Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Coat of arms of Lithuania

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1746148556}}

{{drn filing editor|SilviaASH|01:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}}

Users involved

• {{User|SilviaASH}}
• {{User|Andrzejbanas}}
• {{User|Barry Wom}}
• {{User|BarntToust}}

Dispute overview

User:Andrzejbanas is disputing the notion that Japan is one of the countries in which Sonic the Hedgehog 3 was produced, despite two reliable sources ([https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/482955#], [https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sonic-the-Hedgehog-3-(2024)#tab=summary]) stating that it is. Andrzejbanas asserts that there is a contradiction in the sources as some of them state that both the United States and Japan were countries of production, while others only list the United States. Myself and User:Barry Wom are confused by this assessment; the two of us are in agreement that there is no contradiction at all; it's just that some of the sources mention Japan, and some of them don't. In particular, Andrzejbanas contends that as the Japanese media sources they are able to find only say that Sonic 3 is an American film, the matter is still in question, because, quote, Japanese sources allegedly {{tq|wouldn't miss a beat mentioning that a film is a Japanese production}}, a notion I disagree with as the national origin of a source seems irrelevant to its capacity to overlook something. The dispute has become protracted as a result of differing interpretations of what, for the purposes of Wikipedia, constitutes "contradictory sources", how a film's country of production is determined, and the policy on original research.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)#Japan_in_country
• User_talk:Barry_Wom#Japan_in_Sonic_3_article
• User_talk:SilviaASH#Film_nationality_discussion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe the dispute over this issue has reached an impasse, as seemingly neither side is understanding the other's rationale, and a third opinion is needed.

Two sources describe the film as American (Kinema Junpo, one of the oldest Japanese film publications), and Screen Daily, an American film magazine. Two other sources provided by that describe the film as both an American in Japanese co-production. The editors have brought up good points on the talk page that one of the main production companies is Japanese. For me personally this would be enough to clarify it as a Japanese film, but not by our wiki rules and standards. One of their own sources (Lumiere) states "{{gt|Defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. Different national records and the statistics on which they are based can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.}}" I believe ignoring the two sources that only state United States is a violation of WP:WEIGHT ({{gt|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.}}) or stating that since a company is Japanese, than the "American-Japanese" sources are the correct ones is a violation of WP:SYNTH ({{gt|"A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.}}). The infobox itself (Template:Infobox film), {{gt|If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.}} With the above, I have suggested following the rules, even if we add a hatnote explaining the discrepancy of sources between editors. This has led to a standstill. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Marza Animation Planet is a production company that worked on the film, as confirmed by the film's credits and promotional materials. Marza is also a Japanese company. When Andrzejbanas was asked if they disputed either of these facts, the response was {{tq|You both have stated that the company is Japanese. I don't know that, but the sources don't back that up}}. SilviaASH then provided a source which confirmed that the company was Japanese. Along with the two sources I supplied which list Japan as a production country, this should have been the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

There is no contradiction involved. This isn't a case of "one source says X and Y and another says X and Z". It's a case of "one source says X and Y and another says X". The source saying X isn't contradicting the source that says X and Y, it has just omitted Y. Andrzejbanas appears to be insisting on an explanation as to why sources that say just X don't include Y, which would be a virtually impossible task.

Comment Andrzejbanas and I have reached some common ground on this issue on the article's talk page. The discussion is not quite over, but we may be able to reach a resolution on our own sooner than I had anticipated. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Additional comment since my posting this, the discussion on the talk page has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)&curid=70085657&diff=1283953577&oldid=1283949968 turned to a disagreement] on how the topic specific guidance on Template:Infobox film and MOS:FILM is to be interpreted. While Andrzejbanas wishes to at some point in the future discuss the guidelines with the film WikiProject at large and suggest they be amended, I would hope for consensus to be reached on how we are to interpret the guidelines as they currently stand, in this case. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Comment: would this be better suited for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? - delta (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D. If this dispute is about an infobox, please be aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. By agreeing to take part in this content dispute resolution, you will also be acknowledging that you are aware that contentious topic sanctions may apply. My zeroth question for the editors is whether you still want moderated discussion. If you are not sure, and want to continue discussion on the article talk page, please say so, and I will wait to see if there is still a dispute.

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I am asking each of the editors, as the first question, to specify concisely what part of the article they want to change, or what part of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @Robert McClenon, I'm not sure if I can help out with the process of moderating, as while I have been wholly absent from this content dispute because of working on some other stuff, I am [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film) by vast numerics] the primary contributor to the article. Also, I am thus leading the charge to get this article in question up at WP:GA, and am set to be corresponding with the dispute-involved editor SilviaASH concerning that.

:If you find any value on my humble input, please let me know. I'll be following the state of the article anyhow. Thank you for offering to take up moderation of this.

:Also, ping @Barry Wom, @Andrzejbanas, and @SilviaASH to answer for Robert's request for to them to {{tq|specify concisely what part of the article they want to change, or what part of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change}} (if you have not already). I have no clue the particulars of this debate are from trying my damndest to follow the long dispute on the article talk, or from looking here either. BarntToust 16:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well, like I said below, I think that Japan should be included as a country of production, matching the sources, and that the article content and categorization should reflect that where relevant. I believe Barry feels the same and Andrzejbanas feels differently, but hopefully they can come and clarify that. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah to clarify we have some sources that only state one country as the country of production, and others of similar reliability that state two countries as the country of production. The standards in Template:infobox film ({{gt|If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.}}) suggest if there are discrepancies or contradictions, we should only list the common countries named. After a bit and back for discussing, I can't find any sources that goes into specific details on how they came to their conclusions on this, and we shouldn't make assumptions on how the sources came to these different conclusions. My suggestion is to follow the rules set out and only list the countries that are included in all the major sources (in this case, United States) found and potentially leave a hatnote stating that some sources included another country per WP:BALANCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Robert McClenon}} Barry Wom has not edited since their last comment on the article talk page a few days ago. If they do not respond to the discussion clarifying their preference in a timely manner, will the dispute be closed, or may we proceed with only myself and Andrzejbanas? silviaASH (inquire within) 23:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry folks, currently on vacation and unable to take part in the discussion at the moment. I think I've made my position clear in any case. Barry Wom (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The dispute is about the film infobox, although it also implicitly impacts the categorization of the page, since the outcome of the dispute would ultimately affect not only whether or not to list Japan as a country of production in the infobox, but also whether or not to categorize the film under :Category:English-language Japanese films and relevant subcategories. This has not been an explicit point of contention, however. Andrzejbanas has also floated the notion of whether or not to include the countries of production in the lead on account of their interpretation of one of the guidelines, although they seem unsure as to if this is a good idea. I personally do not see any cause for concern in the minor discrepancies in the sources that gave rise to the dispute, and think that Japan should be listed as a country of production in the infobox and the article should remain categorized as such, as is the case as of this writing.

I acknowledge Robert McClenon's statement. I have read DRN Rule D, and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in it. I have not taken this dispute to any other noticeboard or discussion venue, and I am unaware of any other active discussions on the issue elsewhere, if they should be occurring. (However, Andrzejbanas has come to my user talk page to discuss the guidelines they find issue with since I filed this dispute; I have linked that topic here for transparency and completion.)

I have only one question for the moderator before the discussion begins. Regarding the following rule, {{tq|Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed}}, does this rule apply to all edits to the article, or only to edits related to the issue of dispute (in this case, the film's country of production)? In other words, are unrelated edits to the article (for instance, technical corrections, copy-editing prose, answering other users' unrelated edit requests, or adding information otherwise not related to the film's country of production in the infobox) permitted, or are only minor edits permissible, or must all editing, related to the dispute or not, be entirely desisted from until the discussion concludes? (Whatever the answer, I will abide by the rule.) silviaASH (inquire within) 01:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

For the time being, I will ask the editors who are in the dispute not to edit any part of the article, until we have specific statements as to what the scope of the disagreement is. After the scope of the content dispute is defined, I may ease the rule about editing to allow edits that are non-contentious. I am again asking each editor to identify specifically what parts of the article, including but not limited to the infobox, you want to change, or that another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same. If you see multiple issues in different parts of the article, please provide a list, preferably in a bullet-point form. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:As I understand it as an uninvolved party, the scope of their dispute{{--}}about which countr(y)[ies] constitutes the country of origin of this film{{--}}lies with the infobox. At most, the disputed content could be included with a few words in the #Development section, like it could be "An American and Japanese co-production," or simply denoting it as an American film: but such an instance of content would be so minor that essentially all other editing broadly in the article would fall outside of the area of dispute. For example, if, say silviaASH was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)&oldid=1284508300 adding content about cinematography of the film], that would bear zero relation to the countr(y)[ies] of origin that this film is.

:And considering Barry is on vacation, hindering the editing ability of these other two on all matters until this content dispute is defined would not be the ideal path forward. @SilviaASH, @Andrzejbanas (and @Barry Wom, sorry to ping your vacay){{--}}have I defined this well enough to @Robert McClenon? I'd hate to see everyone with temporary editing restrictions, but if I haven't gotten this dispute defined properly, let me know. BarntToust 13:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::I personally do not consider it to be a problem. I was only asking about the scope of the rule to make sure I completely understood it, not because I had anything else I urgently wanted to add to the article. I don't have any issue refraining from editing the article for a day or two while we wait for Andrzejbanas to make their statement on the scope of the dispute. If I get the itch, I have other articles to edit. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::But also, sorry, yes, to answer your question, I do think you have accurately understood the scope of the dispute. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

To answer an earlier question, the minimum number of editors required for content dispute resolution is two. If the filing editor lists two other editors, and one of them replies, moderated discussion can take place between those editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for clarifying the rule. I will refrain from editing any part of the article until the discussion has appropriately progressed. Here is a brief summary of the dispute as I understand it:

• The dispute revolves around whether or not to state in the article that Japan is a country of production on the Sonic 3 film. All sources list the United States, whether by itself or alongside Japan.
• The position of myself, and Barry Wom, has been that the sources list both Japan and the United States, and that Marza Animation Planet, a Japanese animation and visual effects company, is credited for having assisted in its production, and therefore Japan should be listed.
• Andrzejbanas expresses the concern that as not all sources state Japan to be a country of production, and it is unclear why some sources do and some sources do not, we should not list Japan as a country of production without qualifying within the article (their proposed method is a footnote) that some sources only list the United States and some sources do not. They believe that this would be in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE.
• My counterpoint to Andrzejbanas is that, as the sources do not outright state how they have defined what a country of production is, or declare how they have determined which it is, and they do not declare their reasons for excluding Japan as a country of production (if they have any) we do not know whether or not the sources that do not list Japan have consciously made the editorial decision to exclude it from the category, or if they have simply overlooked the involvement of Marza. Therefore, I believe that such a footnote saying this would give the impression of an explicit disagreement between the sources when none is known to exist, violating WP:NOR, and that it would be simpler to list both Japan and the United States, satisfying WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. I previously stated this opinion in this diff.

What I believe is best to do is thus as follows:

• The current version of the article lists both the United States and Japan as production countries in the infobox, citing three sources (currently, they are [https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-review/5200227.article Screen Daily] (US), [https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/482955# Lumiere] (US+JP), and [https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sonic-the-Hedgehog-3-(2024)#tab=summary The Numbers] (US+JP)). Andrzejbanas has pointed to other Japanese-language sources which only mention the United States, but they are not included in the current revision as of this writing. Accordingly, the article is categorized within :Category:English-language Japanese films.
• I believe, in essence, that these aspects should stay as they are, per my arguments.
• The infobox should continue to list both the US and Japan as production countries.
• No footnote pointing out the discrepancy between the sources should be added.
• The English-language Japanese films category would stay on the article.
• As such, additional relevant categories of Japanese films, such as :Category:Japanese sequel films, would be permitted.

Please feel free to ask if there is a need for me to further clarify my position. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The filing editor wants to list both the United States and Japan as countries of production.

The issue appears to be that some sources list only the United States, and some sources list the United States and Japan, and the issue is whether and how to note this discrepancy. Are there any other content issues?

The other participating editor has made an opening statement but has not made a follow-up statement. I would like each editor to make a brief statement as to what they think should be in the infobox and how their view is supported by guidelines, and a brief statement as to whether they think that any changes are needed to the text of the article. If you have already addressed these questions, you may say that you already addressed these questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are no other content issues with the article. I believe I have already thoroughly argued my position and how it is supported by policy, and I am not currently seeking any changes to any other part of the article.

{{ping|Andrzejbanas}} Are you able to make a follow-up statement on your position? silviaASH (inquire within) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In the sort-of-distant past, the only thing that could have been a content dispute (but wasn't serious enough for DRN) there were questions about whether a company, that was credited as an "in association with" party to the production of the film, should be placed in the infobox as a production company. This bit was resolved with a consensus to not credit the company as such, with an edit notice being successfully implemented to alert other users about this. However, that one was just routine talk page chatter: This dispute, about the "Japan question", would be the first bona fide content dispute to befall the article in its history. While I have had zero involvement in this content dispute and honestly couldn't care less about what is being fought about, and am only here because I am self-interested in doing whatever I can to ensure this article is stable enough for WP:GA, I can say that the scope of the content dispute between Andrzejbanas and Barry Wom + SilviaASH has been defined fully well to my knowledge. I hope to see this dispute resolved and will offer my disinterested input wherever fitting. Thanks to Robert for handling this. BarntToust 16:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

To follow-up, this is my only issue with the article. My main issue currently is that by adding the other country to the infobo, it would be ignoring the established rules I've stated from template:Infobox film about how to handle multiple sources when they disagree on the nationality of a film. While editors have provided interesting points, none have been shown to me as solid proof of how production is handled. As two Japanese sources and one American ond I've presented do not display japan as a production country, I'm not convinced they were just "missed" by the sources in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I will try to summarize the issue concisely. It appears that the underlying content issue is that some sources list the United States as the only country of production, and some sources list the United States and Japan as countries of production. No source explicitly states that Japan was not a country of production, or that the United States was the only country of production. So the question appears to be whether to list one country in the infobox, or two countries. Is that correct? Is there also an issue about the body of the article, or is there agreement that the details can be explained in the body of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Seems that the one-two country system is what they're disputing about. Like I mentioned somewhere, when it is decided whether or not Japan is recognized as a country of origin, if it will be, that would do well to be in the body as "A Japanese and American co-production..." or something like that.

:If the disputing parties would like to offer concurrent or dissenting opinions on my understanding of this, please speak. BarntToust 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::For my part, I do not think I would choose to list the information in the lede. It would likely lead to confusion as clarification as to how the film qualifies as being produced by one or both countries would then be required, and it does not seem necessary to aid a reader's understanding. Listing the companies and countries in the infobox for the benefit of any especially curious readers would to my mind be sufficient. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, the nationality of the film could be noted in #Development, where the production companies are listed. BarntToust 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::And maybe noting the nationality in the lede would be done like how it's done in, for example, Wild Tales (film). Does not require a lot of drawn-out explaining. BarntToust 01:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, in any case I think I am ambivalent on how this would impact the article body. I will leave that up to others to decide after the dispute is resolved. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I have read the text from Template:Infobox film which Andrzejbanas has cited as justification, and I don't see how the suggestions on the documentation page back up their arguments. For one thing, Template:Infobox film/doc is not a policy or guideline, it is a list of general suggestions for editors regarding how to fill out the infobox. Secondly, the phrases {{tq|conflict of information}} and {{tq|common published nations}} are vague and do not indicate an explicit definition of "conflict" or "common", and I feel that I could just as well interpret those words in support of my own position. As I said, I do not see an explicit conflict between the sources, and Japan is commonly listed as a country of production- there are two sources saying that it is, as mentioned earlier.

It is true that determining film nationality can be complex for the reliable databases. As the documentation page says, {{tq|the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research}}, but it says this in the context of giving guidance to editors as to what reliable sources to look at; {{tq|For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases}} (which would have performed this research). It does not suggest that the onus is on editors to perform this original research ourselves.

I find the arguments that neither I nor Barry {{tq|have been shown to me as solid proof of how production is handled}} and {{tq|I'm not convinced they were just "missed" by the sources in question}} to be irrelevant here. We do not need to know exactly how a reliable source came to its conclusions before citing it. Weighting our use of a source based on such unknowns, or editorially constructing the impression that the sources disagree on the issue when it is not known that they do, seems to me to constitute original research ({{tq|Take care not to go beyond what the sources express}} and {{tq|Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources}}). I still also do not quite understand how the nationality of a particular source is relevant here- Japanese or American sources are equally capable of making mistakes or overlooking information. American publications have made factual errors in covering American films, as have Japanese publications in covering Japanese ones.

We have sources which state that Japan is a country of production, and there are no sources that say that it wasn't, and that is all that we need to verifiably list Japan as a country of production in addition to the United States. Any speculation about editorial inconsistencies between these sources is not relevant here unless compelling evidence can be presented that one or another source has performed a mistaken or incomplete assessment, which so far has not been the case.

Additionally, both sources provided by Andrzejbanas which do not list Japan in the country of production field ([https://www.kinejun.com/cinema/view/100549], [https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-review/5200227.article]) still correctly state that Marza Animation Planet is a production company. Just as it can be argued that these two sources perhaps missed or chose not to acknowledge Japan as a country of production, it could equally be the case that it is their editorial standard to only list the primary country of production, or that they simply did not consider it that important. We do not know, and I feel that to assume their reasoning and weight our editorial decisions based on the assumption of an unknown and unstated view when we have reliable sources confirming Japan as a country of production based on Marza's involvement is, again, original research. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the issue comes down to the interpretation of the documentation for the {{tl|Infobox film}}. It states: {{tq| If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. }} So it appears that the first question is whether the listing of one country by some reliable sources and two countries by other reliable sources is considered a conflict. The second question is whether, as a compromise, the field can be left blank, or filled with a note, and the nationality discussed in the body of the article. Am I correct that the editors disagree as to the answer to the first question, because one editor thinks that the situation is not a conflict, and one editor thinks that it is a conflict?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Are the editors willing to agree to a compromise?

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Although Andrzejbanas has cited Template:Infobox film in their most recent arguments, they have previously also cited the essay Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, which I also find to not enhance their case for not listing Japan as that essay also does not helpfully define "conflict" in a way that would be meaningfully instructive for this situation, and much of what I have already argued about the Template guidance applies to that essay as well.

I shall note that the previous two films (Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic the Hedgehog 2) are listed as American-Japanese co-productions by the British Film Institute (BFI), which is noted within Template:Infobox film/doc as a reliable database with which to source the country field. ([https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/155764455], [https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/157997511]) The infoboxes of both films' articles reflects this finding. This does not have any immediate bearing on the outcome of this dispute, as the BFI does not yet have an entry for Sonic the Hedgehog 3 in their database, but given that the same companies produced all three films, I have little doubt that when an entry for it on BFI's database does emerge, the same conclusion shall be drawn about Sonic the Hedgehog 3. I assume that Andrzejbanas personally considers BFI reliable for this use case, as they cited it in an edit to the article on The Corpse Bride in that film's infobox's country field.

I do not think a note should be left in the field, as this would violate WP:NOR. I also do not think leaving the field blank would be acceptable. I also am not certain if the nationality can be discussed in the body of the article, as it is not discussed in depth in any sources, to my knowledge- all we have are the reliable database sources listing the US, or the US and Japan, as production countries, and as stated before, they do not clarify how and why they came to that conclusion. (Saying {{tq|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is an American...}} or {{tq|American-Japanese...}} film in the lede would be acceptable, although there has been edit-warring over whether or not to list the nationality in the lede in the past and I'm not sure if that would place an undue emphasis on the film's nationality, but again, I will leave that up to BarntToust and others.)

If we cannot come to an agreement on whether or not to list Japan with the available sources, then I believe the only reasonable policy-based resolution is simply to omit Japan from the country field of the infobox until and unless additional sources become available and a consensus to use those to list Japan is attained. In the interest of allowing the article to become stable so that BarntToust can continue their work to help the article attain GA status, I would agree to this outcome.

{{ping|Andrzejbanas}} Do you have anything to add or clarify? silviaASH (inquire within) 05:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If we are otherwise unable to resolve the infobox content dispute, I see two more ways to resolve it. The first is an inquiry at WikiProject Film to ask how they interpret the documentation for the infobox template. I plan to post an inquiry at the film project within 72 hours unless a compromise is reached here (and I don't expect that it will be, so I expect that I will ask at the film project). The second is a Request for Comments. That takes 30 days, and so should only be done if the project inquiry is inconclusive. However, that can be done while the work is underway to bring the article up to standards for a Good Article nomination. In any case, resolving this issue should be done prior to or concurrent with the Good Article nomination as further verification that the article is stable.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:So yeah I think Robert's suggestion to the folks in dispute makes sense. I think it's worth saying that this dispute really ought not take place at the centre of the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) article. The nature of the dispute is what to do when some RS says the country of origin of a film is one, and when others give one and another. It's not really about the article itself; the article happens to be one of—I'm sure many—that have this dilemma of sourcing. If the axis of the dispute could revolve around the principles of what is being warred over, and take place at Project Film based on policy, that would be most amazing.

:Thank you to Robert and SilviaASH for keeping the article's prospective GA in mind when discussing this dispute. BarntToust 17:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:At this juncture, I think asking at the film WikiProject would be the most productive way to resolve the issue, given how slow progress has been towards a resolution here with essentially only myself and Andrzejbanas repeatedly reiterating our positions with not much movement on either side. I have no objections to taking the matter there. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I have exhausted everything I have to say about the issue for the time being. If Andrzejbanas does not make any further comments that require a response, then I support moving discussion on this issue to the film WikiProject and/or to an RfC as appropriate. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Popping back just to say that I don't really have anything to add here. SilviaASH has summarised the situation in enough detail already and I support their position. Requesting input at WikiProject Film might be useful, as I'm sure the issue has been discussed in the past (I seem to recall the Marvel movies being an example). Barry Wom (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I apologize for not responding, I have been busy for a week. While I don't have the sourcing handy, I can state that those rules on the WikiProject film and the infobox were from a direct discussion I was involved with at the time. When we say "sources disagree", it mean they presented conflicting information. I.e: "United States" vs. "united States / Japan" or similar items, and I'm not sure how the other editors would interpret "conflicting information" in other ways to be honest. While I thinking asking the WikiProject is good start (and before I saw the rest of the conversation, I had responded there) with similar information I had seen here. As per the wikiproject standards, I still kind of stand by the standards of the community unless new specific soulution can arise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think we're just gonna have to take this to a larger discussion, because I really still don't understand what you mean when you say that it's a conflict. I feel you haven't really adequately addressed the issues and counterpoints that I've brought up in my own arguments and I don't really feel any closer to understanding your side of the dispute. If Robert intends to go forward with starting an RfC on the issue, I will be happy to contribute however is deemed appropriate for me to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

After consultation with WikiProject Film, it seems that the next step is a Request for Comments. Maybe that is the larger discussion to which SilviaAsh refers. I will compose a draft RFC shortly. I have at least three questions. First, are there any other options concerning the infobox besides (1) United States, and (2) United States and Japan? Second, are there any other content issues? Third, are there any other questions about what we will do next?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, the only other policy-compliant option besides either listing the United States or United States and Japan is to leave the country field blank. I said earlier that I felt this would not be acceptable, but did not articulate why. The reason I believe this is because I don't think leaving the field blank would satisfy anyone, and another editor would restore the country down the line, and then we'd more or less be back here again anyway. The best solution for ensuring article stability seems to be to decide, one way or the other, what we consider the film's country of production to be given the currently available sources on the matter. If consensus of the RfC aligns with only listing the United States, then the matter can possibly be revisited when the BFI publishes their listing of the film, if they credit Japan as a production country as they did with the previous two films.

As far as I know, there are no other content issues with the article. My only question about the RfC is to what extent we (that is to say, the already involved editors- Myself, Barry, Andrzejbanas and BarntToust) shall participate in the RfC. Do we vote like anyone else, or do we contribute our own sides of the dispute to the RfC statement, or do we just let the crowd decide? I have rarely engaged in an RfC prior to this so I am not generally familiar. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

First, the editors who were originally parties to the dispute take part in the RFC just like the rest of the community. The closer, who will have been previously uninvolved, should be able to assess the outcome of the RFC by reading the responses to and discussion of the RFC without the need to go back through the history (unless she wants to read the history). Second, I will provide two options. Any participant in the RFC can add other options. That occasionally happens. Third, I think that what I will do at the beginning is to provide space at the beginning of the Discussion section for each of you to present concise statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like a solid, reasonable plan for the dispute-ees. Even though I have no dog in this fight and a general indifference, I'll stipulate I will not serve as a closer of the discussion when a consensus is achieved, a matter of good practice. Hopefully a consensus does form. BarntToust 14:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, this all sounds good. Then, as long as there are no issues or objections from either Barry or Andrzejbanas, I would say we are likely good to close this DRN case and proceed with the RfC whenever we are all appropriately prepared. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|DoctorEric|12:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as maybe abandoned. The filing editor was advised how to request a Third Opinion, but has not edited since filing that request and has not notified the other editor of this filing. Resume discussion on the article talk page when both editors are active. (The other editor is active, but was not notified.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}

Users involved

• {{User|DoctorEric}}
• {{User|Avatar317}}

Dispute overview

I offered a suggestion to improve the opening section of the article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Only one editor has responded so far, and he disagrees with my proposal. We've exchanged comments back and forth a couple of times, but I don't think we will reach an agreement. I let him know we needed to have a third party mediate our dispute.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Redundancy_in_opening_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute is over the format of the opening section of the article. There is no dispute over content, just where to include what details. I believe the other editor and I have clearly stated our positions. I hope that a neutral third party can offer guidance on which format for an opening section is preferable.

• Volunteer Note: To request a third opinion, please follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|2001:8003:268E:A800:B514:6A0F:FAD8:AE93|23:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as not an article content dispute. This is a dispute about a sandbox which is being used as a draft. Because it is in user space, it is primarily under the control of the user whose sandbox it is. It can be discussed on the user's user talk page, and is being discussed on the user's user talk page. However, it is primarily under the control of the user whose sandbox it is. If it is moved into draft space, then it becomes the property of the community and can be reviewed by AFC reviewers, or by any editor. There is no need at this time for moderated discussion. Either discuss it with the user whose sandbox it is, or move the sandbox into draft space. Continue discussion at the user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2}}

Users involved

• {{User|SteeledDock541}}

Dispute overview

Background: The article on motorsport team Iron Lynx is being split into articles "Iron Lynx" and "Iron Dames" and the user has asked for public assistance to split it in the provided sandbox.

The Iron Dames are not a 'team' in their own right; they are a commercial entity which provides sponsorship and drivers to actual teams that run cars for them. The owner of the sandbox is removing clarification and distinctions of this point because, quote "no other motorsport team article is written like that".

This article does not meet usual convention simply because the Iron Dames are not a team, but are a well-covered enough entity to warrant having their own article - articles are typically only made for teams.

From my perspective, there needs to be a paragraph in the opening section addressing that it is not a team for transparency. There's also no point having an 'entrant' column in the results section because the article is about the entrant; instead, this column should be used to clarify which actual team operated the cars and it would be misrepresentative not to do so. SteeledDock541 does not agree.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2 page in dispute
• User talk:SteeledDock541#Iron_Lynx_/_Dames proof of discussion
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2&direction=prev&oldid=1286779705] IP's version of the page
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2&oldid=1286779705] SteeledDock541's version of the page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Having users external to the situation and broader topic, who can take into account its' unique nature, can assist in bringing this to a cordial resolution.

I want to first say that I do not mind there being a paragraph in the introduction stating that Iron Dames is not a team in the sense that they don't field their own cars as 2001:8003:268E:A800:B514:6A0F:FAD8:AE93 clarified. The entrant information in any motorsports results table is used to display the name that the team competed as. For example, in the 2021 FIA World Endurance Championship, Iron Dames had its own drivers and their car was branded with Iron Dames colors, but the entry was listed as Iron Lynx. The following season, the team went under the entry name of Iron Dames even though Iron Lynx was still operating that entry. Having 'Operating team' in the table is not standard in motorsports articles and is more confusing to the average reader. Also, teams running under different names are common. For example, Pure Rxcing has other teams such as Manthey Racing and CLX Motorsport operating their cars, but the entrants for those cars are still listed as Pure Rxcing. Another example is 99 Racing, their cars were run by TF Sport and Algarve Pro Racing, but again, their entries were listed as 99 Racing.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF|04:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The notice to the other user does not appear to have been made in good faith, but it appears to have been declined by the other editor. Also, a third user has started a discussion at the fringe theory noticeboard, which would appear to be an equally good place for discussion. The unregistered editor is advised to register an account because it is difficult to engage in discussion with shifting IPv6 addresses. Discuss at the article talk page or at the fringe theory noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Near-death experience}}

Users involved

• {{User|MrOllie}}
• {{User|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF}}

Dispute overview

MrOllie has arbitrarily decided that there is no need for a section on cross-cultural and historical near-death experiences (NDEs) in this article. He deleted the entire section based on a number of ad hoc, specious arguments. I attempted to improve it, but if I try again I risk a 3-time reversal ban. He has given no legitimate reason for his action. He throws around words like "fringe" and dismisses historians, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists as "parapsychologists". He is not familiar with the subject and has not read the work that he has formed opinions about. The scholars working in this area are not engaging with the debate about the veridicality of NDEs. Their main concern is with cross-cultural diversity and the various attitudes and perceptions of NDEs in different cultures and in different times. The scholars I was citing all have PhDs in their fields, and scholarly publications -- monographs with academic publishers and articles with peer-reviewed journals. They are not "parapsychologists" and their work is not "parapsychology." Not including this section means that the entire article is based on a Western stereotype of NDEs, and is frankly ethnocentric. It also ignores a whole dimension of near-death studies -- it's not just a question of "are they proof of life after death". It's ironic that the entire article as it stands is solely about that "fringe" parapsychological question, whereas the more neutral, objective, socio-historical discussion has been entirely removed.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Extensive discussion in the Talk section. There were a couple of others involved at one point, but MrOllie is the most engaged and is calling the shots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Near-death_experience#Cross-Cultural_NDE_section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Near-death_experience#Historical_NDE_Section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow a section on historical and cross-cultural NDEs.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF|04:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The other editor appears to have declined to take part in this discussion. Discussion at DRN is voluntary, and it is not useful to request discussion here by being uncivil. There is a discussion at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. Discuss either on the article talk page or at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Near-death studies}}

Users involved

• {{User|MrOllie}}
• {{User|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF}}

Dispute overview

This i basically the same as the dispute about the "Near-death experience" page. This page should cover the range of approaches to near-death experiences, not just scientific and parapsychological ones. It ignores the study of the phenomenon in history, anthropology, and sociology. Here's a modified version of what I wrote in my other dispute because it's mostly relevant here, too.

MrOllie has arbitrarily decided that there is no need for a section on cross-cultural and historical near-death studies (NDEs) in this article. He based his decision on a number of ad hoc, specious arguments. I offered to improve it, but was dismissed. He has given no legitimate reason for his action. He throws around words like "fringe" and dismisses historians, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists as "parapsychologists". He is not familiar with the subject and has not read the work that he has formed opinions about. The scholars working in this area are not engaging with the debate about the veridicality of NDEs. Their main concern is with cross-cultural diversity and the various attitudes and perceptions of NDEs in different cultures and in different times. The scholars I was citing all have PhDs in their fields, and scholarly publications -- monographs with academic publishers and articles with peer-reviewed journals. They are not "parapsychologists" and their work is not "parapsychology." Not including this section means that the entire article is based on a Western stereotype of NDEs, and is frankly ethnocentric. It also ignores a whole dimension of near-death studies -- it's not just a question of "are they proof of life after death". It's ironic that the entire article as it stands is solely about that "fringe" parapsychological question, whereas the more neutral, objective, socio-historical discussion has been entirely removed.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Near-death_studies#Cross-Cultural,_Historical,_Anthropological,_and_Sociological_research

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow a section on near-death studies in the humanities and social sciences.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|FeaturingDallas|12:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as not discussed on the article talk page. DRN cannot take cases that have not been discussed thoroughly on the article's talk page. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on a user talk page is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, because third parties might be watching the article talk page and might take useful part in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Thawb}}

Users involved

• {{User|Abo Yemen}}

Dispute overview

User:Abo Yemen has twice removed an image of a Palestinian women wearing a thobe saying that "the article is not about that kind of thobes" and also added that "this article is about the male garment" when under the History section, it is stated that a thobe is worn by both men and women. Although the article is not about any specific type of Thobe, it is also not a dedicated page for the type of thobes that only men wear.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abo_Yemen#c-FeaturingDallas-20250425122500-Palestinian_thobe

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please do not remove image(s) of thobes to be used beside those that only men wear as long as it is a thobe since the article is not about a gender specific clothing (as stated in the history section)

This person literally came to my talkpage, asked me why I reverted his addition of an image of an unrelated garment to the infobox of the Thawb article, I've responded to him on why I did so, and then instead of replying they go and give me a really bad analogy "{{tq|so there cannot be a picture of Blue jeans on the page for jeans?}}" and starts this dispute resolution. We haven't even had a proper discussion, but it seems like they think that I am incapable of having a proper discussion, and had to bring it here. I'm also going to note that this person's contributions seem to revolve around adding an image of something related to Palestine to very unrelated articles, and this was noted by other contributors here, probably trying to do pro-Palestinian activism, but all that they're doing is making the Peo-Palestine community look bad cus of their vandalism. This is such a bad faith report 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}