Talk:Princess Sally Acorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Princess Sally Acorn article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] This article needs more than just two pictures!

Also, shouldn't you mention that Sally loves Sonic? The way you write it sounds like she loves her people more! --anon

That's because she said in the comic's she loved her people more in the story "Love and Loss". A quotation in refference to that issue has also been added. SonicMobius 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Make-Up

The people in North America that made up TV shows made up Princess Sally Acorn for the Sonic cartoons that were released only in North America. --ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com

I know, but you have to write that! So write that Sally loves Sonic more than her people or something like that and mention that the people in North America made her up. --anon

[edit] Vandal Attack

Okay... other than me and D1Puck1T, did anybody even notice the recent surge of vandalism at this page? The repeated attacks were severe enough to be classified as an edit war!!!!! --Luigifan 23:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


I noticed, thank you for clearing it up. Any way to get this article blocked? It's been vandalized a lot in the past, after all. -Nuckles87

Well, somebody's started it up again. And, by the way, you "protect" an article. You would "block" a user who's repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia, even after being asked to stop several times. --Luigifan 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous Misspellings

Ah, just reading through and noticed that there are a couple ugly sentences, with horrible grammar, inconsistent spelling, etc. Somebody can feel freem to review my revisions, but I think we are all pretty well served. Arynknight 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, please do whatever you can. I do a quick lookover any new additions, but there's no way to catch everything (especially since I'm usually paying more attention to trying to keep opinions and speculation out of the articles).D1Puck1T 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
""Freem"? XD --Luigifan 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squipmunk

For a while, I've been using the term "squipmunk" to describe Princess Sally. The word is a cross between "squirrel" and "chipmunk". What do you think? --Luigifan 12:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Sally

Have you notice that young Sally (her at 5-years-old) looks like Princess Jasmine from Aladdin? There should be some pictures of her; she's so cute! Angie Y. 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What with the release of Sonic and the Secret Rings, that's starting to look like it isn't a coincidence... --Luigifan 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Hierarchy

The sections "Love Life" and "Alternate Selves" correspond only to "Archie Sally." It would be logical to place them as a subsection of "Archie Sally", rather then as a category by themselves since they have hardly anything to do with "SatAM Sally" and nothing to do with "Fleetway Sally" or "Early Development".

Also, is it really necessary to have a "differences" section at all? Can't people draw these conclusions for themselves? --Ki11meshining 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


If they did we wouldn't have people reffering to both Archie Sally and SatAM Sally at the same time. For instance, how many times does SatAM Sally get bashed for Something Archie Sally does? Many fans still don't get the fact that these are two different versions of Sally, so I doubt many new comers will automatically draw upon that conclusion SonicMobius 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sally's Clothes problem

I have heard that Sally looks more suggestive than rouge. Can someone please state that Sally isn't topless? I've edited that but someone is free to change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnathan West (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Sadly, she is topless. You're not the only one who finds this disturbing... --Luigifan 10:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sally is not topless, she's flat-out nude. A vest and a pair of boots do not change the fact that she isn't wearing a shirt or bottoms. However, it isn't really a problem, is it? Sally has no real anatomical "detail", so it's pretty benign nudity. -- Yo
Yeah, thank the Lord for fur, and for creative liberties... --Luigifan 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sally doesn't wear much clothes, but that's because of the fact she lives in a culture where nudity does not automatically imply sexuality. None of the characters have made advances on Sally in that way, let alone because of her lack of clothing. The same goes for all the other naked characters. So Sally isn't dressing more suggestive than Rouge because in her culture it's not suggestive. Whereas Rouge living amongst and working for a bunch of humans is a different story because the cultural enviornment is different. SonicMobius 07:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, long story short: Sally has enough fur to cover her... areas. Would you like to walk around with a thick fur coat while wearing a jeacket, pants and shoes? Signed: A big Tails fan July 10 1:33 PM

The only reason "Sally looks more suggestive than Rouge" is because Rouge's chest bounced in SA2, effectively calling all other Sonic-related furries into question. Not exactly fair, but that's life. >_< Johnnyfog 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(BTW Tails Fan, sign your posts by typing "~" four times in a row) Johnnyfog 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to clothes, she has a problem. I nevr liked Sally in the first place, so I can't say som much on her side. Son of Jadoja 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

well if you notice sonic, tails, knucles, shadow, big, and many other male charecters are also nude --SSBB

Seriously, the immaturity and lack of intelligence is abundant in this section. How about looking at Sonic or Tails. They are completely nude, but do you call them more suggestive than Rouge? No. How about Sally? She is more clothed than Sonic, yet she is called more suggestive than Rouge OR Sonic. What has this world come to? Dylanlip (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This article about an anthropomorphic squirrel is longer and more detailed than the article about real-life squirrels. What gives? --Joe

Beats me. XD --Luigifan 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.32.133 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These templates are just bogus

Not to complain, but some of these ridiculous wikiproject videogame templates never get updated. EVER. Some of us have tried to succinctly summarize everything on Sally as much as we can, yet this is still a "START" article? It's even got references! It's an article about a naked talking squirrel, and it's got references!

Seriously though, can I just join wikiproject videogames and request a change of the grade myself? Or is there a more proper way? Johnnyfog 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG/A is the proper medium. A request was written there a while ago, which I am responding to below. --User:Krator (t c) 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG Assessment

Responding to a request at WP:VG/A.

  • Early in the lead section, various acronyms start to pop up. I found this confusing, and I think it would be better to rewrite the lead section so that it uses less acronyms.
  • The whole article needs in-depth analysis for in-universe style. I observed this in various places in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more information on in-universe style, how to avoid it, and what to write instead.
  • The article contains too much information on the plot and story, and too little "secondary information" (See WP:WAF again).
  • The articles sources are mainly primary sources. Secondary sources are needed too (Again, WP:WAF).
  • Finally, some of the images need fair use rationales. See WP:FU.

I am keeping the Start-rating for this article. A thorough read of WP:WAF, and applying it to this article, is all that is needed to make this a good article. The article is well written in general, and I have faith that the application of Wikipedia policies will not be a difficult task here. Link (The Legend of Zelda) and Captain Marvel (DC Comics) are excellent examples. --User:Krator (t c) 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sally Acorn Yardley.jpg

Image:Sally Acorn Yardley.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sally1.jpg

Image:Sally1.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The image now contains a fair-use rationale. The tamplate is no longer needed. 68.196.210.94 15:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've cleaned up some of the article. I'll add a cleanup tab at the top of the page and possibly a construction tab. I'll continue to do more clean-ups as time goes along. Dylanlip 15:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] do not start a breast size section

there has been discussion about sallys breast size in rouge the bats talk page. i just want to warn you to not even thinking about making one. editors are watching. be wary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.119.244 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Cleaning

I've continued cleaning up the article. I fixed some grammar mistakes. I also noticed that the IP 83.84.45.198 is adding in things that are not fact(One of them: The future storylines are all false). Besides that, I'll continue fixing up the article. And, as a final note, I removed some acronyms from the article, which may help the rating of the article(Look at above assessment). Dylanlip (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've continued to clean-up alot of the grammar in the article. I've also undone some edits that ruined certain sections of the article. I've undone most of the things that the above IP has done, as it throws out the entire sections part in the continuity and somewhat ruined the grammar. I think that I've done mostly what I can with the article. Are there any suggestions to make it better, grammar-wise and other-wise? Dylanlip (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've nearly finished restructuring the sections in the article to fit a more out-of universe style. For instance, I put creation at the top, while putting in-universe info inside the "Character" section to try to seperate out-of universe with in-universe. The description section, and certain sections in the Character section will form game appearances, television series, and printed media. The remaining storyline info will be reduced and kept in the character section. This last part of the cleanup will probably get this article to a B or GA status. If I can do that, then this article is safe. Dylanlip (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Two words: All done. That's right. The massive cleanup that I have spent weeks on is now finished. I have redone the entire article to fit an out-of universe style. I also redid the Character Biography, which no longer has tons of trivial/fancrufty info. I've seperated appaerances in different medias, such as game appearances, tv series, & printed media. I also removed the description section, putting info from it into the stated sections and the Lead section. The abilities section states her ability to use the Sword of Acorns, and I've redone the entire section structure to put certain sections under the biography section and others under the general Character section. Some references, such as references to YouTube or references to deleted info were deleted. In short, I've redone the entire article to a much higher standard than before. I've added a personality section, so anyone can add info to it to help it out. Other than that, this entire article is finished. Once atleast something is added to the Personality section(I'll probably do it.), I'll send this article to WikiProject Video Games to be reassessed. The assessment will tell me what to do next to the article and how to improve it. Thank you. Dylanlip (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot section (i.e. the 'character' section, except possibly the 'alternate selves' subsection) is too long in comparison to the rest of the article IMO. Also there should be references to more sources outside of the comic, mainly to prove notability (also to prove NPOV). I'm not sure imbd is considered a reliable source. Bridies (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the 'personality' section: you can't really say Sally is described as nice, down-to-earth, and moderate. She is not as free-spirited as Sonic, but does like to speak her mind when she feels she needs to without providing a source (and since the resto of the secion is over long anyway...) Bridies (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. All suggestions are EXTREMELY appreciated. I'm trying to improve the article as much as possible. I'll try and find suitable references for the article besides the comic. Certain sections of the article will be easier to get refrences for. Once we get the assessment, we'll know what to do next with the article. Dylanlip (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG Assessment Mar 2008

Much of the article is still utilizing a great deal of in-universe context, even the design sections. There are ways to reword it so it isn't in-universe and keep the same information, just take a stab at it. But really that and for an article this size more reference citations possibly are what's leaving it at start status for the time being :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the assessment. However, I wonder if you could explain more what was wrong with the article. I'm okay with the fact that it may still need improvement, however, I just need to know what to exactly improve. Thanks. Dylanlip (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well for example, the Character section. It's chunked up a lot, and at the same time is written as though this is a character you could reach out and touch. The information itself isn't bad, but the handling of it needs to be in a less in-universe tone and speak on the character treating it as what she is: an element of fiction, being observed by a real-world perspective. I hope that helps.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've already shortened alot of it. However, I am continuing to improve it. I'm starting to work on the Love Life section, which is filled with trivial/fancrufty stuff. I'll also shorten the Biography even further if I can. At the bottom, I'll add a Reception section to show standings in character polls, and other sources that rate Sally. I'm also looking through Concept and Creation to remove storyline bits and trivial stuff. After I'm done with this, I'll put it up for Peer review before re-submitting it. Dylanlip (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Shortening a great deal won't be the (only) answer: you need to rewrite the content to be in a different tone. That'll have a greater impact. Also try to cite more when you comment on a character's actions or personality, using text examples from the comics in the references if you have them available.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive Cleanup Continues

I've continued my massive cleanup of the Sally article. I've finished the Love Life section, which no longer contains tons of trivial cruft in it and has new references. I'll start work on the concept and creation section, which will soon contain more references and less trivial stuff. After that, I'll start finishing up the work needed in the character section. Once that's ALL done, I'll submit it for a Peer Review instead of evaluation, as they tell alot more about the article. After the peer review, I'll clean up some more and then resubmit it to be evaluated. Dylanlip (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation template for comic book issues, and will begin implementing them ASAP. Dylanlip (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started up work on the Character section AGAIN!! I've removed the Love Life section, and I've added a section called Relations to Other Characters, which will give a brief description of each of her relations to other characters. I've also merged all of the sub-sections in the Biography to keep it together in one place. I've also COMPLETELY finished the Television Series section, giving a description of her role in both Sinic the Hedgehog and Sonic Christmas Blast. I'll also continue using the noted comic citation template to finish referencing certain sentences to the comic. The first citation is up, and I will replace the rest of the old citations soon. Another thing is the biography. It still contains oodles of trivial/fancrufty storyline bits. I hope to condense the biography into something WAY smaller. Also, I'm still on the lookout for references for the Concept & Creation section. If anyone has any references to any development or pre-development of Sally, please say so here. Finally, I'd like for this page to be semi-protected, as this page is CONSTANTLY being abused and vandalized. I will put it up for protection, so this article can be a more peaceful and more vandalism-free article. I'll update here again when I finish or when this page gets semi-protected. Thank you. Dylanlip (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You probably noticed that the Biography is missing, right? You're correct. Don't panic, don't be alarmed, don't revert. I am in the process of completely rewriting the Biography. It will take awhile, but it is worth it, considering the state of the old biography. Again, please do not count it as vandalism. It is being completely handled by me. Dylanlip (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Death" of Sally

The "Death" of Sally section should be readded to this board. The behind the scenes story to that turning point is interesting, and the controversy was comparable to the controversy behind the death of Gwen Stacy. Please consider this. Inkan1969 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The simple reason why was because it was trivial and crufty, and does not belong on Wikipedia. To further talk about storyline bits on an article, go to the Archie Sonic Wiki. Also, I have merged the sections to shorten the cluttered Table of Contents. Dylanlip (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think it's trivial? It was a big controversy when "Endgame" first came out? Where in the Sonic Wiki is discussion of this going on? I still think that section should be restored. Inkan1969 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's trivial because it is filled with storyline bits that shouldn't be added. We need a storyline that is out-of-universe and is small enough, not a full lfe story on a fictional character. Also, it'll need references for the SEGA part. As of right now, it should not be included. Dylanlip (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please don't edit the page, as I'm still working on it. Please wait until the inuse template is taken down. Then you may edit.

[edit] Current Progress

I am sorry for the lack of updates to the page. I've had some issues to take care of in real-life(illness, etc.). However, I am now back and ready to finish this page ONCE AND FOR ALL. I will stay here and work until the beginning of June, when the page will be fully finished by then. I have noticed that some people are impatient with me and are adding back the old information originally used before the remodel. Please do not do this. I've already spent months trying to redo it all, only to have a person add it all back within a few minutes. Please people, do not do this. Anyways, I truely hope that this is the true and final end of this long overdue and delayed refurb for good. After that, I can focus on the Sonic and Mina's page, as well as getting this page a Peer Review and Quality Review. I will not be updating on the talk page here until it is all done. Any questions should be directed to my talk page. Thank you everyone, for letting me do this to help the page. See ya soon.  Dylanlip  (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)