Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)#rfc D0BC6CA

{{edit request|answered=y}}

Add a mention of the character "Metal Sonic", and a mention of the "white-colored Metal Sonics".

:During the post-credits, Sonic accidentally ends up in New York and is ambushed by Metal Sonic. After Metal Sonic gets back up, he hires an army of other white-colored Metal Sonicshttps://gamerant.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-ending-post-credits-scenes-explained/, but is saved by Amy Rose. Later, it is shown that Shadow survived the cannon's destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:2100:5AC0:FCC5:E5D5:2ECC:2C86 (talk • contribs) 21:54, April 9, 2025 (UTC)

{{not done}} as it is still trivial, the colors of the other metal Sonics have not been proven to mean anything substantial regarding their existence in the context of the plot of this film. This IP range has been blocked for vandalism for 3 months. Seeing the terms "other" and "colored" in edit requests here has become tiring. BarntToust 01:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749139270}}

{{RfC top|The consensus is 2 (United States and Japan). Chetsford (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Should the Country in the infobox be listed as:

1. United States or
2. United States and Japan ?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Please enter 1 or 2 (or the equivalent) with a brief statement in the Survey.

• 2. United States and Japan, per my arguments in the discussion section below. A Japanese company verifiably co-produced the film, we have reliable sources ([https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/482955#], [https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sonic-the-Hedgehog-3-(2024)#tab=summary]) which list the US and Japan, and I find the argument that the omission of Japan constitutes a "contradiction" to be unfounded and unconvincing. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• 2. United States and Japan. Concur with the rationale {{noping|SilviaASH}} sets out in the discussion further up this Talk. The credits attest to the film being a Japanese co-production and this is verified in third-party sourcing, so there is a very clear case for inclusion. — ImaginesTigers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• 2. United States and Japan per silviaASH. The documentation for {{tl|Infobox film}} also has some additional advice at Template:Infobox film/doc#Country, which cites a paragraph from Lumiere, and if Lumiere is [https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/482955 also listing] both the US and Japan, I see no reason for us not to follow their lead. Mz7 (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• 2. United States and Japan. Agree with the arguments laid out by silviaASH. Some sources only list the United States but I don't believe that's indicative of a contradiction, only that those sources have omitted Japan. Barry Wom (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Find multiple, secondary sources that say, "United States and NOT Japan," and there would be a case for not including. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• 2 Similar to the Derry Girls RFC. Enough RS include both, and both are culturally significant to the film. I'm not seeing a good argument for not including Japan. Seems WP:DUE pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• 2. United States and Japan as per the relevant arguments by Barry Wom and silviaASH. Several secondary sources I could find, including [https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/482955 Lumiere], mention both countries. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{vanchor|Statement by silviaASH}}:
  This RfC is seeking to resolve a dispute on the matter of this film's country of production, the history of which can be seen at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)#Japan in country. A brief summary:
• Barry Wom added Japan to the infobox's "country" field in this edit, noting that Marza Animation Planet, a Japanese company, co-produced the film.
• This was disputed by Andrzejbanas, who asserts that there is a contradiction between the sources (some of which list the US and Japan, while others only list the US).
• Andrzejbanas has also argued that listing both Japan and the US in the infobox constitutes undue weighting of the supposedly contradictory positions of the sources.
• Barry and I have contended that the omission of Japan by some sources does not constitute a contradiction.

:As discussion to resolve the dispute has progressed, Andrzejbanas has suggested that the supposed "contradiction" lies in the difference between how the sources decided on what the film's country of production is, and at one point proposed adding a footnote declaring this. Barry and I have argued that we do not know whether a disagreement between the sources actually exists or if the omission of Japan is simply an oversight, and that to add such a note implying this hypothesized disagreement (or otherwise attempting to reflect it in the article) would be WP:OR.

:I also don't see how the WP:WEIGHT argument is applicable, as to my mind, a simple note of Japan having co-produced the film does not imply anything undue about their involvement. I have additionally noted that while not all sources list Japan as a production country, all of the sources that have been shown list Marza Animation Planet as a production company regardless. This further suggests that no editorial conflict between the sources actually exists.

:Given these facts, my position on the issue is that we ought to simply stick to the sources. The sources list both the United States and Japan, and so should Wikipedia. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed - I see no reason to leave Japan out of the article when the sources specifically mention it. Gommeh _(t/c) 16:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{vanchor|Statement by BarntToust}}:
  

As someone—a disinterested party with no opinion on this matter—who has been keeping up closely with the content dispute that resulted in this RfC, I don't have much to add into the stew other than to assert that it is not an option to add a hatnote that says "some sources give the United States as the country of origin,[1][2][3] and others list both the US and Japan[4][5][6]" – this would be WP:OR and not a valid solution to the dispute. This has been suggested in discussion prior but cannot be considered. BarntToust 15:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

: I have already voted, but I want to comment on this. This would be an example of an editor using their brain. This is very common, especially in complicated topics, to neutrally state that sources conflict. It is not synthesis or analysis—if both are verifiable points made by reliable sources—to neutrally presenting conflicting views so long as neither are endorsed. This is an issue if the editor draws a conclusion about sources conflicting or proposes a reason why; it is not a issue to state that they do. This approach is used across many Featured articles, including some of my own. If zealously adhered to, this narrow view of OR would make our content worse across the board. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::@GoneIn60 do you wish to comment on this? BarntToust 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I really think Gone could inform a dialogue on when OR is acceptable. They and myself had a cool discussion on OR a minute ago and I'd love to discuss about this. BarntToust 21:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I assume you mean [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BarntToust&oldid=1284909859#Sonic_3 the conversation deleted from your Talk] where, incidentally, I agree with GoneIn60's interpretation of policy. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I'd just like to hear much about the nuances of how OR is treated. I can be wrong here, I'm probably wrong or not looking at stuff in the right light. I just love it when discussion occurs! I just don't think this instance, on Sonic 3, of OR is particularly helpful and should be the kind that ought to be avoided. I prefer answers/conclusions over interpretive conceits such as what I've described above. BarntToust 01:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So, what I specifically said about the proposed note being OR (in my opinion) is that I felt that it would imply a disagreement between the sources that is not known to exist, and which most likely does not actually exist. I also just don't see any pragmatic benefit to pointing out the discrepancy that would justify invoking IAR here, because the sources don't disagree on the production companies, and, again, it seems likely that the sources which do not list Japan didn't think about it that hard; they just wrote "United States" in the information table because, y'know, it's the American Sonic film. Also, I think it would be confusing to readers. It makes more sense to streamline the infobox information, as it is in the current revision of the article. I definitely didn't say that pointing out a relevant source discrepancy would be unjustifiable anywhere regardless of context, just that in this specific case, it would not be appropriate nor helpful. I'm open to hearing counter-arguments, though. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What I feel like this in nature would compare to would be, for example, Say we apply this to "Steve's Lava Chicken" (2025). Anthony Fantano, Stereogum, and Pitchfork calls the song electro-pop, while Robert Christgau, NME, and Rolling Stone says it is electro-pop and house music. It would not be proper to say in the genre section of the info box to write electro-pop and have a hatnote there to say that "some sources said it was EP while other sources said it was EP and HM" because that is not helpful to a reader trying to understand the genre of the song nor is it encyclopedic coverage of the genre: we have not documented a genre, we have noticed a disparity in sources. And, again, going to this length would imply that these sources were in a nonexistent disagreement, which brings up DUEness concerns about why we should be including our observations as Intelligent Life Forms just because they are valid or true. None of the sources opposed one another, they just are different. Sure, OR can be valid, but that doesn't mean it's worthy. BarntToust 02:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: I think we're all basically in agreement here. There are problems with the hat-note BarntToust drafted, and I wouldn't write it that way—I was speaking from a higher-level view (i.e., we can and should say when sources disagree). If this were content I were working on, I would write something neutral and descriptive, like {{tq|Two sources mention a Japanese company co-produced the movie.}} As I said in my vote, I don't think this is necessary. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah. I came off wrong when I wrote out "it's OR that bad" when I {{em|should've}} said "it's not the kind of OR that brings encyclopedic value and it may come off as saying something it not ought to". There we are, I do think we're in good agreement too! BarntToust 14:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That is different as genre is subjective by definition. We interpret it through our own assumed rules and what we personally understand a style of music to be from a cultural and social perspective. Production companies are not subjective, but still complicated as the Lumiere source states there is not standard for how they assigned. This is technical details, like a running time, or a film format, not an artistic interpretation like genres.

:::::::That said, the sources do contradict each other as they state different countries. (Again, Either America and Japan or simply America). Think of this more like if there was a hypotehtical "lost book" that we have no access to, but can find reviews of to get information about. If one author is credited, we could assume that is correct, but if another review states two authors. Who is to say which is correct or "more accurate"? Its not perception, its different sources that clarifying their conlcusion without stating how they came to the conclusion. Without this information, we can not state that one is simply correct and the other is wrong without applying original research or presumptions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The right decision to make in this analogous hypothetical would depend on the situation. As I described in a similar example of my own above, in the case of Shin Godzilla, sources generally note that Hideaki Anno is the primary director, and it is noted often (though not always) that Shinji Higuchi was a co-director. Many sources only note Anno's involvement ([https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/shin-godzilla-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc00mzeznze The BBFC] for instance only credits Anno) while others, such as [https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/70256# Lumiere], add Higuchi's name as a co-director. In this instance we don't claim a contradiction exists between these two sources, we instead note (correctly) that Anno and Higuchi both directed the film.

::::::::The same would be true of this hypothetical book. If a source credits Author A, and another source notes Author B as a co-writer of Author A, it's a no-brainer to credit both Authors A and B in the absence of any information to the contrary. There's no contradiction to resolve; both of the sources are correct. If, however, a third source does not credit Author A, but instead asserts that Author B was the main writer and says that an Author C was involved, then that's a different matter entirely. Then, in that case, a contradiction exists, and a solution must be sought in that instance. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I feel that is something (while not in that current article) could be explained in context of what they did or did not do directing that gave them a designated role as a "co-diretor" instead of a straight-up director. In this case, it is unclear on how each source came to its conclusion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|How each source came to its conclusion}} isn't generally something we need to be fussed about. See WP:NOTRIGHT. However, I would actually say in this case that their methodology, if it's really so critical to know, appears quite obvious. They looked at the credits of the film, or, heard from others who had looked at the credits of the film, or heard from others who had heard from others. And some of them decided to focus on Anno because he's the more well known figure, ("Evangelion creator directs new Godzilla film" is a pretty big pitch) the same way some people gave more attention to Tim Burton as the creator of The Nightmare Before Christmas rather than Henry Selick, despite Selick being that film's director. These publications aren't all doing their own original reporting just to confirm facts that are widely known. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding the WP:WEIGHT concerns, I see that as addressed by having the US be listed first in the infobox before Japan (i.e. not in alphabetical order). That's also how Lumiere is doing it: see [https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/about#] {{tq|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.}} Mz7 (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

While I'm not going to close this myself as a matter of procedure, I believe the arguments of the survey have reached a consensus that Japan is designated a co-production country to the film. Besides the virtue that "Marza (a Japanese company) is a credited billing block/opening credits production company": The argument most convincing would be the observation that no sources explicitly refute Japan as being involved to that degree in the film. We go off what sources say, not what they exclude, right? BarntToust 12:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:It does seem like the consensus thus far is in favor of including Japan. However, if I remember right the RfC was meant to be open for at least thirty days before being closed. There's still a little over a week left, so let's wait to see if anyone else votes and let the process run its course. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::aha, very well. I will mind to check back in by then. BarntToust 16:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::There is no minimum time frame required. 30 days is just the default time that Legobot waits to automatically remove the RfC tag. If a discussion's consensus is clear (or if it is clear there will be no consensus), the RfC can end sooner. See WP:RFCCLOSE for more info and a full list of acceptable "close" reasons. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::After familiarizing myself with the relevant guidelines, I went and posted a closure request here. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{RfC bottom}}

As the dispute resolution process about the "Japan question" progresses, inching this article closer to elegibility at Good Article Nominations, I have compiled a set of potential DYKs for this film at User:BarntToust/Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) DYK that I invite editors to look over. The one that {{em|I personally}} would choose is the wackiest, shitpost-iest one about Shadow the Hedgehog's quote-unquote "affinity" for Latin American women, but I have included six other less provocative candidates to balance that out. Happy editing! BarntToust 16:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Now the business about Japan's been resolved, I'm opening a thread regarding WP:GA for this article. Don't know what to put yet, though surely that'll be figured out soon! BarntToust 02:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)