Jump to content

Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSonic the Hedgehog 2 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 6, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2014Good article nomineeListed
May 16, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
May 12, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Label for 2013 mobile release

[edit]

This dif sums up the dispute pretty well. The IP wants to label it a remake. I feel that's inaccurate, because its still essentially the same game. The IP disputes the accuracy of term "port" though. I figured there's probably a third option that describes it even better, but I wanted to follow WP:BRD instead of arguing through edit summaries.

Honestly, we don't have to use either term, we can just call it what it was - a 2013 re-release for mobile platforms. The subsequent sentences cover the details of what exactly that meant (Done by Taxman in the retro enging, some enhancements added, etc.)

  • Original version - A remastered mobile port was released for iOS... on December 12, 2013.
  • IP's version - A remake was released for iOS... on December 12, 2013.
  • Alternate proposal - A new version of the game was released for iOS... on December 12, 2013.

Discussion

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sonic the Hedgehog 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we credit Sonic Team?

[edit]

My understanding is that most of Sonic Team worked on this game along with STI - and the opening title screen says "Sonic Team presents", doesn't it? Should we list Sonic Team as a developer for this game? At the very least I think we should maybe explicitly explain Sonic Team's connection - at the moment we just kind of casually mention them. @Red Phoenix: You have a good handle on who did what when it comes to this stuff. Popcornduff (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: All Sonic games of this era should list "Sega" in the infobox and the lead as the primary developer with a footnoted paragraph explaining the whole conundrum. I don't think we're ever going to settle on Sonic Team vs. STI vs. Sega. TarkusABtalk 13:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Sega credits Sonic Team, so should we. Indifferent to adding other developers, but Sonic Team shouldn’t be dropped. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so here's the deal here. "Sonic Team Presents" was used on the first Sonic the Hedgehog but not the second. The second starts with "Sonic and Miles "Tails" Prower in". And it's not on the third or Knuckles. The core issue here that I don't think anyone knows is what to consider Sonic Team before 1995. Yuji Naka called it just a "team name", and upon leaving STI at the end of 1994 Naka was given charge of Sega Consumer Development Department 3 (aka CS3), and that officially became Sonic Team then. Right now, the Sonic Team article basically just acknowledges the team members were elsewhere during that time, which is in my opinion the right call. However, some sources still want to call STI's Japanese team "Sonic Team", some want to say it was temporarily disbanded, some want to say there were two Sonic Teams (the second being Ohshima's team that did Sonic CD) and some that literally just stick the Sonic Team name on every game with Sonic in it. Based on my research, I give more weight to STI given that was the division where it was developed, and I call Sonic Team the division that began as CS3 in 1995, except including Sonic the Hedgehog for obvious reasons and overwhelming source coverage. I feel this is the most accurate application of the sources. That being said, there has been disagreement on the subject, and I have to wonder if a discussion with the Video games project or an RFC would be needed if we can't come to a consensus. Basically, we need a clear definition of our parameters to answer this question, which the sources don't have. 64.134.160.191 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was me, sorry. I didn't realize my phone was logged out. Red Phoenix talk 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Sonic Team Presents" was used on the first Sonic the Hedgehog but not the second. [..] And it's not on the third or Knuckles.
However all the original games have "Sonic Team" credited on the Japanese cases, including CD.
Based on my research, I give more weight to STI
You bring up valid points, I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying, but arguments like this is are my concern because this is all just WP:OR at this point. We could run an RFC but I feel all the top subject experts have thrown their hat into the discussion already and we've just been running in circles. TarkusABtalk 16:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be against Sega, necessarily, but I think in this case I'd be more in favor of Sonic Team and STI together than mentioning neither one. While I do think STI alone is sufficient, I'm not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and Sergecross73 has a point. Plus, that too has backing in sources very significantly, especially for Sonic 2. Red Phoenix talk 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this goes back to what sources say (nearly all of them include Sonic 2 as a Sonic Team production) versus what the game actually lists (just a simple Sega). I'm still on the boat of listing Sonic Team as a developer. A simple Sega would work if we want to just be as accurate as possible without any possibility of error, but we would at least need to keep Sonic Team's involvement (per sources) in prose somewhere. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with listing them both given that it's how Sega does it nowadays. Secondary sources are kinda 50/50 with using either Sonic Team or STI; I personally would prefer to go with just STI, but that seems to bring up too much controversy. I think listing just Sonic Team is inaccurate because it wasn't just that staff (also Americans) and just Sega is too broad JOEBRO64 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd rather we just simplify it and go with Sega in the infobox, which is not in any way misleading still. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t strike me as accurate or intuitive for most editors. I don’t understand Wikipedian’s slow whitewashing of Sonic Team from infoboxes when there’s source that support it. Nor do I understand this long-running quest to define Sonic Team when it’s clear Sega never bothered to. “Solutions” like this just invite future disputes and long-term maintenance. But I’ve lost the will to argue or maintain it further though. Good luck with this. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either, I've stated my support of Sonic Team over Sega in all of these previous discussions. But that being said, having it just be Sega (their parent company) is not technically wrong either. I was just trying to settle on a compromise since consensus appears to not be going our way. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 March 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sonic the Hedgehog 2 → Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit video game) – I admit I have played this game so many times in my lifetime, but due to the upcoming film next month and the 8-bit game, I do not see this article as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anymore and request this article be moved to a more fitting title. JE98 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the new film isn't even out yet, I think it's a bit soon to make a determination on it affecting the primary topic. The 8bit version is far less popular, and terms like "16 bit" are not ideal because non-gamers generally aren't familiar with what that means. Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not the obvious primary topic - pageviews for the film are already tremendously in advance of the 16-bit game. I believe that it should be permanently moved to a disambiguation, and the game hasn't existed long enough for recentism to truly apply here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I understand that. But conceptually, I don't see why the same concept wouldn't apply to a subject thirty years old and a subject negative 30 days old. It's scalable. This just feels more like a conversation we should be having in 6 months when release hype dies down. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it’s best to wait.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sega removed from lead sentence?

[edit]

TheJoebro64, why did you remove "published by Sega" from the lead sentence? You did not provide a valid reason for removing the publisher from the lead sentence. Firstly, the article has stated "developed and published by Sega" for many years until you recently changed it. That's been the WP:Status quo for many years. Secondly, virtually every WP:Featured article on video games (which have all gone through an extensive review process) states the publisher in the lead sentence, almost without exception. Thirdly, Sonic 2 has far more WP:Notability as a Sega game, first and foremost, before being recognized as an STI game (to the point of many still thinking it's a Sonic Team game). And finally, most WP:Reliable sources identify it as a Sega game rather than an STI game. Most contemporary video game magazines and newspapers barely even mention STI, but most simply credit Sega as the developer and publisher. If you want to remove Sega from the lead sentence, please provide a valid justification for doing so, because I don't see any valid excuse for such an action. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think stating "published by Sega" in the first sentence is, to put it bluntly, unnecessary. A Sega division developed the game and it was released for the Sega Genesis. That already makes it clear it's a Sega game, and if anyone is confused as to who published it, we name Sega in the infobox and say "publisher Sega" at the beginning of the next paragraph.
2. And sure, it's said "published by Sega" for years, but as far as I'm concerned, you're the only one who's taken issue with me changing it as I've revamped this article. It's stayed at "developed by STI for the Sega Genesis" for weeks at a time before you change it again.
4. "virtually every" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles do it doesn't mean we have to do it here. Furthermore, it's simply not true; I can name dozens of articles that don't name the publisher in the first sentence. (Blast Corps, Rare Replay, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Meat Boy, etc.)
5. "to the point of many still thinking it's a Sonic Team game" honestly adds more justification to highlight STI foremost, as it's an extremely common misconception that we've been trying a long time to correct.
5. It's a Sega game, but we know the specific branch that developed it now. I doubt that was verifiable back then, but it is now, so I don't see why we shouldn't name it an STI game. It's also (probably) the most important game that STI developed, which I think adds greater justification for naming them. JOEBRO64 16:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We always name the developer of the game, and STI was the developer, so we should mention that. Popcornfud (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think it's necessary to mention the publisher to avoid any ambiguity. Just because a game is published for the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, that doesn't necessarily tell us that Sega was the publisher (whether it's obvious or not). Saying "published by Sega for the Genesis" is better than just "for the Sega Genesis" as the former is unambiguous whereas the latter is ambiguous.
2. Sure, I do remember reverting the change once before (I think it was last year).
3. Those articles aren't counter-examples. Blast Corps, Origami King and Super Meat Boy don't mention solely the developer in the lead sentence (Blast Corps mentions both dev and pub, Origami King mentions neither dev or pub, and Super Meat Boy has the same dev and pub). The only exception is Rare Replay, but that's a retro compilation of Rare games rather than a singular game and Microsoft wasn't the original publisher for any of those individual games, so that's not comparable to this article.
4. The article already addressed it in the second paragraph in the previous version. And I don't mind moving STI up to the lead sentence, but Sega should stay, as that's what the game is most strongly associated with in most WP:Reliable sources. While some sources have clarified the situation with STI, mentioning only STI and not Sega Corporation in the lead sentence would be giving WP:Undue weight to those few sources over the majority of reliable sources which identify the game with just Sega.
5. Again, I have no issue with moving STI up to the lead sentence. My only issue is removing Sega as the publisher from the lead sentence. There's really no need for that.
Maestro2016 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maestro here. If you want to be as brief as possible, then just state "Sonic 2 is a 1992 platform game by Sega" with any further mention of a developer in a later sentence. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel terribly strongly about it. I just don't think it's necessary to say "published by Sega" when we say it was developed by a Sega division for a Sega console. It's already implied. JOEBRO64 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved and closed – Upon the negative response, I have decided to close this move request. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused and I will reconsider a move request at another time. (non-admin closure) JE98 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 → Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit video game) – I think now is an appropriate time to make this request again, as the film has done significantly well. I enjoyed that movie and like I said, I have probably played this game more than a hundred times in my lifetime, but it is clear to me that this video game is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I realize this may echo WP:RECENTISM and I get that, but considering the thirty year gap between this game and the film, I think now is a more appropriate time to discuss. @Sergecross73, Zxcvbnm, Neocorelight, 65.93.195.118, TheJoebro64, and Mz7: I would like to invite you guys to comment as well. JE98 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The circumstances have not changed from the previous RM 6 weeks ago. It is still way too early to determine the primary topic here, as recent coverage will still skew heavily towards the film that is still in theaters. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. My understanding is that the video game upon which the film is based was quite notable and influential within the history of video gaming—that long-term significance outweighs the short-term significance of the film in my mind, and it's too early to speculate on the long-term significance of the film at the moment. Mz7 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom and move disambiguation to primary name as well per WP:NOPRIMARY. I don't believe there is such a thing as recentism when we're talking about separate entries of the same franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the previous discussion. Nothing has changed. JOEBRO64 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's still far too soon to be able to avoid a RECENTISM bias. The film is still in theatres. Not that it leaving theaters should automatically spur this discussion again. But it's certainly the lowest bar to clear. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mainly because nothing has changed in the past few weeks. I personally would argue in favor of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (video game) with WP:PDAB in mind. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would recommend waiting a few months after the film has left theatres to better access Thr situation.--65.92.163.109 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the film has 1,171,426 views and the 8-bit video game has 5,545 compared with only 53,150[[1]] for the 16-bit video game. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But what happens when Sonic Origins releases in two months, which includes the Sonic 2 game. It releases right about the same time that the film will fall out of theaters. Thats going to totally shuffle around the views for each article. Are we going to move them back? And then move it another time once the games re-release buzz dies down? This is why people keep citing WP:RECENTISM as an issue here. These decisions need to be made when all the new releases stop inflating views. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as entirely premature. Right now the movie is the “flavor of the day”, since it just came out whereas the game, which was also significantly impactful, came out 30 years ago. Number of views don’t really hold up as an argument because of this. What we’re really arguing is “hit blockbuster movie now” vs. “one of the most significant and hit video games of all time”. We won’t really know which is more significant and notable for quite some time, and as such, there is no reason to change at this time. Red Phoenix talk 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see what's changed since March. Of course the movie is more popular right now, but we can't say that will be the case in even three or six months. Calidum 14:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I wonder why we disambiguate the two games by their "bit". I thought it would be more informative/easier to understand for laymen if they are disambiguated by their original platforms. 182.1.79.184 (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, you're correct, it's just that, applying it to this particular situation it doesn't work out all that great. Applying it to the 8 bit game you'd have something like "Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Sega Game Gear and Sega Master System game). And with the 16 bit game, there would almost certainly be endless arguments over whether it should be called "Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Sega Genesis) or Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Sega Mega Drive). And the compromise, a Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive) would fail WP:CONCISE (as does the Game Gear/SMS one). Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're overcomplicating things for the latter. Just use the name that is used as the title for the article. 182.1.72.196 (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has been moderating disputes at that page for over a decade - no, no I am not. But that said, I don't really like using the "bits" either. Most people outside of gaming dont know what that means. I was just giving you some background from past discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Sonic prototype" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonic prototype and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Sonic prototype until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sonic 2 Long Version" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonic 2 Long Version and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Sonic 2 Long Version until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (mame)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (mame) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (mame) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internal link points to unintended Wikipedia page

[edit]

Under the section "Gameplay", paragraph 3, is the sentence:

Sonic can transform into Super Sonic by collecting 50 rings.

In this sentence, Super Sonic is a link - and although the reference is to the fictional character, the link leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_speed

(This same issue also exists on the page "List of Sonic The Hedgehog characters")

If "Super Sonic" does not have an individual page, would it be better to link to "Sonic the Hedgehog (character)" ? 97.127.225.51 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone relatively recently changed a redirect without discussion, and it messed things up. I've reverted their changes and suggest they start a discussion before changing again. So...its fixed for now, but may need future fixing depending on the consensus of hypothetical future discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Super Sonic" listed at RFD. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"video game research scene"

[edit]

@TheJoeBro64, video game research scene is certainly not in source. It appears like it is term made up for the article, which feels inaccurate to me as we are talking about fans datamining the game. But my wording of fan scene is admittedly not much better. IgelRM (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also kind of furrowed my brow at that part, it feels like a sort of vague term. We can probably get more specific by reproducing what the source says more directly. Popcornfud (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "datamining community" JOEBRO64 16:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to read this comment three times before I realized you hadn't written "dating community". How disappointing. Popcornfud (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sonic 2 inspired the creation of Tinder but I couldn't find a source so we'll have to settle for datamining. Sad. JOEBRO64 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's sounds understandable. You won't like me going on, but citing app downloads based on store listings is unreliable and these are combined with a free-to-play label. That such important policy issues slipped through FARC seems like a WP:VG thing. IgelRM (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic 2 Commercial

[edit]

There was a commercial for Sonic The Hedgehog 2 where customers could get the game for free when they bought the Sega Genesis bundle that included the first Sonic game by way of a mail-in order (only shipping and handling had to be paid). I've been trying to find a more appropriate source for the purposes of eligibility to the main article, but have been unsuccessful; all I could find was the actual video which you can see here. ElMeroEse (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyber/Genocide city level has been reconstructed

[edit]

By the non profit video game historian organisation, they also found extra animations/sprites for the winter level, wood zone and dust Hill, all relevant information is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ4uEcJJtA Charliephere (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has since been added to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After extended time for discussion, no consensus has emerged in favor of the proposed move. BD2412 T 02:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 → Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit video game) – Now that it has been nearly two years since the film was released, I feel now is an appropriate time to rehash this discussion. This article is in no way the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anymore, as the film's article, despite being released nearly two years ago, still gets significantly more page views than this article. JE98 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose / Comment. I think someone was too overzealous in trimming the hatnote - the film should absolutely be in the hatnote directly rather than requiring a click through the disambig page, which would help deal with the issue some. (And I'll make that edit now.) Anyway, the reason why the other Sonic 2 article is at "8-bit video game" is because it was for both the Game Gear and the Master System. If moved, I would suggest as an alternative Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Sega Genesis game) or Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Genesis game), since that was the most important platform by far. SnowFire (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Still not a fan of using terminology like "bits", which isn't really commonly understood concept outside of 1990s video game enthusiasts. That works if you're some super fan website like Sega Retro, but not Wikipedia, which is directed more towards general audiences. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something: The nom makes a good case for a lack of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the past discussions on this higher up in the page. The problem is that the disambiguation gets pretty complicated on this one due to a number of factors. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Page views are not the deciding factor when evaluating PRIMARYTOPIC. Overall usage and significance over time must also be considered, and this strongly favors the game as the primary topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would say WP:RECENTISM applies, as the film is still pretty recent. "Sonic 2" has referred to the video game for the past 30 years and anyone who comes here looking for the movie instead can just click the hatnote. There's nothing to suggest the movie has usurped the game as the primary topic. JOEBRO64 16:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that WP:RECENTISM applies I don’t believe anyone is claiming that the film has become the primary topic some no one has suggested Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film) be moved to Sonic the Hedgehog 2.--67.70.101.200 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support / Do something. The video game is emphatically not the primary topic any more, and I don't think it ever will be again, even in 100 years time - the film is on an equal standing as long-term significance. I don't have a magic answer to which disambiguator to use, perhaps one of SnowFire's would be sensible. But some sort of move does have to happen and a disambiguation page put in its place.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for a few more years at least. RECENTISM absolutely still applies as long as the film series is still being made. The third installment is due in December and surely the film article still gets tons of views in anticipation of that. Until the film series ends and the hype dies down (or maybe it doesn’t, but then it firmly establishes itself as more notable than the games), we don’t have a clear enough picture to say it’s the primary topic over one of the most influential video games of all time that also triggered changes in the industry with the pioneering of the street date. Red Phoenix talk 17:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus as to whether any change at all to the status quo should be made. BD2412 T 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but I do think that renaming the page "Sonic The Hedgehog 2 (1992 video game)" wouldn't be a bad Idea. Overall, when you bring up Sonic 2, I'd imagine more people would think to the video game than the movie. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sentences or not

[edit]

Hey, i wanna a quick question, why isn't the term "It is the sequel to the 1991 game Sonic the Hedgehog" there on the article? It should be there. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intro already makes this abundantly clear. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not use your phrase, but does make it clear it's a sequel. What don't you understand about that? Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should make it clear that it's a sequel. You don't have to be strict over that. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Read the intro. It's plenty clear that it's a sequel. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear already, no adjustment needed. Popcornfud (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Plenty of sequel articles, outside of Sonic media, would say this. You shouldn’t be shouldn’t be strict about thinking it's not allowed in the article either Popcornfud. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a Featured Article - the highest ranking a Wikipedia article can achieve. It's already been extensively reviewed and rewritten by experienced editors. You have it backwards. Other articles should aim to look like this one, we shouldn't be changing this one to look like worse ones.
Stop wasting time on things like this. There's no obligation to use the same phrasing across all articles. This is not something needing fixing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other articles your taking about? And how do i have it backwards? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who said Plenty of sequel articles. I'm referring to whatever you vaguely referred to. Your whole argument seems to be "I want to make a change here because I saw it in another article." That's not really ever a good reason, but it's an especially bad argument here, with an FA. I don't understand how you are not following along here. I'm just giving simple responses to your own comments. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_2&oldid=1261789862"