For characters from the games, the character must have made a substantial (e.g. non cameo) appearance in at leasttwoSonic games. Because Sonic has such a large cast of characters, this list is primarily dedicated to major ones. One-off or minor characters are considered out of this list's scope and should be covered within their respective game's article rather than here.
An example of a character who meets this criteria is Ray the Flying Squirrel, who makes substantial appearances in SegaSonic the Hedgehog and Sonic Mania Plus. This is the minimum required for a character to be considered noteworthy for this list.
An example of a character who does not meet this criteria is Princess Elise, whose only substantial appearance is in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006). Unless she makes another non-cameo appearance in the future, she fails the inclusion criteria.
For characters from other media (TV shows, movies, and comics), the character must have made a substantial appearance in at leasttwo different forms of media. Because Sonic is primarily a video game franchise and there are too many Sonic characters exclusive to non-video game media to be listed here, a separate criteria exists to determine if a non-game character can be listed.
An example of a character who meets this criteria is Princess Sally, who made substantial appearances in the Saturday morning Sonic cartoon and the Archie Comics Sonic the Hedgehog series. Therefore, she can be listed, even though she has never made a substantial appearance in a Sonic game.
An example of a character who does not meet this criteria is Geoffrey St. John, who, while a fairly significant character within the Archie Comics Sonic series, never appeared outside it. Thus, unless he makes an appearance in another form of media in the future, he fails the inclusion criteria.
All entries on this list should be backed with secondary, reliable sources. No entries should be sourced entirely to primary sources, and any such entries will be removed.
Any discussions regarding splitting character entries from this list must happen on this talk page before any action is taken, to determine if the character has received enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable enough to stand as their own article.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
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
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: 16:23, April 1, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media
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
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, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Hello. Wondering why Amy Rose doesn't have an article here, I found this, and can't believe that Amy doesn't have enough secondary sources to prove notability while Shadow has as Amy was created way before Shadow and she is featured way more widely in medias than him. Even if the existing sources were not enough for proving notability, I think such a popular and widely featured character should have many other secondary sources.
Do you have other sources, and what do you think about this? (I'm currently not proposing seperation as I didn't investigate the existing sources deeply and search for new sources, but asking for sources and comments.) RuzDD (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed at length, and the consensus that keeps coming up is that she doesn't have enough dedicated, significant coverage. I believe someone was working on a draft, so you could try collaborating with them and seeing what you come up with. Sergecross73msg me16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I found some mistakes in them ("computer-generated image series" and "five main characters") (both) and think Cindy Robinson's photo would be better than Shannon Chan-Kent's as Shannon voiced Amy only in Sonic Prime (yours), I feel like probably both but at least one of these drafts is/are completely acceptable for the main namespace, though I'm not certain and don't have an opinion to which one is better as I didn't inspect them deeply (I also don't think I'm good at determining quality). RuzDD (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait before publishing either, this is one that is going to fall under a lot of scrutiny because it's been discussed so many times. Neither draft parties seemed to think they were ready to publish either... Sergecross73msg me23:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the idea that the Eggman, Tails, Knuckles, Shadow (especially given that I wrote this one, don't know how the hell anyone could read it, look at the sourcing, and question its notability), and Eggman articles be merged ludicrous. The coverage at those articles is far better than the coverage Amy and Chao had (and there seems to be a rough consensus that the Chao Garden is notable, Chao as a species just aren't), and there's plenty of coverage regarding the film versions of the characters that hasn't been implemented. I don't have time to present sources right now, but I'll add them to the individual articles' talk pages when I get the chance. JOEBRO6423:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also find it ludicrous. But let me present my "devil's advocate" case by comparing Amy and Tails. I'd like to call this the "Tails test". Look at the reflist for Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog). What you'll find is shockingly bad - the only sources that focus on Tails specifically are Valnet sources. It's otherwise sourced to listicles, primary sources, and reviews for the games, nothing specifically about the character. Now compare that to User:Red Phoenix/sandbox/Amy Rose and its reflist. Are they any different?
No, they're not.
I removed the primary sources, for the most part, and tried to reduce how many Valnet sources were used, but they're otherwise no different - in fact the Amy draft includes some academic publishing as well on her impact in video games as a whole, and that's still not enough to change the consensus.
So where do we draw the line? I argue - legitimately - that Amy's demonstrated notability in our articles is at least equivalent to Tails. Knuckles is only marginally better in large part because he was meme'd as "Ugandan Knuckles". Doctor Eggman at least has this, but it otherwise looks much the same. Don't misunderstand me; I don't think any of them should be merged. But I now think that if this is what we're comparing Amy to, then I've at least created a draft that puts her on that standard. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, yeah, but we're comparing similar characters on the same notability standards. And if we're reiterating the discussion at WT:VGCHAR about this and they were to be merged, then I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Red Phoenixtalk02:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand why that's still not enough to change the consensus while I looked there, and I didn't see a new consensus anywhere. Considering these, I think proposing seperation might not be a bad idea. RuzDD (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude but...you haven't even made an argument for notability yet, only that you don't understand the problem. What reasoning are you operating on? Sergecross73msg me15:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sketchy comparisons with articles. And, I never said that I think they are suitable for the main namespace or that I think proposing seperation isn't a bad idea (there are nuances). RuzDD (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I mean, when you say things like "I feel like probably both but at least one of these drafts is/are completely acceptable for the main namespace" or that you "didn't understand why that's still not enough to change the consensus", what do you mean? What standards or criteria are you operating off of to make these statements? Sergecross73msg me15:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sketchy comparisons with articles. As for the second, I didn't see a consensus for not moving it into the main namespace in that page. RuzDD (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent in-depth discussion is here, where there is very much so a consensus against recreating Amy Roses's article. There were multiple merge discussions prior to that which caused it to be merged in the first place. I'm sure you can find them if you search through the talk page archives. Or I can help if you need it.
In a general sense, basically we are looking for the WP:GNG to be met, and the points of WP:MERGEREASON to be avoided. What this means, for a video game character article, is loosely outlined at WP:NVGC. You'll want to make sure it fits that sort of description. If you simply say it looks comparable to other articles, you're bound to get hit with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counter-points - essentially, that just because you observe something somewhere on Wikipedia does not mean its necessarily correct or desirable. Sergecross73msg me19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the correct course of action here would be to evaluate the notability of Tails, Knuckles, and Eggman, and improve their articles if there's room to do so (Of which there's a high possibility to do so). That way we have a baseline we can compare a potential Amy article off of.
I believe at this point, Amy isn't notable, primarily moreso due to a lack of coverage than a lack of actual notability. I'm hoping Sonic 4 will turn that around, so she's a subject worth keeping an eye on. For the time being, I believe she should be re-evaluated once the other Sonic character articles are worked on.
I believe it may also be worth putting some work into Shadow- much of his Reception is outdated and rather barebones, and the Year of Shadow + all that comes with it is bound to have given him a lot more coverage we can use to improve the article. It may also be worth looking into Chao Garden at some point, per the AfD.
I didn't see this, thanks. I compared it with my general observation so I thought this wouldn't apply (I knew it and it was already linked) but that's not important now because looking at the sources supported this sense. I saw four sources that go deeply about her in @Red Phoenix's version (I inspected it less sketchily) (1234) and there is probably more as I didn't inspect it very deeply. The sources given in that discussion which resulted in denial were significantly worse than these, at least to me. RuzDD (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understood from this page, the first one is unreliable, but the others are reliable (for proving notability at least), which is enough. (Addition: I also didn't look at all sources, so probably there's more.) RuzDD (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added refideas to the talk pages of each article from a quick Google search. I'll do some deeper looking over the next few days (the CSE seems to be busted at the moment and google news just gives me Screen Rant crap) but what I was able to find fairly quickly was good. JOEBRO6415:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Been doing more refidea additions—I think what I've found definitely demonstrates the characters' notability. I was able to find some scholarly discussion of Eggman and Knuckles; looks like some might exist for Tails but I'll have to do some deeper looking (mostly to get around paywalls) JOEBRO6415:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that I agree with @Red Phoenix: that Amy Rose has roughly equal notability as Tails. I'm full support of her having an article, especially after the additional coverage she's gotten since making a cameo in the Sonic 3 movie.
I was heavily involved in the 2022 discussion. I admit, I relied a lot on Valnet sites back then. Though to be fair, this was before the current consensus that the Valnets don't contribute to notability.
I had a draft a couple years back, as well. Red Phoenix's draft is admittingly much better than mine. I'll be adding some sources in there soon.
One vote yes, but we do have dissenters. I can’t in good faith support mainspacing it without some level of consensus, considering the most recent one is a 2022 decision to merge it. Even if my version is a better write, it doesn’t directly address the concerns of those who made that consensus unless a new consensus of editors agrees it does. Red Phoenixtalk13:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that the draft is a good start, and I wouldn't oppose moving it to article space as it is.
However, I'd prefer that it had more information on her conception and the creative and commercial motivations for her creation and introduction (similar to what's described on other Sonic character articles). It'd also be nice if we could have a little bit more details on the reception of Amy's current characterization in the IDW comics, Frontiers, etc., as the whole "damsel in distress" aspect of her character has been significantly downplayed in favor of emphasizing her other traits.
At the very least, it'd be best if more substantive sources along these lines should be identified (if they can be) to move the draft's focus away from discussing Amy as an example of a female character in games, and prove more conclusively that she satisfies WP:NEXIST. silviaASH(inquire within)15:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three votes now, including mine above, and the person who replied right above me. Most, if not all of the issues that caused the initial merge have now been addressed. Looking back, I wish I would have waited for a while before starting that discussion in 2022. Maybe then, there wouldn't have been so much scrutiny with getting the article back into the mainspace. MoonJet (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to SilviaASH's comments, those sources do exist... in Valnet. I haven't found them anywhere else. When I was creating this new, less-fluff draft, I tried to reduce the number of these sources used because they're of questionable use at best and don't establish notability (although I was not using them for this purpose). So that exists, but not in a way that will bolster Amy's notability - it could only flesh it out for completeness. On development info, I'd hope maybe better sources exist on the development of Sonic CD that could extend further light on this, but our article on that game is pretty solid and does not contain any more than she's there and why she was designed the way she was.
As it pertains to splitting this out now, I consider who it is in opposition to this at this time as well as the 2022 consensus and the arguments against it. I can't say I know Pokelego all too well, but Sergecross73's opinion is one I value whether I agree with him or not. I too question if what we have is enough, and although I think it is, there's always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - editors could very well presume that Tails has notability while Amy does not.
I think the way to go forward is this: add and trim up what's missing, if it can be found, and conduct a formal WP:PROSPLIT discussion, advertising it to WT:VG as well to get a better cross-section of editors who know video games and fictional characters in video games. That would result in either Amy having an article, or this discussion being tabled until at least the release of the fourth Sonic movie. Red Phoenixtalk16:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. Yeah, I'd already tried looking myself, so I figured that was the case. Unless someone manages to unearth some overlooked print sources or Japanese interviews or something that helps cover that side, I don't figure it'll really be possible to find anything better. Oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ silviaASH(inquire within)16:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese interviews I think are a real possibility, especially in '90s era print sources. I've found development tidbits from old Sega games that way in past work. Unfortunately, I don't read or speak Japanese, so I have to hope someone's stumbled across it first. Red Phoenixtalk17:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm learning the language (slowly) and I have friends better at it than me who might possibly help, so if anyone finds anything like that and needs help reading it, I can see what I can do. silviaASH(inquire within)21:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the sentiments above you seems to be "looks like we've got a good start", "seems okay" and "I thought it should have its own article all along", and that's simply not good enough when we're talking about a subject that has been marred with a literal decade of notability debates, which have repeatedly fallen on the "merge" side of things when it comes to consensus. The cycle will just continue if you publish an incomplete draft. Sergecross73msg me16:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you nailed it. That's why Tails, an article in equally bad of shape and sourcing, doesn't get questioned while this does. We literally have to prove it to a higher standard to reverse the consensus.
I'm not looking to rush anything, and that's why I haven't pushed to move this into main space. "A good start" isn't good enough for Amy - and while that's unfortunate, it's also the reality. Red Phoenixtalk16:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, while not a valid reason for deciding probably, I think it's worth knowing that Amy Rose has her article in many languages of Wikipedia. Maybe some of them can be used to get good sources, I'm not sure.
I also can't understand how a reliable source (situational but reliable in this situation per description) cannot be used to prove notability. It does not make sense at all to me. RuzDD (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s because Valnet sources are considered churnalism. We don’t have a lot of reason to doubt their factual accuracy, although there is some sheerly over how much content they pump out that there are concerns over how much fact-checking is taking place. More concerning is that because they put out so much, what’s actually important to them to cover? That they cover almost everything suggests they’re not actually selective about what’s important and what isn’t. Red Phoenixtalk12:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll also point out that the English-language Wikipedia tends to have higher standards for inclusion and article quality than a lot of foreign-language Wikipedias. It’s not uncommon at all for other languages to have articles on topics we don’t, for that reason. Red Phoenixtalk12:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly, their legal team couldn't be afforded the time to fact check a cease and desist letter they sent to a YouTuber who used to work for them. Not that this is super relevant here, but it does suggest a company with internal politics and practices dictated by financial self-interest where every other concern is secondary or non-existent.
I think the sites they own are perhaps just reliable enough to be used for interviews (assuming the interviews are ones they did and not ones they just quoted from somewhere else), and more often, sourcing a basic statement of "this character appeared in this thing," if that information really can't be sourced from anywhere else. (I used a listicle from CBR merely to have a secondary source to say that Agent Stone appeared in a comic once, for instance, but I tried my best to avoid them otherwise.) silviaASH(inquire within)18:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Valnet sites, it's been discussed several times, just like Amy Rose herself getting an article. The current consensus is that they can be cited, (within reason) but they don't contribute to notability, which itself has been discussed a few times. I'm of the opinion we should allow Valnet sites to contribute to notability, but count them all as one source. Say, if you cite Game Rant, Screen Rant and The Gamer in the same article, then they count as one source towards notability, not three. That way, articles don't get overflown with Valnet sites or anything like that.
Now, as for Amy Rose, I've done some work on the draft too, and I suggest anyone else who wants to get the article back into the mainspace to do the same thing, to get it looking as good as possible, rather than "good enough," as Serge puts it. Like probably borderline GA-quality? MoonJet (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don’t really “count” sources for notability- it’s more about what’s said and where, and WP:THREE is just a general guideline. Unfortunately, quality doesn’t matter too much when considering notability, either: Wisp (Sonic) was a GA that went to FAC and there it was determined it should be merged instead. It’s all about those sources and what they say. I will credit the Doctor Eggman article that it has one published source in a reputable gaming website that talks and focuses directly on the character. That’s what we need to find with Amy; just one of those, if it exists, would go a LONG way toward showing notability. Red Phoenixtalk23:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:THREE is there, because we generally expect multiple sources (even though two is technically multiple as well, but I digress). That's true about article quality though. However, a poor-looking article that passes notability is more likely going to receive scrutiny than one that is notable and of higher-quality. In fact, the poor quality of the article Amy Rose had before was one of the main things that caused the merge.
I've added two sources to your draft that focuses directly on Amy last month. Though, one talks about Rouge the cat, and the other talks about Metal Sonic as well, but that doesn't negate the fact that Amy is still a direct focus in both of them. MoonJet (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, now, where do we go from here? Fix up the draft a bit more, and then start a new discussion to get thoughts from different editors, to try and achieve new consensus to bring the article into the mainspace? MoonJet (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing left to do is find other sources. It seems like we've exhausted all the online, English-language sources that could be used, so the only places left to look are sources in print and/or available in other languages. If that's not possible, or not sufficient, then we wait for new sources to materialize (and hopefully they will, in the lead-up to/aftermath of Sonic 4's release). silviaASH(inquire within)00:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think she already passes notability, and so do a couple other editors above. That's why I feel that we should try doing a new discussion to try and gather a consensus, because the current consensus since 2019 is against her having an article, which was re-enforced in 2022, but now it's been a few years, and several more new sources have since popped up. I feel that's what we should do after fixing up the draft a bit more. MoonJet (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I still think it would be better to try and bring the article to a higher standard first, I certainly wouldn't be against that by any means. If such a discussion were opened, I would voice my support for including the article. silviaASH(inquire within)00:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. That's what I meant when I said "fix things up first." As discussed above, because consensus was against her having an article on multiple occasions, it's best to try and get the draft looking as good as possible before opening up another discussion to try and change that consensus. What kind of changes to the draft would you suggest? MoonJet (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the sources we have now, I don't think I could suggest any significant improvements. I'd have to scrutinize it more closely to be certain, though. In general I think it'll have a much better chance if we can find more sources to meaningfully expand the scope of the draft's coverage in the ways I discussed earlier. silviaASH(inquire within)08:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently looking for more sources for significant coverage. I feel we already have enough, but having more doesn't hurt, and the more there is, the more likely people are to be swayed. Unfortunately, they aren't very easy to find with the Valnet spam on Google. I know Valnet sources are technically reliable, but are questionable when it comes to establishing notability, hence Valnet sources in the article should be kept to a minimum, if we really want to sway people. MoonJet (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about the movie / The movie versions of the Sonic characters being totally different from their mainline versions (even more different than most other non-mainline versions) makes me think that sources about the movies may not be helpful for these articles. RuzDD (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that would be the case. The versions of the characters from Sonic Boom are far more radically different from the mainline game series than the film versions are, and we've included sources about them. We're not a Fandom wiki; we're not going to split off every single version of Amy into its own article the way that the Sonic wiki does. silviaASH(inquire within)05:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I noticed that movie versions of the characters are actually way more different from the mainline ones than Sonic Boom versions are, even visually only, unlike what is generally seen at the first sight; and the difference further increases when the stories are also taken into account. RuzDD (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. It's been an loooong (in-progress) struggle to even prove the need for a single Amy article, there's simply no way we're going to have multiple Amy articles. Sergecross73msg me21:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's already agreed that when and if a standalone article for Amy exists, it may include content (a reasonably proportional and properly sourced amount, of course) discussing alternate versions of the characters. silviaASH(inquire within)11:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In Maria Robotnik's section, it is erroneously written that she formed a sibling-like bond with Shadow.
However, Shiro Maekawa, the writer of Sonic Adventure 2, stated on Twitter that the relationship between the two characters is ambiguous and that they have a special bond that cannot be labeled as friends, lovers, or siblings.
The correct statement would be that Maria formed a very close bond with Shadow. 2804:214:822A:9A07:1:2:9950:2B53 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In Maria Robotnik's section, it is erroneously written that she formed a sibling-like bond with Shadow. However, Shiro Maekawa, the writer of Sonic Adventure 2, stated on Twitter that the relationship between the two characters is ambiguous and that they have a special bond that cannot be labeled as friends, lovers, or siblings.
The correct statement would be that Maria formed a very close bond with Shadow.(https://x.com/PixelWitch__/status/1870587443877167372) Sofia Feitosa (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - We need a better source. Social media generally doesn't work without verified accounts, and Twitter/X's verification system no longer verifies people by a system of identity any more.
I'm open to rewording if the current wording isn't properly sourced either. A wording tweak is probably possible. I believe the current wording is mostly there just to confirm its not a (weird) romantic relationship situation. Sergecross73msg me16:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to "familial" since it's a better representation of what's presented, especially with Gerald explicitly calling Shadow "son" in Shadow Generations. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Duplicative to request directly below, which is more detailed. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)