# Talk:Sonic Adventure 2

I don't know if it's completely correct but "Vengence" from Radical Highway, which was reused in 2P-mode of Shadow the Hedgehog, sounds kinda likea remix of the music from the bosses Chaos 0, 2, and 4 from Sonic Adventure. Is this right? The last chime sound at the end of the bosses sounds like the second chime sound at the beginning of Vengence, and the beat sound the same only warped as a different style and tone.
Axidous 19, August 2006

Hey TheJoeBro64, I wanna ask you something. Why did you remove "and the sequel to the 1998 game Sonic Adventure"? It doesn't need to be reverted. Your acting like it's not allowing on any articles. Plenty of articles about sequels uses the term "it's the sequel to any specific one". There's no rule saying you can't add one and it's not irrelevant either. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe his point, which I agree with, is that it's pretty obvious to see that Sonic Adventure 2 is a sequel to Sonic Adventure based on their names. The intro makes it pretty clear too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
True, but what's the point of removing the term "the sequel to the 1998 game Sonic Adventure"? Plenty of articles about sequels mentions either the origin or other sequels or predecessor. I know Wikipedia isn't meant to be a reliable source, but that doesn't mean you can make kind of excuses such as the "Not an improvement" excuse. And besides, there's no rule saying that the term isn't allowed. Your making it appearing like it's not allowed on Wikipedia at all. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
What's the point of stating something that's already clear to the reader? You've got to stop it with always saying "there's no rule against it". Just because there's no rule against something doesn't mean it's the best option. There's also no rule against Joebro's edit. You've got to have better reasoning than that or you're just going to constantly find yourself in a stalemate. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, now i see that. Still, please explain to me the real reason why the term "and the sequel to the 1998 game Sonic Adventure" is not allowed and why is it not an improvement? You should know that plenty of articles about sequels usually uses the term "and the sequel to something". Explain why you don't want it to be allowed? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
BTW, Sergecross73, i did look at the guidelines. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
You still haven't explained the benefit of adding your proposed content. What is the benefit of adding content that was already very clear prior to its addition? Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean the benefit of adding my proposed content? Im still misssd understood. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need it in the article? You've keep saying all these things like "other articles have it" or "there's no rule against it" but you can't seem to explain why the article is actually better off with that in it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh now i know what your saying. Well, the reason why we needed it in the article is because plenty of articles are the same way, articles about sequels mentions their predecessors with the term "It is the sequel to", "The sequel to" or "and the sequel to" something, depending what it is. So i thought, why not just use that in the lead section. Theres nothing wrong with mentioning predecessors in the lead section. That's what i was now meant to say. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I need a reason better than "other articles do it" and "there's nothing wrong". I'm trying to tell you neither of those reasons are good enough. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The statement doesn't add value to the article and so should be removed. It's a WP:DUH situation. Yes, lots of other articles say this, but they probably shouldn't either. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
I hate to say it, but if we took the average Wikipedia video game article as a gold standard for prose, our prose would on average get better, not worse. Popcornfud (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, explain to me why it doesn't add to the article Popcornfud? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Sergecross explained in his first reply to you. No one could read the lead section and not understand that Sonic Adventure 2 is the sequel to Sonic Adventure 1. Popcornfud (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand what your meaning in the first reply. Your just making it appear like Sonic Adventure 2 shouldn't be the sequel to Sonic Adventure. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The confusion is mutual. Popcornfud (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
How can no one read the lead section and understand, you guys should. Sometimes I feel like you guys are acting very strict because you think it shouldn't be a sequel. Your just making that excuse for the sake of not wanting it to be allowed. Also, why do you think that saying about being a sequel to any specific thing shouldn't be said in any other article. Your almost as strict as Sergecross73, Popcornfud. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Is English not your first language, or are you particularly young or something? These are very basic concepts and I don't understand your confusion or your lack of ability to explain your own edits. I don't know how to break it down any simpler for you. Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
That response doesn't make any sense... Sergecross73 msg me 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
When you guys were sending me likes about Guidelines, how on earth do they have to do with the SA2 article about you refusing it to call a sequel? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Like I said, I can't break it down any simpler, so I don't know how to help you. But because it's your proposed edit, the burden is on you to convince others, or the edit isn't kept. It's up to you to convince others, not the other way around. And nothing you're saying is convincing anyone. You've got to change your approach or you're stuck. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Alright, but I before I answer, explain to me why do you have to be so strict over every single thing when it comes to Wikipedia articles about what should be there or not? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I could ask you the same thing? You're constantly  complaining that people don't let you add these mundane changes to articles, with the discussions often spanning weeks. Why do you keep wasting your time. Please find something more constructive to do. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not rename the section to "In other media" 2601:243:D01:1F20:8026:3D95:F6C0:F7B2 (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

"Adaptions" is more accurate and succinct to me. And "in other media" is often a magnet for people bloating sections with unnecessary trivia. What about you? You haven't actually advanced an argument for your attempted change, you just keep reverting. Why is that better? Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Pumpkin Hill has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23 § Pumpkin Hill until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 23:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)