Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) This helps Wikipedians not to be confused with who they are talking to. Please keep discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anime,
manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 03:31, July 12, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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
External links modified
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.
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.
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)
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".
Not done because I think "self-titled" is more concise than "of the same name", and I think the latter is overused on Wikipedia.
JOEBRO6413:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
JOEBRO6413:37, 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.
JOEBRO6401:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I know about the notability thing, hence why I suggested removing only some of the sources, rather all of them. You don't need to remove them, but you should at least bundle some of the sources together, like I mentioned.
Kokoro20 (
talk)
12:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)reply
"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."
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
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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?
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
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.
JOEBRO6402:55, 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
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.
JOEBRO6415:11, 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
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
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.
JOEBRO6417:34, 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.
Reconrabbit17:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Created by Kazuyuki Hoshino
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.
Reconrabbit16:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Lead wording
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.
Reconrabbit14:05, 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".
Reconrabbit14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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