deletion

[edit]

In 2010, DeviantArt user "cmara" released a webcomic depicting Shadow in a romantic relationship with Shrek, the title character of the DreamWorks film series. According to Kotaku's Nathan Grayson, the comic paired the two because "if Shrek was the big screen embodiment of nu-millennium toilet garbage, Shadow the Hedgehog—with his hilariously unfitting blend of guns and angst in a colorful world of fast animals in clown shoes—was his video game bride". ""

Is this section really necessary for the understanding and reception of Shadow the Hedgehog? While the other examples in the section are from pop/internet culture, this particular example seems rather fringe and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovaAmm (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

[edit]

Back in October 2020, Drummond himself confirmed on Twitter here:https://web.archive.org/web/20201015073026/https://twitter.com/RYANtheDRUMMOND/status/1316642485855117312, that he briefly voiced Shadow in Sonic Adventure 2, because David Humphrey forgot to record some lines in certain scenes in the game and they had Drummond come in and record them. Is there by any chance someone could update it and add him in the “Voiced by” section in the infobox? 2600:1000:B04E:B28A:2DC9:9374:579:C995 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201015073026/https://twitter.com/RYANtheDRUMMOND/status/1316642485855117312 2600:1000:B05C:88F1:3DAC:7B9B:C8F7:A4AE (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

[edit]

Back in October 2020, Drummond himself confirmed on Twitter here:https://web.archive.org/web/20201015073026/https://twitter.com/RYANtheDRUMMOND/status/1316642485855117312, that he briefly voiced Shadow in Sonic Adventure 2, because David Humphrey forgot to record some lines in certain scenes in the game and they had Drummond come in and record them. Is there by any chance someone could update it and add him in the “Voiced by” section in the infobox?

If you need to see the source again, here it is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201015073026/https://twitter.com/RYANtheDRUMMOND/status/1316642485855117312 2600:1000:B053:2E17:4DEA:FF87:4386:B71C (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as a matter of editorial judgement, sorry. Two reasons: (a) it's a trivial detail (a small part of the voicing for a single episode) and this is a general encyclopedia, not a compilation of every trivial detail about a topic, and (b) the source is a non-independent primary source (a social media post by the person involved). If this had been covered by a reliable, independent, secondary source it might be worth mentioning in the body of the text (though not the infobox, which just gives an overview of the most salient details of the article). Wham2001 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FIRST

[edit]

This has gone back and forth so I thought I would take it to the talk page. MOS:FIRST, in regards to the first sentence of an article, states: If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so. I replaced "is a character ..." to "is a fictional character ..." but has been reverted the few times added it. Is there any specific reason why we should ignore the MOS on this specific character article and not state it is fictional in the first sentence? I do not see one.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 02:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional" is already implied by (A) the link to character (arts) and (B) the fact that characters are, by definition, fictionalized to some extent, so we are saying that the character is fictional implicitly. If it is not necessary to explicitly say "fictional", we do not need to say fictional. We're not ignoring the MOS at all. And even if we were, no one is going to think that a cartoon black hedgehog who stands on two legs and wears clown shoes is a real organism that exists. JOEBRO64 02:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, the reason the final bullet point was added to MOS:FIRST was to ensure it was completely unambigous and established in context that the item being discussed is fictional. We're not ignoring the MOS at all: I do not understand how you can claim that considering the exact bullet point in MOS:FIRST states "If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so.", and we are not currently following that on this page, since we are not directly stating fictional in the first sentence. It seems most of the arguments made are against having the bullet point in MOS in the first place rather than against its application in this specific case.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Do you have any other comments or points? If not it seems we are at a standstill, and may try to attract some external input via WP:DR. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how you can claim that considering the exact bullet point in MOS:FIRST states "If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so." We’re saying that he’s fictional by calling him a character and linking to character (arts). This whole dispute is trying to solve an issue that no one is having. Shadow (who as a character is, by definition, fictional) is so obviously fictional that we shouldn’t have to spell it out. Readers aren’t stupid. If this was such a big issue it would’ve been addressed during the GA review, where it wasn’t even brought up. JOEBRO64 15:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to explicitly state "fictional" if you state "character", as that implicitly puts the "fictional" right there, up front. You would need "fictional" if you said something like "Shadow the Hedgehog is a hedgehog..." that even though the rest of the sentence implies the fictional nature, it needs to be 100% clear in that format. --Masem (t) 15:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JoeBro and Masem. "Fictional character" is tautological in 99% of cases - it's a kind of idiomatic cliche so people cling to it, but "fictional" doesn't add clarity. Popcornfud (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer: Was canvassed here from a Discord conversation. That said, I agree with JoeBro, and think MOS:FIRST should be clarified. "fictional character" was word-cruft spread around Wikipedia as part of an attempt around 2006-2009 to "tighten up" some of the fancruft written excessively from an in-universe perspective, but "character" is really just fine. As Masem notes, you need fictional for things like "fictional hedgehog", but "fictional character" is silly barring really, really weird cases like Stephen Colbert (character). Maybe worth updating the example at MOS:FIRST to reflect the consensus here from the "Homer Simpson is a fictional character" one? SnowFire (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Joe and the rest. "Fictional" seems rather superfluous in this instance. Perhaps MOS:FIRST should be revised... ♦ jaguar 21:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for other editors' input it seems consensus on this occassion is 'fictional' is superflous. If this if this is the broader opinion in the wider Wiki project for most character articles (i.e. not just VG editors, etc) then we probably need to adjust MOS:FIRST (even if I personally agree with the current use of it as it stands, at least it will save me time searching through character categories to apply the MOS) Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added a short section to the MOS talk page on this and linked this discussion - see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead section#Change_example_in_First_Sentence_section . If there's not much pushback, we can make the update. SnowFire (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Sonicafs (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred display image

[edit]

@TheJoebro64 @SONICFRONTIERSA I can't help but notice that you've been going back and forth with the image on this page. It might be better if you can come to a consensus here rather than going on with this constant flip-flopping. I'd like to point out that every other article for Sonic the Hedgehog characters uses a 3d render. (Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog), Knuckles the Echidna, Doctor Eggman, Sonic the Hedgehog (character)) Reconrabbit 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2D artwork is more timeless and comes from Sonic Adventure 2, by far Shadow's most well-known appearance, and has been in the article for ages without issue. And aside from Sonic, all Sonic character articles used 2D artwork until someone unilaterally changed them recently. JOEBRO64 17:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Taking a gander on the relevant Fandom wiki it seems that people are trying to make Wikipedia use the same images that are on sonic.fandom.com. Worth bringing this up on a larger forum. Reconrabbit 17:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Kazuyuki Hoshino

[edit]

I noticed that only Takashi Iizuka and Shiro Maekawa are credited for creating Shadow but Kazuyuki Hoshino also provided his character design and was an instrumental part in his creation. Should he not be credited the same way that Naoto Ohshima is credited for creating Sonic? Spongebongs (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ohshima is credited on creating Sonic because there are numerous sources indicating his involvement, such as this article. If you can find sources that show Kazuyuki Hoshino's influence on Shadow the Hedgehog's creation then feel free to add that information or make an edit request. Reconrabbit 16:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead wording

[edit]

Creating this topic to stave off edit warring. The article as it is now has wording in the leading paragraphs very similar to the version that was reviewed and passed as a GA, albeit rearranged. @Aardwolf68, if you have a proposed rewording or change to the lead of this article that improves its breadth or readability, you can write it here and we can discuss it. Reconrabbit 14:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s just me being nitpicky is all, I definitely should’ve messaged you or went to your talk page before reverting your edit. I wanted to fix the back story a bit to be more in line with the story of Adventure 2 and to make the summarization of Shadow’s story make more sense, as opposed to how it was written before. Thanks for the ping, I appreciate it. Aardwolf68 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoebro64 is the one who has been reverting, I am just someone who watches the page. Regardless, the lead is short for a reason, to only include the most relevant details. Details like those you added might be better included under "Character biography". Reconrabbit 14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

[edit]

Delete "In Sonic The Hedgehog 3, Shadow is set to be voiced by Chris Pratt"

There has been no information on who the official voice actor for shadow will be in Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Leviatyn (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This appears to be a meme, lots of social media posts come up with this claim but no reliable sources. I have removed this and restored the references that were removed when it was added. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Directly from the article: "Shadow is one of the most popular Sonic characters ... He has been ranked among the worst Sonic characters"

Which one is it? If it's both, then explain the contrast, eg. "by ..." or "in this area/region/source" 115.129.149.145 (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@115.129.149.145 Agreed. This is contradictory and needs to be altered. Shadow has also received much more positive reception in recent years compared to the 2000's. 2607:FEA8:AA1F:9A50:29F9:C239:6F1A:5DEC (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not contradictory. He's a popular character. Journalists have also called him one of the worst characters. Not liking it isn't a valid reason for removing sourced information. JOEBRO64 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shadow_the_Hedgehog&oldid=1264117031"