Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)

Info about sequel

Interactions with sockpuppet, this discussion be left alone. Carlinal (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Popcornfud, why did you remove "It is the sequel to Sonic the Hedgehog 2"? It was just fine the way it was until you just removed. That thing you removed was not an improvement. Did you unnecessary had to do that in the first place? No. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) @Popcornfud removed it citing WP:DUH, which is the correct thing to do. It was just fine the way it was until you just removed is not a legitimate argument for inclusion, @Mr.Shadow514. The reason this was removed is because it is glaringly obvious that 2 comes before 3, therefore cluttering up the opening paragraph with that would not be of encyclopedic value. BarntToust 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I looked at the WP:DUH guideline and it dosent say, "You can't say that it's the sequel to whatever it is". I know you guys are strict, but please. Your making it appear like where not allowed to say about being a sequel. I just hated it. Now i can't look at the article anymore thanks to you guys. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) You pushed the same argument at the Sonic Adventure 2 article but it didn't get consensus there either... Popcornfud (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) My other question is, why does everything have to be a rule on Wikipedia? What's the point. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Oh and what consensus are you talking about? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Another thing is, i removed other links, and instead keep the term "second film", and the link for the opening paragraph. So disappointed. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Another thing is that plenty of sequel articles use the term "It is the sequel to" something, but not anything about Sonic, which is just hypocrosy. You guys dont realize this huh? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I don't care about other articles. the number "2" coming before the number "3" is obvious. @Mr.Shadow514. Look, I skimmed over your personal talk page and I'm not particularly impressed by the low literacy of the english language you have been writing out, nor by the questionable contributions you are responsible for. BarntToust 00:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I get it, but it's not even a big deal to mention about being a sequel. But know you just removed it thinking it's a bad thing to say that in general and the guideline that Popcornfud sent me doesn't mention about being a sequel or that were not allowed to use that term. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) And how the term about being a sequel is not an encyclopedic value? I just wanna know the whole reason. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2024

In the Plot you mention G.U.N extensively however G.U.N was only formed in the Sonic 2 movie. G.U.N. was not formed 50 years ago when Shadow arrived on Earth. The base he was kept at was simply a military base. 2.97.107.235 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Anne drew 04:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Notable things or not

Another interaction with sockpuppet, leave this to rest. Carlinal (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. Popcornfud. Im gonna ask you one simple question? What's with you obsession with removing stuff like being the third installment? Why because you act like it's not supposed to be in the article. Your making it look like were not allowed to say something about being a sequel or installment. What is with you and than. Just tell the whole reason. If one other specific thing can mentioned about being a sequel, but not Sonic, then it's hypocrosy. It's either that you don't understand or don't feel like it. It's notable about mentioning a sequel at the lead. Even of something was notable, why your always acting like it's not supposed to be in the lead? Just tell why are you so strict over one simple thing about being a sequel or installment? BTW Merry Christmas.Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Popcornfud, I have to agree with Mr.Shadow514 that this should not have been removed. Per MOS:OPEN, the first paragraph "...should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". MOS:CONTEXTLINK applies too: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." The film series, in this case, is the broader topic under which this film falls. It's less about it being identifiable as a third film in general and more about a link-friendly context. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) In my view, if a sentence is going to exist in a Wikipedia article, it ideally ought to add information. The sentence in question contains no information, and only wastes the reader's time by restating what's already obvious — it goes without saying that the film Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is the third film in the Sonic the Hedgehog film series. It therefore doesn't serve the principle of MOS:OPEN, because "the set of circumstances or facts that surround it" are already clear. Let's be clear. The actual function is to provide a wikilink to the page on the Sonic film series. That makes MOS:CONTEXTLINK the more convincing argument IMO, but if we're going to follow it to the letter and get that clunky "the film Sonic 3 is the third film blah blah" wording into the lead sentence, then let's at least accept that it comes at a cost: it's making our prose worse. For a comparison, look at the way the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (game) page does it: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is a 1994 platform game developed and published by Sega for the Sega Genesis. Like previous Sonic games, players traverse side-scrolling levels while collecting rings and defeating enemies. That link to the Sonic game franchise has a prose reason to exist and isn't just dumped in there. Popcornfud (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC) We understand that. But still, mentioning about being a sequel is considered notable no matter what. Why do you have to be strict over every single thing? And why the term "It is the second installment or it is the sequel" provides no info? It should. It's not a rule. So please. Also, what Wikilink are your referring to? Just a question. Mentioning about being a sequel is not clunky. In your opinion, it is. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC) It's not a waste of time. MOS:OPEN also says earlier, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic..." and it is only incidental that the title is obvious. We have to write such articles from an enduring perspective, not just today where everything is "obvious" from the ads and social media chatter. So to define the film's place in the film series and in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise does that. MOS:FIRST says, "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." I get the "duh" angle, but we have to write for the layperson. Maybe they learn about this film first and are curious about the whole series before going any further and click that series link. Maybe they don't. I don't care as much about how it's written as to provide access to the broader topics that are part of the interconnected whole of Wikipedia per MOS:BTW. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Yeah, Erik is right, Popcornfud. You need to understand that. That's how the world works. You can't be strict over every single thing about mentioning installments or sequels even if Wikipedia isn't reliable. I know it's your view, but still. It's not a big deal. Like i said, if other any sequel articles can mentioned that it's a sequel to whatever something, but not about Sonic, then that’s the sign of hypocrosy. You should understand the whole thing about that. This is not how Wikipedia works. Even when I'm honest and when i'm telling the truth, your always with that strictness and disagreement into thinking everything should be a no, when clearly, it's not. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not too knowledgable on Wikipedia's policies but I don't see how big a deal it is whether or not the lede prose mentions this sequel as a sequel. Neither have I ever heard some specific criteria where the predecessor to the sequel has to be mentioned. If anything, this lede was developed the way it is naturally. I guess there's value in a line like "the third installment in the Sonic the Hedgehog film series" but at the same time it's important the lede remains concise and not repeat too many subjects or the related. Also Mr.Shadow514, Popcornfud has been editing since at least March 2011, and is following not their policy, but Wikipedia's policy. Their experience isn't to be taken for granted, and you shouldn't disrespect them calling them a hypocrite and all. Neither is making an argument like "That's how the world works." Not really any more constructive than accusing them of being strict just for a couple of slightly unimportant lines in the lede. Lastly, this is the second section you opened over this matter, and it isn't any better in tone compared to the previous section. It's not a big deal to not mention this as a sequel to what either, so long as it doesn't bloat or repeat anything. Pinging previous user BarntToust, if she's interested in commenting here. Carlinal (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC) I understand you Carlinal, i didn't know calling a hypocrite was disrespectful. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) I mean, for uniquely titled films it's worth a mention in the opener. Like for the case of Across the Spider-Verse. "The sequel to Into the Spider-Verse, it is..." For films in a series labeled simply as #1, #2, #3, it's sort of obvious that it is a sequel to the prior number. But links like that can provide directory to the related topic. Eh, I think it clutters up the opener and someone interested in #1 or #2 can type in the search box. BarntToust 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC) I've reinstated a link to the film franchise article using as few words as possible. Hopefully this is acceptable as a compromise. Barry Wom (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC) This looks great. Thanks for the help! :) Carlinal (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Colleen O'Shaughnessy

Why is everybody so hellbent on removing O'Shaughnessy's name from being listed in the lead section? There is literally no reason to do so other than what I assume is typical Wikipedia editors micro-managing everything.

This is one of the main issues with Wikipedia, the fact that the editors are triggered by something so incredibly petty as adding an important cast member's name to a list, when it was perfectly fine in the beginning. There's no rule against a name being added there but because editors wanna uphold their egos and think they NEED to remove it, they do. I'm sure the responses to this will be nothing short of stretches and reaches soooo feel free to fire away with that. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Listing the minor actors in full is what the Cast section is for. There's already eleven actors listed in the lede which is more than enough. Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

She's literally one of the main characters in the fi--- you know what never mind, why do I even bother trying? 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAST, we have to follow a rule of thumb to draw the line somewhere between listing "Starring" actors and the full list of names in the "Cast" section. It appears that the "Starring" names are based on the billing block, and O'Shaughnessy is not part of that for whatever reason. We need rules of thumb because otherwise adding or removing names can seem based on personal preferences. Other rules of thumb can be sought, but it should not be done in favor of a certain outcome. Simply review how other sources draw the cutoff and follow that. If there are differences in the cutoff, we can discuss to form a consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that secondary sources Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Screen Daily have a different set of names than the billing block, for example. (Found these without looking for a specific name.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You know what, fine, I'll bite, even though this is pointless is given what the outcome will likely be.

The sources you mentioned have Colleen's name there, and just because she was omitted from ONE POSTER (her name is literally on other posters) doesn't mean she can't be included in the lead list on Wikipedia. Her role is just as important if not more important than the other main characters, there is no reason for the omission other than pettiness, and using a rule that literally does not bar me or anyone from adding her name. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement with you here, seeing Colleen O'Shaughnessy named in all three. The billing block is a rule of thumb, and usually a decent starting point, but it is also a primary source. Secondary sources are more appropriate for Wikipedia to use, and that's what these reviews are. So I would support including that names and/or adding/removing other names depending on how the different sets of names compare. Like is there anyone else mentioned? Or in "Starring" that is not mentioned in these sources? I hope you can understand that film articles have a long, long history of editors wanting to add or remove or reorder names because of how they want to see it. You had a good point in the actor voicing one of the main characters, and the reviews bear that out. But if they didn't, then there would not be real-world grounds for inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS says we list the cast members as they are listed on the theatrical release poster's billing block.

As this is a live-action–animated hybrid, local consensus has developed to do the cast section in the body of the article in a different way (voice actors separated from live action actors, for clarity's sake) than the MOS would have us do.

I don't see any reason to deviate from using the listed names on the billing block for the lede and the infobox. to break from the MOS, a good reason needs to be explained as to why that should happen. BarntToust 19:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"...a good reason needs to be explained as to why that should happen."

Did you even read anything that was written above? 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

why do we deviate from the MOS other than the fact that we like a voice actress who reprised her role from video games since 2010? What great revelation does knowing that O'Shaughnessey has been listed on a billing block do for the reader? BarntToust 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

oh wait, she wasn't. BarntToust 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So you didn't read the discussion I just had with Erik, got it. Thank you for confirming what I've always known about Wikipedia and its editors. Have a good day/night. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

yay, the fox is back in the film. It's cool to know the character was in all 3. But is deviating from the MOS going to help the reader understand the film better? We can talk about the film in a general sense without mentioning a voice actress is back. Sure, the character is in all 3, but why do we need to break MOS? BarntToust 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a "why shouldn't we break MOS" question to me. BarntToust 22:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, the billing block is a primary source and a good starting point. Usually, secondary sources will tend to match it. For whatever reason, O'Shaughnessy is not in it, but we see from at least three secondary sources (which are the more important sources on Wikipedia, per WP:PSTS) that O'Shaughnessy is named among the set of names. Not to mention that at least three so far indicates some WP:DUE weight (again, more relevant from secondary sources) to list her. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith in editors, it will not help your case here in the long run. Carlinal (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@4TheLuvOfFax, I think you should watch the disrespectful tone you've adopted above. Smarminess and the like aren't a bit helpful to anybody. BarntToust 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm done with this conversation. You chose to blatantly ignore what I wrote/said above. You couldn't respect me enough to not do that.

Feel free to respond, I won't anymore. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How come she's not on the Starring list again? Benjaminevil (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Erik; she's listed in the lede and I would support including her in the infobox for consistency's sake, she's in the secondary sources which should take precedence over the primary source, and she's also billed on other posters as mentioned by 4TheLucOfFax (although I am in agreement that Fax has not been civil in this discussion). I see no reason for her to not be listed, but if consensus dictates that she not be listed, I won't die on this hill. This issue seems to have, to some extent, turned into a WP:COLORWAR. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I just don't understand why we should differ from the MOS. I get places like WP:MCU where instead of the billing block, they use end titles or opening credits for the reason that more important names tend to be listed, but here in this page we're just trying to tack on a name because we like the actress? because we think she's important, and she is, but where's the rhyme or reason to it? "we like actress". BarntToust 13:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd go further and question why we need such a long list of actors in the lede at all. Fair enough listing the "starring" cast per the poster in the infobox, but surely at least some of these actors are in subsidiary roles and don't need mentioning in the lede? We have a cast section for the full list and I don't see the point in listing most of them twice. Barry Wom (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

(in response to Barnt) I think there's more to it than that; the secondary sources consistently note O'Shaughnessy's involvement, and also her reprising her role from the video games in the film adaptations is unusual in itself, given that Hollywood film adaptations of cartoon/video game properties such as these often default to celebrity casting (note The Super Mario Bros. Movie cast being entirely stacked with already famous film actors), and the Sonic film series has also done so, with O'Shaughnessy being the standout exception. Sources have noted this as such- here's one such source.

Even besides that, Tails is a major character in the film series, and a major player in this film's plot, and in the Sonic franchise in general, and I think it's understandable that it'd be thought she should be included.

With that being said, I did do my due diligence to see if the aforementioned "other posters" did actually exist, and it seems that they do but that they're Tails character posters. I guess that's not really what the MOS guideline is talking about, so that seems to be one point off of the argument for including O'Shaughnessy in the infobox. I'd support adding her based on the secondary sources, but it isn't a big deal to me.

As for Barry's comment about trimming actors from the lede: I've seen the film twice now, and I think that the actors who could definitely stand to be trimmed are Rothwell and Moore. The characters those two play (who were more prominent in the previous films) don't even directly appear in this film; they only appear as holographic disguises worn by Marsden and Sumpter's characters. Arguably Ritter could also be omitted from the lede; she plays a minor character who's really more of a plot device than a proper character.

That leaves Carrey and the voice actors of the Sonic characters (who are all obviously major players in the film), and Marsden and Sumpter. While the latter two's characters are also only in the film for a few brief scenes (well, relatively brief, compared to the previous two films), they are undeniably plot relevant and playing the human leads of the film franchise as a whole, so I'd say they should stay. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

(To Barry and ASH) Shemar Moore and Natasha Rothwell can definitely go. Ritter can go as well if we're all in accord with it. to ASH specifically, The infobox should reflect the theatrical poster. I like your thoughts on the actors being trimmed across the board, that's much more systematic. We'd have to develop something of an explicit consensus for this, because when I take this thing to GAC in a few months, that's gonna be the first thing another user thinks about. Not that I'm held up with the prospects of turning this out to a GA, but I think that'll be the first place someone takes issue with the break in MOS at, unless somebody else comes by before then.

I'm just looking for a strong rationale and explicit consensus if we're to break MOS, because if not, the next fellow could get indignant about it. And believe me, I've seen editors get very indignant when casting order MOS is broken and threaten to take it up at the WikiProject noticeboard. I love to ignore all rules, but in order to do so, it's got to be thought out. It's now being thought out. "A prominent actress isn't even listed, and two cameos are on there? this can clutter the lede with names unhelpful to the central idea of the film. we should cut names on the basis of unimportance, and add one because she plays a character central to the film". that's a cohesive argument. Not that the initial O'Shaughnessey argument wasn't good, but it needed to be part of a more watertight line of thinking to justify itself. BarntToust 16:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I know that on Donald Trump's page, there certain items of consensus about what they include and how they present things so if we end up developing a clear consensus to do the cast listing in the lede in our own way, we can probably list it a lá that page. BarntToust 16:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just looking for a strong rationale and explicit consensus if we're to break MOS

I presume you're referring to the inclusion of O'Shaughnessey in the infobox, as I don't believe there's any MOS guidelines regarding the inclusion of actors in the lede.

I'd suggest restricting the infobox actors to the poster billing per the template documentation to satisfy the purists, but include O'Shaughnessey in the lede. The entry for the first film does exactly this - only two actors in the infobox per the poster, but mention of Ben Schwartz in the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nah, I'm talking a broad change with an encompassing rationale. O'Shaughnessey included and Moore and Rothwell being excluded for the reason of the lede being cluttered and Tails being important to understanding the film is a more wholesome rationale to base changes off of. BarntToust 17:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting then. Trim the actors in the lede and update the infobox to only include those actors? Barry Wom (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reworded the lede. Added surnames of performers of listed characters to it. Infobox should be the billing block, but lede should be whatever we want. BarntToust 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, don't agree with that change. The cast list is where we provide details on which actors played which parts, not the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

okay. Then I'm kind of confused as to why we need O'Shaughnessey's name in the lede if it isn't needed to explain the general concept of the film. BarntToust 18:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Like, we can all agree Moore and Rothwell's names aren't helping anybody by taking up all that space, but O'Shaughnessey's name doesn't provide any necessary context either. BarntToust 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused as to why we need O'Shaughnessey's name in the lede. Because she apparently has a major role in the film and deserves mentioning even if her agent wasn't bullish enough about getting her name on the poster? Same logic applies to Ben Schwartz as mentioned above. Barry Wom (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Plot bloat removed

Over the past day or two, the "Plot" section has become very bloated, increasing the length to 1,075 words, which well exceeds "400 to 700" (MOS:FILMPLOT). I reverted the section to the version in revision 1265415191, which consists of 608 words; if there are any details editors since then believe are very important, feel free to add them back, but keep the word limit in mind. For future editors, please keep in mind that a plot summary is not supposed to cover every detail of the film; Agent Stone's arc, for example, is largely inconsequential, so details like Robotnik firing him, ignoring him, addressing him, etc. are not especially important. The fact that Sonic lands in New York in the mid-credits scene is also not plot-relevant. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It is plot-relevant. That is where the next movie will take place. GuyUser81 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@GuyUser81 First, that's speculation, since the significance of the New York setting in the next film has not been proven by sources or the next film itself. Second, if it's later shown that it is plot-relevant then, maybe it can be added back here, but as of now it's not an important detail. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 16:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

In the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the Plot section, "Green Hills" is hyperlinked to the Wiki page for the location in the Sonic game series (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Green_Hill_Zone). However, in the film continuity, this is not the same Green Hill Zone. It's simply a name reference on Earth, in the film universe. Green Hill Zone does exist, as shown in a flashback in the first movie, but this Green Hill on Earth is not the same Green Hill Zone as the game, therefore, the hyperlink should be removed. TLDR: "Green Hill" in the movie is just an easter egg name. VanDerBeek123 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Anne drew 06:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

My suggestion is to update the box office number to $250 million K.Shadow01 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The refs currently indicate $210m.

Superfluous addition to plot summary

User:Chance997 and I have a couple of times reverted each other over the addition "a [[meteorite]] containing an [[anthropomorphic]] alien [[hedgehog]]" to the beginning of the plot synopsis. I feel that this much detail, specifically the addition of "anthropomorphic" and the hyperlinks to "meteorite" and "hedgehog", in the plot summary is unnecessary, as:

• most people looking up information about this movie already know that the animals in it are generally anthropomorphic, so we don't need to specify that fact to begin with
• even if they don't, Shadow the Hedgehog's character page is linked immediately after this already, providing the context that he is anthropomorphic and
• most readers already know what meteorites and hedgehogs are, and linking the articles on them is overdoing it.

As such I feel that "meteorite containing alien hedgehog" (without wikilinks to any of those terms) is sufficient, given that it quickly summarizes the context of Shadow's origins in this film's specific adaptational storyline, and anything else is probably too much. Before reverting Chance again, I wanted to open a dialogue here so that they might have the opportunity to argue for keeping their additions and other editors can weigh in. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

(Chance has also made similar additions of links to the "Cast" section, such as wikilinking to fox and warrior in Tails' and Knuckles' descriptions, which I also feel to be unnecessary for similar reasons- "fox" and "warrior" are common English words and we don't need to remind most readers of what those are. And, once again, both characters have dedicated Wikipedia articles that are already linked to, which I think are sufficient if anyone does actually need context for what they are.) silviaASH (inquire within) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Chance, I just added a caution on your talk page about this, since your edits have been reverted by ASH and I about three times now. So far you haven't responded to any of us nor indicated you even read the edit summaries. If this continues without any discussion or notice, you won't edit any further. Please be considerate. Carlinal (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

UK release date

I think what might have happened here is that the film was initially moved to 27 December to avoid Mufasa, the moved back to a non-standard Saturday release of 21 December. The Numbers and Screen Daily both list 27th [1] [2] and BoxOfficeMojo has 26th [3]. Since the actual release date is unconfirmed, I've removed it from the article. It's not important in any case. Barry Wom (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the British Board of Film Classification a reliable source in this regard? Their website asserts that the film was released on the 27th there. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As reliable as the other refs I guess. But as this isn't a British film, there's no need to list the UK release date at all. Barry Wom (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, i can live with this. though, speaking as a uk person myself who DID go to see sonic 3 on the 21st, i have no idea why there'd be sources saying the film releases on the 27th; ive only ever seen the 21st release date myself. on the posters, on the ParamountUK twitter, on the SonicMovieUK facebook page.....maybe it is possible that insider sources were told it was the 27th, then by trailer 2's release and the public release date confirmation it was changed to the 21st and those sources werent updated on that? i dunno. international release dates are dumb man Sonicyay2 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a weird one. At one point, even Cineworld were declaring a release date of 27th [4]. Barry Wom (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Country of production

I've removed Japan from the country of production. While it would be possible to assume it was a Japanese production or co-production, there is no source explicitly saying this. I've applied Screen Daily which has it as an American one. I understand the Sammy Sega corporation is involved, as Variety mentions them as "being in association with", but Screen Daily does not and only lists "Original Film, Marza Animation Planet, Blur Studio". Not a simple issue, but I think this is the best solution at the moment for this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with this until other sources emerge that may have different details. For what it's worth, Lumiere shows US/JP/CA for the first film and US/JP for the second film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem with Lumiere is that if a guy from Ruritania contributes a couple of bucks to the budget, they'll list it as a Ruritanian production. Barry Wom (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed! Yours is the first time I've seen issue taken with Lumiere. It's referenced at Template:Infobox film § Country and has been used in numerous discussions about a film's production country or countries. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's referenced at Template:Infobox film § Country. The quote which is on that template documentation page is followed on the Lumiere site by this: Adopting a pragmatic approach, the Observatory considers as the country of origin of a specific film the country out of which the film is financed. In the case of international co-productions, the film is assigned to the country which provides the majority share of production financing. The Observatory tries to list all co-producing countries in the order of their financial investment in the film (whether known or assumed), with the country having provided the majority financial investment in the production in first place.

As to why Lumiere is still listed as a reliable source for countries of production, best guess is that it dates from a time when editors weren't so fussed about the distinction between production houses and financing companies. Barry Wom (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something to take up with the film WikiProject folks in some way or another. In any case, Lumiere doesn't yet have a listing for Sonic 3 in the first place, so whether or not it's considered a reliable source or not seems to be moot as concerns this specific film, as yet. The issue of its reliability can be considered again when they've actually gotten around to listing the movie in their database. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sonic 3, like the first two films, was co-financed by a Japanese company. Given the criteria outlined above, it's pretty much certain Japan will be listed as a production country. Barry Wom (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Financing is a complicated issue. I'm not saying it is or is not, because I don't know, but different countries have different rules and legal reasons why a film becomes an official country of production. Sometimes its an issue of the percentage of dedicated funding, others its more direct issues. That said, I don't know how seriously sources take this into consideration. How I long for the days in the past where it was much easier to decipher this kind of information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

All these IP editors are edit warring over critical consensus. Let's explain why it's generally positive reception: Rotten Tomatoes indicates a positive critical reception, while Metacritic indicates an average response. Thus, it is a generally positive reception. BarntToust 17:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. Might as well wait until it's implemented. Barry Wom (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I did too earlier. You may havr duped the request. BarntToust 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I did indeed! Reverted. Barry Wom (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Barnt, long time no see. I'm shocked the backlog at rfpp has been left unresolved for such a long period. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, usually it takes like only a few hours. We're amidst a US presidential inauguration and a site ban of a popular social media website and thus the respextive aritcles and political topics are probably the sysops's main concern right now. Ain't gonna fault 'em for being slow. Could be that, could be any reason. BarntToust 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, my guess is it's the CTOPs that's giving the admins hell right now. Has anyone looked to see where all these IPs are coming from? Looking thru the edit history I know one of the 2600s was warring over the "generally" part and then it was another one that took up that battle. I saw the one that was getting profane about the Sega Sammy company in the Infobox and the IP that threatened to "block" Barry Wom. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• 2600:1005:B0C2:28F0:F94A:D5:F9F7:3870 -- was the first IP to edit war over "generally"; based in Uvalda, Georgia, United States, at Verizon Business: via Wikipedia's linked geolocate
• 174.254.53.186 -- second IP to take over edit warring over "generally"; based in Kennesaw, Georgia, United States, at Verizon Business: via Wikipedia's linked geolocate

It looks like each IP is on two opposite sides of the State of Georgia. They might be connected.

BarntToust 21:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well actually scratch that, that was the alternate geolocate system that Wikipedia has. The main geolocate for 2600:1005:b0c2:28f0:f94a:d5:f9f7:3870 says they're in Lawrenceville, Georgia; the main geolocate for 174.254.53.186 says they're in Atlanta, Georgia. Two really close locations.

So it's someone in Georgia.

BarntToust 21:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the occasional films where Metacritic's proprietary weighting system has the "metascore" different from the category with the most reviews. The breakdown is 14 positive, 10 mixed, and 4 negative. Rotten Tomatoes has an average score of 6.6 out of 10. So this film is in a weird in-between place. Do we have any reliable sources that summarize the overall critical reception? We may need to paraphrase prose from that if RT and MC are not truly clear-cut. (Remember that they're just commercial websites we're only co-opting for encyclopedic purposes.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We probably could say the WP:WEIGHT of one-hundred-and-thirty-something reviews from Rotten Tomatoes (even with the 6.6 out of 10 average) outweighs the approximately thirty reviews at Metacritic and continue to have the lead section say reviews are generally positive.

Looking for a review roundup I found one from Nintendo Life magazine [5] which sampled from 5 reviews. Their own brief summary says "the reviews have (mostly) been enjoying the fun and family-friendly action so far. Many reviews are also praising Jim Carrey's efforts as well as the addition of Keanu Reeves." and you could take that "mostly" as justification to similarly keep the "generally positive" qualification here. -- 109.77.194.141 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

https://deadline.com/2025/01/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-milestone-mufasa-global-international-box-office-1236260932/?fbclid=PAY2xjawH6N55leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABpt9DUSc4HHAf8c1iavswW1UoKGozk6mYZYpKxMZaSyCIYM1F0B36yNGiVA_aem_T-lBa9DOkA9JWN8khrHa4Q

Add this in Box office reception section YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done BarntToust 21:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note Template:Cite_web#URL "Remove tracking parameters from URLs"

i.e. only https://deadline.com/2025/01/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-milestone-mufasa-global-international-box-office-1236260932/ is actually necessary fbclid is tracking junk added by Facebook. Surprising that the URL was suggested in that format, and that the editor applying the submission didn't clean it up either. -- 109.78.192.240 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little shocked it was left in the Jan19 ref it became. It's an especially obvious error since the tracking junk's not included with the Internet Archive link. Regardless I removed it, and I thank you for the notification. Carlinal (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Shoot, thanks IP. BarntToust 11:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible restructuring of the Plot section

As it is, the plot section implies that the flashback of Shadow's history occurs all at once at the beginning of the film when in fact the full flashback is actually split up a bit and occurs at several places around the middle of the film. The plot section should be rearranged to place events in order as they are shown to the viewer. ZerGhull (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No? Chronology is better. BarntToust 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@BarntToust I'd like to discuss that. I find the chronological approach towards events as they occurred in the story is misleading and doesn't align with events as they are presented to the viewer, which is the point of describing the events of the film in my mind. Can you help me bridge the gap on what is useful about this approach? ZerGhull (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I at first put a hatnote on the section like Man of Steel (film)#Plot but it got removed really early on. BarntToust 17:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@BarntToust that is definitely a good approach I think, helps to establish the chronology of the film. Why someone would remove your addition in that manner is the question now. ZerGhull (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a hatnote in the plot summary is necessary, and in fact I would argue against having one for the same reasons that we don't qualify the events of the mid/post credits scenes with "in a post-credits scene," etc. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, Shadow's story is the actual plot unlike the post credits BarntToust 17:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@BarntToust I'm definitely also a bit off put that the user who made the edit did a number of changes throughout without a single reason cited. I'd prefer to roll back the previous edit as it is a heinous attempt to restructure the page without any just cause given. ZerGhull (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it's fine to do that kind of thing per WP:WAF. See the paragraph that starts with, "Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements..."

Otherwise, we should look to other parts of WP:WAF, as well as MOS:FILMPLOT, for guidance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Erik an excellent point ZerGhull (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess that's fair enough, if it makes sense to do I'm not hardline opposed to it or anything. Although personally, I think that the structure of the plot summary is mostly fine as is (there's been some nits picked over the finer details, some I've picked myself even, and it seems like we're going back and forth on that stuff so maybe that merits some discussion). Unless we're trying to write it such that a viewer of the film can refer to it to follow along, I don't think it's super necessary to qualify any of its details further. This particular movie's narrative isn't exactly super complex or anything, so. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it encapsulates enough of the details have been captured here, I just felt it was important to hash out exactly why we chose to structure the chronology of the plot summary contrary to the sequence of events in the film. I'm not necessarily opposed to leaving it as it is, I'd just prefer the hatnote that delineates which type of summary the page uses. ZerGhull (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, making sure we're on the same page about the logic of our edits definitely does make sense. With the caveat that I wasn't the one who initially wrote it this way so I can't speak for everyone involved, I personally think it's best to lay it all out at the beginning so that the summary doesn't need to pause every so often to explain pieces of Shadow's history a little at a time. We can just get it out of the way and then describe the main plot of the film without needing to have asides contextualizing those beats in order. I think this is simpler at least, more straightforward and to the point.

But I guess I don't know for certain. Just because this way makes sense to me doesn't mean that this is the best way of doing it. My two cents, at least. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I like the approach here, thank you for laying it out that way, very succinct and utilitarian, as all good summaries should be. I'm definitely all for leaving it in the order that it is then. ZerGhull (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I once got kinda active with refining the plot section until too many newbies started elaborating some details I find unnecessary, lol. At least it's not too disruptive. I just remove curly quotes in that section since then. Carlinal (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)