Talk:Knuckles' Chaotix

A little cleaning needed

I noticed an inordinate amount of referral to the player in the second person in the level descriptions. Eric 04:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I kind of rewrote the level section, but anyone else is welcome to expand it. In fact the whole page could benefit from some retouching here and there. --Steerpike 23:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should touch up on the bosses. Also, I've noticed you've been improving various Sonic articles lately, Steerpike, thanks for that. -- RattleMan 00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Japanese manual

Stop adding these references to the Japanese manual (or write it properly at least). I mean, there's no point here. The US/European story is a lot more relevant on the English Wikipedia. --Steerpike 17:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's quite relevant and bears equal importance. If it's not, someone should probably go through the rest of the articles in the English Wikipedia and erase anything that has to do with other cultures. The story of Chaotix was altered drastically in the jump to the US version, and was actually originally a more serious, well-thought-out sequel to Sonic & Knuckles, as opposed to this "Eggman's crashin' a theme park and Knuckles is a rentacop!! :D :D :D" nonsense. If anyone out there has a reliable translation of the Japanese manual story, your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If there is one thing I agree with, it's that it does need to be well written. --Matt S. 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since the U.S. version came first by about a month, it should be the other way around... And the stoy's not exactly coherent either way. The Japanese version's story is equally guilty of a non-sensical plot, having resorted to series' buzzwords to get by. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.143.63 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

It was still developed in Japan, and yes, that story DOES make more sense. The English manual doesn't even mention the Chaos Rings, which are a large part of the Japanese story, and just confuses players when they collect them in-game. Gurko 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If it makes more sense, then why isn't the whole "omg anoter mystarieous echida issand iz unconvared" resolved or even mentioned ever again? All we get in the ending is either... I dunno, a giant Metal Sonic-like robot burninating the country side or everyone posing for the camera (except Heavy and Bomb are replaced by Sonic and Tails, as well as the Tornado)? <sarcasm> That is TOTALLY coherent with the Japanese story, and everything introduced in this game was resolved by Sonic Adventure </sarcasm>. And when did Sonic and his friends 'hide the secret of the rings from Eggman'? Also, if anything, the endings are somehow closer to the American story (the bad ending confirming that the island would be in ruins if Eggman succeeded, and the good ending... um... everyone's getting ready to party?). Face it, both stories are as terrible when it comes to explaining things in the game, you shouldn't just blindly accept Japan's explanation just for the sake of it being Japanese. But yes, we should include both, if only because they're much more radically different than usual. 208.101.130.232 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have some sort of personal problem with this. The fact is, the Japanese manual's story makes more sense within the context of the game itself. It covers more information- at the very least it tells about the Chaos Rings, which wouldn't have been done otherwise. Island being ruined by Eggman would happen with either ending, from the Japanese or American storyline. Sonic Adventure didn't resolve anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the 2D games and 3D games are practically separate continuity. Sonic 06's contradiction with Sonic Rush/Rush Adventure helps that along.24.44.17.228 (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the English manual stuff. I made it as easy to understand as possible. And i know that i got the stuff right because i own the game and i was reading from the manual when i did it. I think that the English verson is just as important the the Japanese version. In fact i think it's more important but that could just be because i only read english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.228.18 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gametap Links

While I am not personally a user, I think fans of the series should know about the Gametap site that offers the game for play on their computers, as this is a very rare game. Hence, it should, as is customary for nearly ANY re-release, have a section under Trivia. Seeing as this is the only re-release in the game's history, and as much would be expected for any other game, I'm putting it in Trivia. After all, it IS the only news about this game (besides its exclusion from Gems Collection) to come along in about the last decade, and writing it off as "irrelevent" is nearly equivalent to excluding re-releases such as Mega Collection from having their own articles.(Ctu2485 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Trivia section

I've probably explained this a thousand times before on other Sonic related pages but: the whole idea of trivia runs contrary to the concept of an encyclopedia. Information on this page should be notable, not trivial. Now personally I don't mind to read a fun fact here and there but if a page *must* include trivia please 1) look to put it in another, more relevant, section of the article first and 2) keep the list as short as possible. I don't see the information on Gametap as a particulary noteworthy piece of trivia (which is in itself a contradiction in terms) but it might be useful to include it on a "production and release" section of this article. This hasn't been written yet but why not make the effort? The stuff about the working title and Sonic Crackers could be worked into it. The last paragraph could then discuss the various releases of the game.

And one last thing. I think the justification to include a certain piece of info in the article should be made by the person adding it in, not with me when I revert it. --Steerpike 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this in the main series?

It may be the only Sonic-related game for the 32X, but it does introduce the Chaotix (besides Mighty, who appeared in SegaSonic the Hedgehog first) for Sonic Heroes and Shadow the Hedgehog. 208.101.130.232 13:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be in the main series as well. Bottomlivefan95 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.193.37 (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I say mainseries it!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Either this should get main series status or Shadow should be bumped down to spin-off platformers.

Chaotix: Sonic cameos and it appeared on a home console. Chaotix does not star Sonic, but it plays very much like a 2D Sonic game as many of the rules established in Sonic 1-3 apply. The only differences are that the act selection is non-linear, and you are tethered to a another character.

Now compare Shadow the Hedgehog, which currently enjoys main series status: Sonic cameos and it appeared on home consoles. Shadow does not star Sonic, but it plays very much like a 3D Sonic game as many of the rules established in SA2 and Heroes apply. The only differences are that the stage selection differs based on previous actions and you are able to use vehicles and weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.70.177 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright concern

Is the material quoted from the manual in the Storyline section copyright? Phina.v 12:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chaoix.jpg

Image:Chaoix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Playstation & Jaguar cd

The game has never been released for either of these consoles. Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.90.169 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Forums as reliable sources

Yes, I know that forums are 99% not verifiable, but when dealing with claims such as these then a forum where the prototypes were released and analyzed makes for a verifiable source (anyone can open the ROM and duplicate the findings themselves, which would be original research, which makes this link the preferred one). Any issues other than "Wikipedia says forums are not reliable so I will remove this", which is bullshit? -- LocalH (not logged in, feel free to lookup my WP account and link it to this comment)

Did you read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources? CIGraphix (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It does not say "forums are never reliable sources", it merely says "forums are largely not reliable sources", meaning there are situations where they are reliable. This is one, as it is a forum where people analyze the classic Sonic games and publically post their findings for the world to verify. I ask again, are there any other issues than reading a policy but leaving out a very key word? -- LocalH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.114.254 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to be saying?

If get this cast Sonic the Hedgehog, Gordie Rhinehart, Amy Rose, and Miles "Tails" Prower from TV series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain vsk (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Gordie Rhinehart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.47.212 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Super Knuxs and Wechina glitch or hack

I herd that there was a glitch(or hack) of Super Knuckles and Super Wechina(with glitch flickies),is this a glitch or a hack?

I don't think that Super Knuckles is in the game, but "Wechnia" (as he is known) is actually Tails' leftover data from Sonic Crackers. I think some stuff on that should be added. ~ TheJoebro64 —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Knuckles' Chaotix → Chaotix (video game) – This case is a bit like 8 Eye's, where all versions of the game itself use one title even when certain packaging material uses another. Since we write articles on games themselves before their material, we should treat "Knuckles' Chaotix" as an alternate title. Despatche (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is another one of those situations, the recently failed requested move of Sonic Colors to Sonic Colours, where we don't change article titles merely due to variations between different regions, when both names are correct and acceptable. WP:RETAIN supports keeping this as Knuckles Chaotix because that's what the article was created as. WP:COMMONNAME supports the oppose as well; Knuckles Chaotix is used more commonly to refer to the game, where as Chaotix is used more commonly used in reference to the group of characters in the game, known as "Chaotix".Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose even if there are multiple versions that have the name "Chaotix", sources have proven "Knickles' Chaotix" to be the most common english name. If theres another region in the english-speaking world that uses "Chaotix" we can clarify.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, while I reverted Despatche's edits, it was only because it was awkward for the article to be named "Knuckles Chaotix" while he made a bunch of changes referring to the game as just "Chaotix". The article content needs to reflect the current name. I don't oppose a note explaining that certain regions call the name simply "Chaotix". That change was merely caught up in all his other changes. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Both names are not "correct or acceptable" when one name is used as a default; "Chaotix" is the name used for all regions, including any English-speaking one, no exceptions. The only reason so many sources use "Knuckles' Chaotix" is because they don't go by the game itself, which is simply wrong by any metric, and it's one of the many things that calls their title-fact-checking into question (I'd start a list, but WP:VG has made it very clear that they refuse to deal with the situation no matter how much proof I have). Again, we write articles on the games themselves before we write about the packaging material. "Knuckles' Chaotix" is perfectly valid as an alternate title, but the fact that it is one needs to be made clear.

You want this to be about Sonic Colours? So be it. You no longer have your nonexistent ENGVAR argument, so what's your game, Sergecross? How am I supposed to assume good faith when you continue to lie and lie and lie to my face? How am I supposed to assume that these many editors aren't simply banding with you, Mr. Almighty Admin, when I never see these people elsewhere and when they say things that would suggest they're actively ignoring what I say? Why would I assume a particular situation when every single sign tells me that things are the complete opposite? I am simply unable to use Wikipedia in any way--to read, to edit, to discuss--because of you. Why are you treating me this way? What do you want me to do? Despatche (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We use the most common englsih name, not the name most common over all the world.Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not treating you in any certain way, you just keep suggesting weird title changes for articles on my watchlist (I monitor a lot of articles related to Nintendo, Sega, and Japanese role-playing games.) Note that I have not commented on many, or any, articles beyond that scope. It's nothing personal, despite all your bad-faith assumptions. Your renaming proposals just don't fall in line with Wikipedia naming guidelines, typically WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:RETAIN.
• With that out of the way, I don't understand your arguments. Google images searches have shown at least two variations of the boxart clearly saying "Knuckles Chaotix", so that was definitely it's name in some of the major regions. Also, as Lucia says, we go by WP:COMMONNAME. So many of your requested moves fail to acknowledge this crucial point. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The case for the proposed title is exceptionally weak when the nominator admits "so many sources use 'Knuckles' Chaotix.'" We operate on verifiability, not truth. If we were to move, the better title would be simple Chaotix, as the game is surely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a few sentences on characters from the game at List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2013 (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.

Road to GA

I think we can bring this closer to GA. Before I do any editing, is all the information on the page right now in the sources given? Or is there still original research mixed in? I see footnotes everywhere but not sure how much of the information can be attributed to the sources, particularly the gameplay and plot sections. TarkusAB 12:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think most of the info here is in the sources. While most of the gameplay section is unsourced, it is largely correct, we just need to verify its details. The development section is going to need some heavy work, which will include getting all the info on the game's history we can find. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you have a preference on what sections to work on? I can definitely rewrite the lead and whole gameplay section, can work on plot if needed, and usually enjoy writing the development/release sections the most. I would rather not work much on reception and legacy if possible.TarkusAB 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How about I work on the reception and legacy sections, and we both work on the dev section? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! And we can copyedit each other's work as necessary. I'll work on this article more closer towards the end of the week. TarkusAB 00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I found a source, but I'm not sure if it's reliable or not: http://retrogamingmagazine.com/2014/04/20/knuckles-spins-game-knuckles-chaotix-sega-32x-today-history-april-20th-1995/ ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. I looked at the staff page and the authors don't provide any credentials, and there's no About page that provides any editorial process. Just looks like a fan site. TarkusAB 22:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a good magazine I found at Sonic Retro that could be used: http://info.sonicretro.org/Work_in_Progress_-_Chaotix_(Sega_Power,_1995) It features an early screenshot of the title screen that shows that Espio was once considered for the title role. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time reading the scan, since I'm on mobile right now, but is that literally states in the magazine, or is that original research based off of the fansite's comments and screenshots? Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the website is stating that Espio was considered for the title role. They're just pointing out the listing of the character names on the title card is different than the final release, indicating they are prototype screenshots. That's not at all remarkable since it is a preview for a work-in-progress title, and the magazine doesn't mention it anyways. The magazine even states "Knuckles takes the spotlight". Unfortunately the preview doesn't provide much juicy info to use in the article, but it's reliable. TarkusAB 00:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've looked through a lot of this fansite's scans in the past, and that's more how I recalled it too. The scans are fascinating for their exactly stated details, but the fansite that hosts them make a lot of OR-like liberties with their interpretation of that info. The scans are RS's, but the fansite's commentary is not. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Much better source: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/02/massive-sega-rom-leak-reveals-secrets-of-older-games/ ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Check out the text on this prototype title screen. I don't know though, I would stop short of calling him the original star, but he was definitely featured more prominently, and considering the 2-character nature of the game, probably intended as the featured co-star with Knuckles: http://hiddenpalace.org/Knuckles%27_Chaotix_(Dec_27,_1994_prototype) TarkusAB 10:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can fairly say "originally intended to have a larger role" or something, but I don't think we can go as far as to say "original star" though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a good article for the gameplay section: http://info.sonicretro.org/Game_Preview_-_Chaotix_(Electronic_Gaming_Monthly,_April_1995) It goes into great detail on characters, power-ups, and bonus levels. It also mentions that the game was 80% complete by April 1995. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to work on the article this weekend! TarkusAB 16:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

OK I just finished a long editing session. Tagged a few sources I'm not sure about reliability, and requested one citation. Learned that Sonic Team didn't make this game, I wonder how long this page had that incorrect information? TarkusAB 18:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, the Sonic Team misconception isn't just on Wikipedia; even reliable sources like USGamer have claimed the game was developed by them. Good work; added a bit more info today. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yea, it's possible they took that bit from Wikipedia. I looked back and some IP editor made the change in 2013 and it was never reverted. I'm happy with the article so whenever you're ready for GAN you can nominate it. I'll help with the review. TarkusAB 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Now can you guys go and edit Ristar so that it also doesn't use the misconception it was developed by Sonic Team? Same problem, EGM confirms it was not developed by Sonic Team, but later reliable sources in 2006 IGN and Gamespot insist it was, probably from the same kind of misinformed glance at Wikipedia as with Chaotix. This is all a problem with Sergecross73 though and his own opinion, rather than actual facts, since he insists he knows more than an EGM article with a developer saying Ristar wasn't Sonic Team. His argument is that because developers of Ristar went on to work on Sonic Team games, then it needs to be retroactively credited as Sonic Team based on his "stance." (yes he is using his stance as a source) Despite that that makes zero sense in terms of game development, the lead designer and project director of Ristar never went on to work at Sonic Team. Knuckles' Chaotix however has 18 developers who went on to work on Sonic Team games, while Ristar has 7 (two of which wrote the users manual for multiple Sega games). So because of this, the Knuckles' Chaotix wiki is inconsistent with the Ristar wiki and therefore Sonic Team oeuvre. I can't fix this because it's all Sergecross73's personal opinion, not actual consensus despite multiple users having debated this in the past, it all stops with this one guy. So maybe you all can have more pull.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Sonic Crackers into Knuckles' Chaotix. TarkusAB 15:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Requesting merge of Sonic Crackers into this article. Crackers has little notability and sources about it, and since it is often regarded as a prototype to Chaotix, it makes sense to merge into this article. TarkusAB 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support: I proposed that the two be merged on Cracker's talk page a little while ago. I did want to try and see if I could save it, but I looked through the sources and found that almost all sources are just simple, non-notable mentions of the game on lists. Pinging @Sergecross73: who's familiar with merges like this. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2017 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Knuckles' Chaotix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I will review this shortly, but can state now that plagiarism is not a concern in this case. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

@TheJoebro64: My apologies for any confusion caused by this, I have been asked by the video games WikiProject (here) to re-review this GA nomination as some errors were made in my last review. Momentarily I shall re-review. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the plot section has the same amount of weight as the entire gameplay section, which could be considered undue. I'd consider that weight undue. "It's also a good example of why the instruction manual is a subpar source, as it gives license to add undue detail whereas a secondary source (e.g., a review) naturally limits the article's scope by space constraints: the publication only publishes the most important details, whether about the plot or the gameplay elements."

• So what are you suggesting, that the plot be trimmed? TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there TarkusAB, that was mainly a quote from Czar on the WP Video games discussion, I think that is what they are suggesting, but I have tagged them to hopefully get us some clarification on this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on the sources, the plot is out of weight with the rest of the article. Either the plot should be trimmed or everything else should be expanded. I think the former is the better idea. I recommend using secondary sources wherever possible for the plot, which sets expectations for the plot's overall importance in the game. On balance, note that plot is usually an incidental element in 2D platformers... normally expressed as a sentence or two within the Gameplay section. Separate plot sections are more appropriate when plot is a key element cited in reviews, like in a Final Fantasy RPG  czar 22:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed plot. If Joe plans on taking this to FA, it should probably be sourced using secondary sources where possible and merged into gameplay. TarkusAB^talk 15:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that this is now good to go GA wise, what do you think Czar? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Size is much better. Already noted that secondary sourcing is recommended, but it becomes necessary if the plot section is going to make original claims (as it does). Comparing two primary sources is original research. If it's going to be based in primary sources, it should not have original claims. Now if the claims were only simple plot, WP doesn't even require citations for those. czar 21:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed OR claims TarkusAB^talk 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

looks good to me now, what do you say Czar? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Some grammar fixes I'd make but nothing glaring for the GA criteria ;) Thanks for the edits czar 04:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The "rubber band" multiplayer mechanic was largely panned despite being acknowledged as an effort to innovate." - generalized statement without direct reference

• References added TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! 😊--TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Negative attention was brought to the game's level design and low difficulty." - generalized statement without direct reference

• References added TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The gameplay received mixed reviews." - generalized statement without direct reference

• This phrase doesn't exist in the article...? TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, was part of the quote more or less but since it isn't in the article now, I have struck it out. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The group appears in Sonic Heroes (2003),[54] Shadow the Hedgehog (2005),[55] Sonic Rivals 2 (2007),[56] the Nintendo DS version of Sonic Colors (2010), Sonic Generations,[57] and Sonic Forces (2017);[58]" - statements like this should probably be either condensed or turned into a footnote, as it will be easier to read/digest for the general/average reader.

• This was already done before you started the review. TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point, struck it out of review, again, was just part of the discussion on the WP project so thought I would add it here and thought I had double checked it was still present, but apparently not.

Due to the above, I have placed this GA nomination  On hold while these issues are addressed.

In conclusion, the article overall is well written and, with those corrections, would make a great good article. Sorry once again for the confusion TheJoebro64. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I made some significant contributions to this article leading up to the GAN so I'll make some of these fixes on JoeBro's behalf (I'm sure he won't mind) TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this! I don't want the re-review process to interfere with the DYK they have nominated due to it being approved if at all possible, so the quicker the issues can be addressed, the better. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I definitely support the trimming of the plot/story section. I've trimmed it down countless times in the past, only for someone to bloat it back out again. It's not a plot heavy game; it shouldn't be a big focus of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for trimming it Sergecross73. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Closing comment - Okay, looks good now. Well done everybody and thanks for the edits! My pleasure to re-promote this article to Good Article status! :D @TheJoebro64: @TarkusAB: (for anyone concerned that I did not get a second opinion before re-promoting, I did get the opinion from Czar above) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Comic

The article mentions the Chaotix appeared in the Archie comics, but they were also major characters in the UK Sonic the Comic series. Worth mentioning, perhaps? I'd dig up a source but meant to be doing something else atm. Popcornduff (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Sonic the Comic is really hard to find sources for, unlike the Archie series (which RSes covered frequently). I'll try to dig up some information about it though. JOEBRO64 11:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you not use the comic issues themselves as sources? (I don't know.) Popcornduff (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I could as a primary source, but I'm not exactly sure how to cite them. JOEBRO64 11:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Low-res scans of a GamesTM magazine article about STC here. Chaotix might be mentioned, but you'll have to squint to read: [1] Popcornduff (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about the Chaotix (it might be worth including at Sonic CD and S&K though, because it talks about those games). I'll just cite the book itself. JOEBRO64 12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Internal clock

One more thing about that clock. Is it in the game cartridge itself or does the 32X have one? Picky but it'd be nice to get it right for FA. The current wording is vague but suggest the cart has one - is that accurate? Popcornduff (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that passage is false. The game generates random times of day for each stage. TarkusAB^talk 03:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I'm still doing frantic copyediting on this article because, for now, I think it's more constructive to try to improve it myself rather than just complain on the FAC.

• "IGN considered the level design simplistic, bland, and seemingly unfinished. The large number of acts in each level (five, compared to previous entries having two or three) and simple boss fights were also noted."

A note about "note": This is a really dangerous verb that's often misused on Wikipedia. It implies that someone is registering a fact, not voicing an opinion. For example, "She noted it was 4PM" is OK - that was the fact. "She noted that the game was fun" is not OK: that's an opinion. This sentence uses "note" to say that there are a large number of levels - that's OK, that can be a factual statement assuming it's measured against other games in the franchise or whatever - and sounds like praise? But also that the boss fights are "simple", which is confusing - is this meant to be a criticism? not clear. Popcornduff (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, sometimes I forget I can read sources myself to figure out what the prose is trying to say. I've clarified this now but please note my warning about "note". Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reception section

I want to point out that currently the reception section mixes contemporary with retrospective reviews. 1UP, AllGame, and IGN are retrospective. Shouldn't these critic scores be omitted from the infobox and the comments be split off and grouped at the bottom of Reception? Perhaps if the critical consensus remained the same across time (as it appears it did), it doesn't matter. I'll be honest that IGN looks so integrated that I really don't want to bother rewriting the section but it probably should be done. TarkusAB^talk 20:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the overall reception section is fine the way it is since the reception has never changed (and both czar and Jaguar said it was fine at the FAC), but I would be fine with removing IGN, AllGame, and 1UP from the infobox. JOEBRO64 20:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Production began with Sonic Crackers, a 1994 prototype for the Sega Genesis which experimented with the tethering mechanics and featured Sonic and Tails. This concept was retained when development transitioned to the 32X under the working title Knuckles' Ringstar.

Joe sez: "Sorry, but we need to say this [the bolded part] because the way it's written implies EVERYTHING was retained (besides Sonic and Tails), which is false"

Sorry, Joe, I can't agree. Look at it again without the bolded part:

Production began with Sonic Crackers, a 1994 prototype for the Sega Genesis which experimented with the tethering mechanics and featured Sonic and Tails. Development transitioned to the 32X under the working title Knuckles' Ringstar.

There's nothing here that implies that "everything was retained" - prototypes are naturally assumed to have unfinished ideas and stuff that doesn't reflect the final game. Additionally, by your logic, saying "the concept was retained" does nothing to indicate other concepts were discarded, if that's your concern. If what you actually want to make clear here is that significant amounts of Crackers were scrapped, then we should spell that out more directly. Popcornduff (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm givin' it a little c/e and restructure. JOEBRO64 10:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Chaotix name

Were the characters referred to collectively as a group called the "Chaotix" at the time of release or later? I think it was just the name of the game at first. TarkusAB^talk 19:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't know. Maybe we should check the manual? JOEBRO64 19:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, they are "the Chaotix Crew" in this game, according to the manual. JOEBRO64 19:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Good enough for government work. TarkusAB^talk 19:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Tether

Is there an in-game explanation for the tether? Brutannica (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Clackers

It's just been pointed out to me that "Sonic Crackers" was almost certainly meant to be "Sonic Clackers", as in clackers. (Japan mixes R and L up a lot.) No source for this so I guess we can't add it to the article, but interesting to know... Popcornduff (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That is interesting and almost certainly true, especially since "crackers" makes zero sense. TarkusAB^talk 03:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, I never thought of that, but that makes so much more sense! As you say though, I've never seen a sources say that though. Which is equally shocking - can't believe no RS ever thought of this either, but I don't think I've ever seen it. Sergecross73 msg me 04:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Incredible! I always thought "Crackers" made no sense. "Clackers" seems like it was clearly the intended name. JOEBRO64 11:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Newtrogic High Zone listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Newtrogic High Zone. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Forum posts used as sources

I'm alarmed to see that this article is using posts on fan forums as sources, such as this. Surely this isn't acceptable, especially for FAs? Popcornfud (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, it's a legitimate interview with Tom Kalinske, and given that drx is widely reputed in the video game preservation scene (he runs Hidden Palace and has acquired thousands of prototypes over the years [2][3][4]), I think it'd be reasonable to say the interview is acceptable as a self-published source. WP:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," which is a requirement I'd say this meets. (Drx was recently featured in Retro Gamer for his work on getting the Sonic 1 prototype, in addition to Hidden Palace receiving RS attention for their preservation work.) If no one else agrees though, I'll remove it. JOEBRO64 17:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've no doubt the interview is legitimate and really happened. But you know the rules - WP:TRUTH, etc. Additionally, it doesn't look great to readers when sources are forum posts.

I'd feel a lot happier if this specific example was run past some experienced editors - specifically ones experienced in assessing RSs - to make sure we're comfortable with it as an exception. But I'll go with what the community decides.

As a point of comparison... there's a lot of stuff I'd like to include in Radiohead articles but have omitted because it's based on interviews conducted by fans. I took one such interview transcript to WP:ALBUMS for discussion, but the consensus was that we could never know how authentic the interview was as it hasn't been conducted, vetted or published by a reliable source (even though we had audio recordings of the interview). Popcornfud (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If we all agree the interview is legitimate, it feels silly to pull it from the article. I would feel cautious if this was just a fan, but we're not talking about a complete nobody. We could source his personal website instead of SonicRetro, and write "According to an interview by preservationist Luke Zapart, " or whatever, to let the reader gauge authenticity for themselves. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. I see the source wasn't in the article when it was being reviewed for FA and I doubt any decent FA reviewer would let it go. Citing his site instead of a forum post already looks like an improvement though - imagine which would create a better impression to a reader unfamiliar with the author. Popcornfud (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree. This is the sort of thing that sometimes sort of gets a pass in our little video game community, but generally wouldn't fly in the stringent FA standards. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)