Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog fandom

Feedback

Try to make the article more neutral. I like the idea of making an article about the Sonic fandom, but please try to follow WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I hope this gets approved! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I have never used this side of Wikipedia before, but I want to say that the writing quality of this page is astoundingly poor. I am almost tempted to rework some parts myself, but don't currently have much free time. ~2026-23807-4 (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

other draft

Another draft on the topic of pornography created by the Sonic fandom was created recently at Draft:Sonic the Hedgehog and pornography. It was rejected as non-notable, but the information and sources in it could be incorporated here. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The Academic research section seems useful, though I don't see anything more that would fit well in here. You're are free to give it a shot if you want, although it's probably best to use content relating to the fandom as a whole rather than mostly the adult side. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 17:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment

I don't think this draft is ready. There's still a lot of NPOV-failing statements, not to mention grammatical errors that leave it in serious need of copyediting. I think the current submission to AfC should be retracted until these issues are resolved. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm only sending it for review and not mostly for moving it as a live article, so. plantCOAL 16:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have accepted the draft @SilviaASH. The concerns raised on this talk page regarding WP:NPOV and spelling errors were quite minor when I reviewed it, no doubt due to the major copy-editing work that has been undertaken since it was last reviewed in January! Kudos to everybody who has helped improve this article!

I have left some feedback on @Plantcoal's talk page! 11WB (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:NPOV issues, but it may be difficult since the article relies pretty heavily on more commentary accounts of the fandom. I have some academic sources relating to the controversy surrounding the movie redesign and the impacts of differences between the Japanese and European releases of the original games which could be helpful. Onuzurike424 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I have made some copyedits to the article this afternoon. Please do contribute those sources if you believe they will improve the article. I did initially move the article back to draftspace for resubmission to AfC once copyediting had been done, but this was reverted by Liz due to technical procedure. So now it is very important these copyedits and improvements are made ASAP, as the public is able to read the article! 11WB (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I have pinged Sergecross73 quite a few times now, so I am going to refrain from doing that here. However, if somebody feels the copyediting template is ready to be removed, I strong recommend contacting Sergecross73 to assess the article before doing that! 11WB (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Added new section on internet/meme culture

@SleepyRedHair @Plantcoal, I have added a new section on Sonic meme and internet culture. It establishes what "The Sonic Cycle" is and where it originated. This section can be expanded, such as with other well known memes like Sanic. As it is the fans who popularized these memes I feel it is relevant to this article. Also adds in a few extra sources. 11WB (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

There is an editor who did leave a message in one of the older discussions above who mentioned some academic sources that are relevant to the article as well. These will be valuable to the article and will strengthen the arguments for keeping it should someone ever decide to submit the article to AfD. 11WB (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I would merge the internet culture section into the fan base section, since much of Sonic fan works were also part of the internet culture. plantCOAL 21:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

There is internet specific and then fan works that are not internet based I feel. Merging them would make the fan works section too long in my opinion. I have more to add in terms of subsections and references to internet culture yet. They will definitely be their own established sections once I have fleshed out that section! I have asked Sergecross to read over the article again, they said they'll be able to next week at some point! The article is definitely improved! 11WB (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I am unable to find any reliable sources for Sanic, however I did find this Intelligencer article on Pingas. 11WB (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

A quick word count check of Sonic the Hedgehog puts that article at 11,795 words. According to WP:TOOBIG, articles over 9,000 words, 'Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.' Based on this, I believe this article serves a purpose on taking away some of that length from the main article and adding expansion here. 11WB (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@SleepyRedHair, those paragraphs of "The Sonic Cycle" offered a thorough explanation of the origins and subsequent games that were subject to it with references. I'm not going to contest your removal, however those could be added back into where they were mentioned earlier in the article? 11WB (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been engaging in talk page discussions for a while. I removed the section because it was repeating info from earlier on and it's probably best that info is kept as concise as possible. I have to admit I removed it quite hastily, so I'm open to readding it if it has enough substantial weight to it and isn't just an elongated version of something that can be summed up quite shortly. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 22:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

That's no problem! If it shouldn't be mentioned twice, it probably belongs in the new internet culture section, however either location works so long as the info is present. As I said above, I believe this article serves a purpose beyond just being about the fandom now. Including more detailed information related to the fans that isn't in the main Sonic the Hedgehog article is preferable to making a case for this article's existence! 11WB (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@SleepyRedHair, I have attempted to add the extra information in that section of the article, but trimmed down to keep it concise. If it doesn't work, I take no offence to it being reverted or edited! 11WB (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I've read through the section and I'm currently copyediting the addition as I write this, and I ultimately think it fits better in the History section; it's part of demonstrating how Sonic and its fandom has been regularly mocked and put down in the past. I appreciate the attention you've been giving it and agree with your views on the article's state. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 23:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this! Today's copyedit work has been excellent I feel. I was definitely saddened to see Sergecross disapproving of the article initially, but I am confident now that we've turned my blunder of accepting of the article prematurely through AfC into a success! 11WB (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that @SleepyRedHair. I checked WP:RS/PS for DeviantArt and found it was not listed. I found 2 discussions archived on WP:RS/N, so I have added DA to the RS/PS list from these. It is considered unreliable. 11WB (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSPDA has been created. 11WB (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

SC73 gave authorisation for the copyedit banner to be removed! 11WB (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Plantcoal @SleepyRedHair, now that the banner is removed, I consider my prior AfC acceptance of the article to now be valid. I wish to extend my thanks for improving the article so quickly and without disagreements! This has been a great achievement! 11WB (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I appreciate that. I probably couldn't do it without you two helps so. plantCOAL 14:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both too, I'm glad I was able to help! Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 15:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Lead

It's important to provide context for the general WP:AUDIENCE who might not know anything about the franchise by first explaining that Sonic a video game and media franchise, along with some time reference (such as 1991), to place it a historical frame of reference. Articles about fandoms that start as "X fandom is the community of fans..." all have badly written first sentences. My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom (rare GA-class "fandom article") has that right. —Alalch E. 03:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense. I'll try rewriting the opening based on your suggestions now. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 15:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I have published a rewrite of most of the lead. Please let me know what your thoughts are and feel free to notify me of any mistakes. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 15:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E., that is how the lead was written before it was copyedit tagged by Sergecross73. I'm not convinced that the purpose of a fandom article is explaining what the franchise is, when the Sonic the Hedgehog article does this. 11WB (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow, the lead is great now IMO. Great work SleepyRedHair! Would you not agree that this is better, 11WB? I think that this is much more helpful for our readers. —Alalch E. 17:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

(reply to 11WB) That's because it isn't. The new opening is just for context, which is important for those who aren't familiar with Sonic. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 17:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It reads fine, of course. However, the exact thing which I'm addressing is that generally the first line of an article is written as, 'The Sonic the Hedgehog fandom is...', as opposed to explaining what Sonic is about in general, without specifically mentioning the fandom. MOS:SO says 'An article's content should begin with an introductory lead section – a concise summary of the article – which is never divided into sections (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). The remainder of the article is typically divided into sections.' and 'If the topic of a section is covered in more detail in a dedicated article (see Wikipedia:Summary style), insert

Main article: Article name

or

Further information: Article name

immediately under the section heading.' Based on this the lead should stick to explaining what the article is about, this being the Sonic fandom. Sonic the Hedgehog is the article to link to for those wanting context, as Alalch suggested above. 11WB (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The ability to avoid the most common scheme of using the exact words from the title in the first sentence to start off the article, in a definition of sorts, is suggested in MOS:AVOIDBOLD: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy. The words "Sonic the Hedgehog fandom" do not lend themselves to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, because it's unclear what the sentence should then say. It should not say something tautological like Shakira fandom is the name given to the community of fans of the Colombian singer Shakira (link). Even though rarer, this ordering of information in the lead that does not have the traditional "first sentence mentioning the subject" is not somehow bad or unprecedented. —Alalch E. 17:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that. That first sentence is easily reworded, 'The fans of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise...'. The lead written in the prior way was tagged for copyediting by an administrator (along with just being written poorly). We disagree on your point regarding it not lending itself to being used easily. This issue is very easily rectified, but not in the way you are proposing. I think it overcomplicates a straightforward problem. I won't challenge it though, just pointing out that a simple rewording is all that's necessary here. 11WB (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll certainly keep thinking about it, I just don't currently have a clear idea for how to make the lead better as a whole. If you don't see me engaging in a few days, feel free to ping me and I'll try to come with some reshuffling. —Alalch E. 20:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The article itself as had much copyediting work done over the past few days. As a whole, it is far improved. I don't think the lead is a concern personally. I think the primary objective now should be expanding the article to give it a focus and reason to be kept. 11WB (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. —Alalch E. 20:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Floee the Fox graphic - 2019.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)