Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)

Can We Still Say That Sega of America, Inc. Produced the Film Under Sega Sammy Group?

I’m worried this may cause confusion because producers who work at SEGA Toru Nakahara & Hitoshi Okuno as well as executive producers Haruki Satomi, Shuji Utsumi & Yukio Sugino have been involved in the film. Tyson Hesse who has done a lot of Sonic media has indeed co-produced. They even made the film with their animation studio Marza Animation Planet.

Are we absolutely sure SEGA wasn’t involved in the production of the film? XyloQuip289 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see this discussion: Template_talk:Infobox_film#Suggestion_to_update_"Production_companies"_parameter Barry Wom (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we say SEGA, (not its parent company SEGA Sammy Group) is the one who produced the film? Because they actually did. XyloQuip289 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's even less sourcing to justify that than there is for SEGA Sammy. Unless you've got a source we haven't seen, I'd have to guess the answer is no. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm looking at the film's credits right now to see if I can find anything compelling that might change the situation. I'm sure others have already looked, but I'm curious so I'm looking anyway. Even if I do find anything though, the answer's probably still no. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've pretty much been through the whole credits. Apart from the soundtrack credits, which say "Courtesy of Sega" a few times about a few songs from the Sonic games that were used in the film, and the text "The Producers Wish to Thank: Sonic Team US", there is absolutely no indication that Sega actually did anything. This doesn't mean they didn't do anything- I'm sure that Takashi Iizuka gave them his opinion about the shooting script or they lent the art team some concept art from Sonic Adventure 2 or something, but we don't know that and we need a reliable source to actually prove it. Maybe that'll turn up, maybe it won't. Even if it does, it probably still won't justify listing Sega as a production company. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure they were involved in some capacity (consultation probably), but us editors being "sure" they were involved doesn't do any good if no one can find sources unambiguously declaring how they were involved and what they actually did besides own the rights and claim a credit. Unfortunately, no such sources have turned up along these lines, so there's nothing to be done about it at the moment. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I've created a request for an edit notice to be added to this page so hopefully we can stop discussing this issue, or at least discuss it less. I honestly don't much care about whether we credit Sega Sammy as a production company one way or the other, but this has recurred as a discussion topic far too often without much in the way of any new arguments on either side and is at this point just a waste of time. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Japan in country

See also: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard § Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)

I've removed Japan as a country of production. The current source only lists it as an American production and despite some production companies seemingly being based in Japan, there is no source currently within the article suggesting its both or Japanese at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

On top of the sources which Barry provided for Japan being a production company, the film's credits pretty extensively acknowledge not only Marza, but also the film's Japanese film crew (apparently they actually did shoot some of the Tokyo stuff in Tokyo and didn't just greenscreen all that!). I think there's very little question that the Japanese producers and crew non-trivially participated in production. I know the credits are a primary source, but the fact that they line up with the secondary sources in this regard is a significant point in favor here. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the contradictory inline note is extremely overblown paranoia about the sources. I've looked into the sources, and like Barry said, there's really no contradiction here- one source has better/more complete information than another. This is like saying "well, one source says Colleen O'Shaughnessey voice Tails, and another source simply doesn't mention that, so did she REALLY appear in the film?" which would be equally absurd- an actual contradiction would be a source claiming that Kate Higgins voices Tails in the film and another claiming that O'Shaugnessey did. Again, there's no sources that say "Japan DID NOT participate in the production of the film" or "Marza Animation is actually based in Pakistan" or something like that, so unless you can point to such an actually substantially contradictory statement in the sources, no contradiction exists. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not the same as coverage and the solutions provided here do not follow WP:OR. I've tried, in vain, in the past to find that the production companies are the key components for making something the production company. However, I've failed to find any specific source that backs this up (despite this being my general belief as well). So in this case, we have two sources, including a Japanese one, not including a country. This is a technical detail, for example, if we had a film stating a film had one director, then later it is found out someone else did most of the direction, that would change details. Unless you can explain why the other countries are not mentioned in the two other valid sources, including one that is Japanese, who you'd think wouldn't miss a beat mentioning that a film is a Japanese production, then this is why we need to clarify this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Marza Animation Planet was a production company on the film?

Or are you disputing that Marza isn't a Japanese company?

If neither, there's your claification right there. Barry Wom (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Some of the sources just didn't mention Japan because they didn't know or didn't think it was that important. There's no big mystery here, and I don't see how any OR violation has occurred.

if we had a film stating a film had one director, then later it is found out someone else did most of the direction, that would change details- no, it really wouldn't. For example, there's some sources saying solely that Hideaki Anno directed Shin Godzilla, and some other sources saying that Shinji Higuchi co-directed the film. Would you contend that, because some sources omit Higuchi's name, that it's OR to say that Higuchi is a co-director? No, of course not; you say that Anno and Higuchi both directed the film, and cite both sources (or just the one that credits them both). silviaASH (inquire within) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither of you have answered my questions. You both have stated that the company is Japanese. I don't know that, but the sources don't back that up that are provided so I'm assuming this is taken from a wikipedia article, which we are also not supposed to apply. As for the "co-director" claim, that's a vague term, which should be clarified so readers understand who did what. Some sources are going to go more indepth than others on why it may or may not be credited this way. In this case, we have four sources, and two of them are giving different information, and neither of sources or editor have adequately explained why two sources only listing United States only goes over two sources that state both countries. When I asked either of you to provide me any source or contemporary rule on how production countries are clarified, neither of you have provided it either. The onus is on you to provide this. Otherwise, we have a contradiction between two sources and two others and not suggestion outside our own opinions on which is correct. So no, I'm not qualifying whether Marza is from wherever, and there has been no indepth coverage at all. Per WP:WEIGHT, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." In this case, we have four sources that state United States at least, and two that state both United States and Japan. As neither goes into detail on the inclusion of the other country and its not clear how they came to that conclusion (if you have this, please provide it), then we should only apply what is predominant. I'd be happy to suggest a hat note stating that other sources have listed the other country, but as I've found a Japanese source that does not seem to want to identify this film as even just partially Japanese, I have my doubts. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Japanese sources can also make mistakes. Being from a certain country does not ensure perfect and absolutely comprehensive and authoritative coverage of any and every topic from that country.

Anyway, I've added another source which clarifies both that Marza is Japanese and was involved with the film. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You are implying that two sources are mistaken, but neither source clarifies the details on how they came to the production countries. While adding a source citing a company as Japanese is fine, you are applying logic that goes against WP:SYNTH, specifically If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C. In short, you are assuming the sources are getting their country credits and assuming two sources are wrong, but there is no evidence outside original research to say one is correct and the other is not. While I'm not claiming that my sources are any more correct, we can't just say "well this is correct because of this" because we have no backing for either statement and neither source explains how the clarify a production country (or if they have, none of us have found anything that presents this). Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. I feel strongly that you are WikiLawyering over the exact words of the OR policy in order to support your side of the argument rather than conceding that you're wrong here. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, like, neither source explains how the clarify a production country What are you expecting??? A source to say, "Sonic the Hedgehog 3 animation studio is Marza Animation Planet, a Japanese animation studio, is producing animation for the film, and they are producing this animation in Japan while being based in Japan, therefore, the film is partially produced in Japan, making Japan one of the film's production countries"? Why would anyone say that? It should be painfully obvious to anyone reading that of course an animation house being located in Japan means that the film is being partially produced in Japan. WP:SKYBLUE. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm expecting this, because the assumption as written above states you are assuming it's a mistake on two sites. I have found a third site, also from Japan, that only states US. It's also not something obvious per the skyisblue rule, because the average person does not and can. it clarify how the country of production material works. And I've asked this to be provided, even in broad terms and neither of you have provided it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, please do. it removed citations as you have done here saying they are disputed. What makes these unreliable? It's an entire can of worms to call them unreliable Screen Daily and Kinema Junpo. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say "unreliable", I said "disputed". We do not need to cite every source in any article. If your issue is that the sources "contradict" each other by way of one of them not being as complete as the other, then obviously the issue is to remove the incomplete sources that were not thorough about their coverage. Thus the "contradiction" in the sources does not exist. Now, I don't think this is really necessary, in fact I think it's absurd, but hey, if that was gonna stop this argument, then whatever. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to WP:DRN. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe presuming one to be "incomplete" is an issue. Can you show examples of how these sources have left material incomplete? I'm not trying to do this to challenge you or say my view is right over anyones, but I do believe it would be a mistake to say these are incomplete as I don't see any evidence suggesting that is why they do not include the other countries. For example, Kinema Junpo lists Barbarella as both an Italian and French production, so it does not appear to just drop countries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what the editorial standards of these sources look like behind the scenes and how they regularly decide what countries to list as producing countries, if they even have any consistent or rigorous standards for this in the first place. The fact is though that regardless of whatever they may have done with other films, they clearly omitted or overlooked information in this particular case, while the other sources did not overlook that information.

Why they would overlook it, I don't know. Probably because to the layperson, Sonic 3 is an American film, and the American producers are the most visible parties. The sources probably just assumed, "oh yeah, the Hollywood Sonic film" and didn't interrogate the matter any further. I don't find this terribly mysterious or confusing. Reputable sources omit or overlook facts all the time.

I also really don't understand the WP:WEIGHT argument that you've made, because it's not like we're arguing that Sonic 3 is more of a Japanese film than an American one, or written anything implying that in the article. What would actually be such a violation, in my view, would be if there was a disproportionate amount of information about Marza's work on the film added to the article relative to the information about the work of the other production houses, implying that Marza was somehow more important or integral to the production than they really were. But there's no such imbalance to scrutinize here; it's just the name of a country added to the infobox, which doesn't particularly imply anything. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The weight argument is specifically that we must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". In this case, we are applying that the two sources you have suggested are correct, while the other two are simply missing the information. As there is no evidence of this outside our own research and assumptions on why it may or may not be missing, we can't assume one is right or the other is wrong because as you said we don't know how any of these sources calculate or declare the nationality of this or any film. As one of your sources (Lumiere) states "defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records – and the statistics on which they are based – can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities." (here). This is why I asked earlier if you had any more concrete information that this is how it is for this film, as I'm only familiar with it based on the sources present and my own digging for it. While on my own for simplicity, my regular standard is to just state what you suggested "use the production companies and where they are based", Lumiere states that different regions have different rules for how this is managed. So to comply with weight, we can't just assume the others are "missing" info, because there is no evidence that they do this and none of our sources go into depth on this topic. When I asked you if there was, it wasn't a challenge to do so to say "this is how it is", I was just hoping you may have had some information I wasn't privy too to understand where you are coming from. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, as I believe both Barry and I have clarified already, we're not claiming that any of the sources are wrong, we're claiming that they're all correct. All of the sources state that the United States is a country of production, and they are all right. Some of the sources state that Japan is a country of production also, and they are also right. For there to be any issue with us giving weight to one perspective over another, the perspectives would actually have to be in contention- e.g., one of the sources would have to explicitly say something to the effect of "the ONLY country that produced this film was the United States" or "Japan IS NOT a country of production, contrary to what some other sources claim". If you can point us to a source of yours which asserts, in no uncertain terms, that Japan is not one of the film's production countries, rather than simply not expressing any position on the matter one way or the other, then we would be able to acknowledge a contradiction and discuss how to handle that. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

For me, two sites, (third if you want me to include Eiga.com, but I haven't really looked into the reliability of this site (i've seen it used as a source, but have not done any heavy lifting to really see its reliability by basic wikistandards.) have stated the United States as the sole production country. I believe I'm being misinterpreted saying Japan is not considered a production company, what I believe would be the more neutral approach is to say that some sources (as we have more than a few) state both countries, others strictly state the one. I believe we could probably just use a hatenote for readers stating some sources have qualified the film as both an American and Japanese production, others have only qualified it as an American production. This is what I had proposed earlier, I think it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. Perhaps listing both countries in the infobox and this clarification would be less misleading for readers? We can workshop how we'd like to phrase this statement if you both think this is a potential avenue to take this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this would be less neutral than simply stating both the US and Japan. We would be imposing an assumption of a viewpoint that the sources do not explicitly take. Once again, where in the source you gave does it say, "Note: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is an American-only production. No other countries were involved in the making of this film"? If it doesn't say that, then writing a footnote making it seem as if it does would be the actual WP:OR violation. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't see how its more neutral to ignore three valid sources that only list one country. The sources simply states the United States. As neither of the sources provided by either of us go more into depth on the topic per Wikipedia:Verifiability "The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Neither source does more than simply list the names of the countries involved, with no clarification on how this was conferred. I do not think it would be neutral to say one is more valid or "correct" than the other and no proof has been given that one simply "forgot" one. Maybe if it was just one source listing this it could be an outlier, but three?

I don't see what part of WP:OR applies, but if you could point that out, that would help me understand. While this isn't a rule and only an essay WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES suggests we clarify that sources disagree here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

But they don't disagree. I don't know how I can make this any clearer; the sources simply don't actually contradict each other. By your own admission, the sources that you're asserting are "contradictory" do not say anything more than "Production country: United States". They don't say "It was only the United States", they just say "United States". It's not even that the other sources say "Production country: Japan" and omit the United States, they say "United States and Japan". There's no contradiction, only an addition. They don't disagree. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I think this is how you think I see it: Two (or however many) sources are saying different things. I'm taking it that you are interpreting this as me taking sources that would state "Tails is a fox" and another saying "Tails is fox who can fly" and that I would be misleading to assert that with these sources, I should only state that Tails is a Fox, because one simply doesn't say he doesn't fly. This would be a more SKYISBLUE situation to me and I wouldn't approach it this way. In this case, this is categorization, I feel this is like genre (see MOS:FILMGENRE, where we have to apply WP:WEIGHT to the sources as the nationality appears to be somewhat subjective or how it was calculated is unclear and how it is presented is not clear.) As per WP:BALANCE "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." This, along with the complicated nature of film nationality, I'd see this as being interpreted in various ways:

• The sources all state United States, a few add Japan.
• The sources take into different credentials, with some considering it as a American and Japanese production, others do not.

I'm not sure how this should be applied as we do not know how this is applied, we shouldn't just interpret as them agreeing with each other because we don't know how any of them came to their conclusions outside our own assumptions. As its unclear how this should all be interpreted, I do not see any other logical way forward other than clarifying that sources disagree unless more detailed information can be found that directly discusses this topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I somewhat better understand what you're saying now. Then, I guess assume that it's true that they do in some way disagree on how to decide what a country of production is. But, if we don't know how exactly they disagree, if the disagreement is only implicit, then would not speculating that the disagreement exists and codifying the assumptions of the disagreement in the page qualify as OR? Would it not be more efficient and adherent to policy as written to just assume that both are correct in the way that Barry and I have suggested that we do? silviaASH (inquire within) 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for understanding. It's great to actually find some mutual ground on a wiki talk page and on the internet in general when we first were more conflicted. :) Especially on something as I wish was easier to find more information about in terms of film in general. I'd love to have "definitive" answer to how this should be classified, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

You bring up good points too. I might be wrong to imply they disagree, but they give different interpretations (It's not like Kinema Junpo said Lumiere was wrong or vice-versa). Maybe it would wrong to have a hatnote that said "sources disagree". Perhaps we should try to add a hatnote saying that "Some sources, such as Kinema Junpo and Screen Daily listed the film as only an American production, others such as Lumiere and The-Numbers listed it as both an American and Japanese co-production." I'm happy to include both countries in the infobox as I feel like this hatnote sort of clarifies this information is "muddy" at best and the reader can then come to their own conclusions. The inclusion of "Japan" doesn't seem to come out of leftfield with absolutely no grounds in reality as I feel the reasoning you both have suggested (and that I personally would agree with if it were just up to me to give a basic classification). I apologize for the long length of the conversation, but I think we're reaching a solution that should satisfy us both. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a note would probably be too much, since it'd complicate things for the average reader and give too much focus to the issue. I'm glad we've come to more of an understanding and I apologize if I have been a bit unclear myself. I also wish that sources would clarify these things better, but unfortunately sometimes that just can't be expected.

Since the article is up for GA nomination, how about we leave both countries in the infobox as they are for the time being, and wait to see if the eventual GA reviewer raises the issue? If they don't find a problem with the status quo, we can assume it's okay as is, but if they do, we could discuss it again with them and the other editors. This would leave the article stable for the time being until an uninvolved editor has a chance to evaluate the situation and then natural article development can take its course as need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Also minor sidenote, but I did just now take a second look at the Screen Daily source, and I think the use of it to confirm that the US is a production company is possibly slightly dubious since "United States" is only a content tag and not an entry in a "Production country" data field alongside the list of production companies (which does include Marza). Since the United States tag isn't actually part of the main article content, I think stronger verification there is probably ideal. We could add another source there or just reuse Lumiere/The Numbers.

I am also pondering how maybe a footnote could possibly be added clarifying for the reader that Japan is considered a production company because of Marza's involvement, but I don't really know how to do that in a manner that isn't possibly intrusive or confusing. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

First, good research on the Screen Daily item. I do not think they apply that as I didn't even notice it originally. :) I was going by the heading which says "US". The site also applies this for films that they do seem to label as co-productions, such as their review of Warfare which they label as both UK and US.

It's probably a different kettle of fish to read what exactly Screen Daily is saying here, but that might be an item to bring up on WP:FILM instead of just this section at the moment. As for clarifying the production companies, the MOS:FILM seems to be at odds with the Lumiere statement. It states per MOS:FILMLEAD, If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. (I've never been a big fan of this, as it seems to be going above and beyond how most films are discussed and is at odds with the Lumiere statement in the infobox template.)

As for including Marza in the hatnote there, normally I'd say sure, and I would presume that's why they are labeled as Japanese in those articles, but they don't say that's why they included them in the nationality. Its a shame, because on some older films, this was something a lot more cut and dry (i.e: Variety used to list the production companies, where they were from and apply the countries with that. They seem to do that less and less lately.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't do it now while the DRN case is still open, but yeah, maybe we should talk about some of this on WT:FILM once we're certain that all three of us agree the issue at hand is resolved. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tried to bring this up in the past, but as you can see, even on films which one would think are cut and dry like a major film production like this, the answers are not always cut and dry. Personally, I'm not a fan of including slightly subjective details in the infobox. While on many films it will be cut and dry, but as film becomes a far more global things in the 21st century, its really something that has grown less easy to parse. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Any form of hatnote would be unacceptable if it implies the possibility that the film is solely an American production, which is not the case.

Setting the sources aside for a moment, let's try to clarify why you are disputing this. You previously quoted WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C.

But it's completely acceptable to form conclusion C if it can be deduced solely from A and B.

With that in mind, with which part of the following logical progression do you disagree?

These two statements are true:

(a) Marza was a production company on the film.

(b) Marza is a Japanese company.

Therefore, a Japanese company was a production company on the film.

Therefore, Japan is a country of production. Barry Wom (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You are applying false logic Barry, the Lumiere statement above trumps the idea that its as simple as the production company being involved. And I've previously shared that here on your talk page. So your statements are true that Marza is a Japanese production company and they were one on this film, it is against SYNTH to imply this is a the only possiblity per the Lumiere statement. This isn't something I pulled out of my hat, and is even quoted on Template:Infobox film. If you want this to be applied, you'd have to find something more indepth that suggests that the statement is wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You are applying false logic Barry

I'll ask again - which part of the presented logic do you believe is false?

And the Lumiere statement somehow trumps a logical argument? As I've pointed out at my talk page (and please keep the discussion here from now on), Lumiere may well have had difficulty deciding the nationality of some films, but that of course doesn't imply that they have trouble deciding the nationality of every film. And in the case of this film, they presumably had no difficulty whatsoever. Barry Wom (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

If you can find more detailed contemporary information about how nationality is applied to a films, please provide it. The source gives a very straight statement that "There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to determine the country of origin of a film. and "Different national records and the statistics on which they are based can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.". In short, different sources can say different things on a films nationality, and we can not say one is wrong is more wrong or right. You can presume they had no trouble with this, but you have not provided anything to suggest that was the case. If you can verify that statement, go ahead, but you have not done so and we have several sources that include some countries and not others and we have nothing but original research to assume how they came to the conclusion because none of the sources we have provided outside Lumiere seem to provide a base on how they determine this information (unless anyone has evidence of this, if so, please share it!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think, most likely, that the evidence doesn't exist and until and unless it's found, the best policy is most likely to just stick to the source, which I think in this case means just saying both US and Japan. The lack of exact details in this regard may be disappointing, but I think rather than continue to debate over the unknowns of our sources' research processes, it's best to leave well enough alone. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem with Lumiere is that their goal is to determine the "nationality" of the film, and for them, "nationality" means the countries which provided finance. So the listing of Japan on Sonic 3 isn't to do with Marza as a production company, it's to do with the Japanese company Sega providing finance. What we try to do on Wikipedia is provide the "production country", which is the country of origin of the companies who produced the film. In the vast majority of cases, including this film, the production companies are obvious and can be gleaned from the credits. We then assign the countries of production to the countries of origin of those companies. There may well be cases where deciding which countries provided production facilities is more difficult, but in this case the production companies and hence countries of production are crystal clear and indisputable. Barry Wom (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but where are you getting most of this information from? "So the listing of Japan on Sonic 3 isn't to do with Marza as a production company, it's to do with the Japanese company Sega providing finance." Lumiere here does not even list the production companies or anything on who provided financing? You state that "In the vast majority of cases, including this film, the production companies are obvious and can be gleaned from the credits.", and while I do not have that handy, I'll assume good faith that the credits here are at least somewhat accurate and I don't see anything obvious there that declares the nationality of this film. (sometimes it is in some films, but not in this case). As for your statements like "We then assign the countries of production to the countries of origin of those companies.", there is nothing like this in MOS:FILM and template:infobox film states "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. So I do not mean to badger you about this, but I don't know where you get most of this information from and you have yet to provide any sources. When I do check what you suggest, it has generally not been what you have stated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

sourcing and improvements

@BarntToust:, can I ask what about the 3DVF interview source appeared unreliable? I couldn't find any past discussions about the site's reliability and it didn't look blatantly suspect, but I'm curious as to if I missed something about it. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I see no Wikipedia page clueing me in about the 3DVF source, I see no discussions either: there are other sources that we know about—that if not discussed at RS, at least have general info reported about them in reliable sources—those can be used to support the claims in the article. BarntToust 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, for sure, I wasn't asking cause I think it's necessary or anything. It's probably not useful for this article; if anything it'd probably be more helpful for the article on Marza themselves if anywhere at all. I was just curious if you had any particular reasoning beyond just not really needing it and having better sources. I might take 3DVF to the film WikiProject for a more thorough discussion later, since it's being used in a few other film articles and it's probably worth getting a consensus on at some point.

While we're talking, can I ask you what off the top of your head are things that need to be addressed about the current state of the article, other than resolving the production country dispute, before you would feel comfortable putting it up for GA? I'd like to help if I can. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes! by all metrics I am the top contributor to this article, and the onus of GA is placed upon me. SleepDeprivedGinger did a drive-by nom for that, and I had to shut that down just now. I have a GA up at nom right now, Gustavo Santaolalla, and I'd feel comfortable with letting that one get reviewed before I get into it with this one. After that one and this one, I'm nominating Wanderstop next and after that the dragon will crawl back into her lair, lol.

• I would definitely look out for A Minecraft Movie beating this one out for the spot of second-highest-grossing video game film of all time.
• I realise that this film's killer feature is "Two Jim Carreys and John Wick the Hedgehog", and the writing section goes into that with a due focus, but I'd love to see if coverage of other characters and how they were written can be written about anyway.
• Just let the country of origin stuff sort itself out. I don't wanna speculate, but I can see another content dispute popping up after this, because they tend to do that.

BarntToust 16:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I thank you truly for helping prep this for GA. I do, for whatever reason, like putting a lot of content on my plate all at one time, and having the help to address things is amazing! BarntToust 16:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

And given that at WP:DRN, of all places, there is an active case going on, I'd really like to have a week or two, a few weeks at most allotted as a cool-down period before I nom this. This article suffering two consecutive content disputes tells me it's not quite stable enough for GA yet. BarntToust 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:SilviaASH: when Robert's editing restriction on thee who are at DRN is lifted, about that ref from the American Cinematographer. If you still have access to the issue, can you add {{rp|page no.|quote=}} to the end of the <ref name="american-cinematographer" /> references, with page numbers and quotes for the info cited? It's not required, but it would be cool anyhow. It should look like:
Trost said that Murphy "had to understand [Carrey]'s performance inside and out" in order to convincingly perform. It's just something I noticed for a ref on Daredevil: Born Again season 1 and I think it'd be great here. Thanks! BarntToust 15:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Put an edit request for it down below!

If you want to have a look at the source yourself while we wait for the dispute discussion process to play out, here's the Wikipedia Library permalink for it: [1] silviaASH (inquire within) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

aye, I can take a look via the permalink! BarntToust 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2025

reworded plot summary

A meteorite containing the alien hedgehog Shadow crash-lands in Oklahoma and is seized by the U.S. military. Shadow's power is experimented on by Professor Gerald Robotnik at a Guardian Units of Nations (G.U.N.) research facility under the supervision of Captain Walters; Shadow also develops a close friendship with Maria, Gerald's granddaughter. One night, as Gerald, Maria, and Shadow try to escape the facility to prevent Shadow from being taken away, Maria is accidentally killed in an explosion. Walters shuts down the facility, imprisons Gerald, and places Shadow in suspended animation. Fifty years later, in 2024, an unknown individual hacks into a G.U.N. prison facility's system off the coast of Japan and releases a vengeful Shadow. In Green Hills, Montana, Sonic celebrates the anniversary of his arrival on Earth with Tails, Knuckles, and their adoptive parents Tom and Maddie Wachowski. G.U.N. Director Rockwell arrives and recruits Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles (dubbed "Team Sonic") to help apprehend Shadow in Tokyo. However, he overpowers the three and escapes. Team Sonic meets with the now-Commander Walters, who informs them about Shadow's past. Suddenly, Dr. Ivo Robotnik's drones attack and fatally wound Walters, who gives Sonic a keycard before he dies. They decide to find Shadow without G.U.N.'s help as Rockwell discovers the missing keycard and turns against them. Team Sonic encounters Ivo's assistant, Agent Stone, who denies involvement in the attack; they form an uneasy alliance with Ivo and track the stolen drones to the abandoned G.U.N. facility. Ivo encounters Gerald, his estranged grandfather and the mastermind behind Shadow's escape and the stolen drones, as Shadow captures the others. Gerald explains that the keycard is one of two needed to activate the Eclipse Cannon, an orbiting laser space weapon he designed for G.U.N. capable of targeting and destroying any location on Earth. He claims that he plans to use it to destroy G.U.N.'s headquarters in London to avenge Maria's death, and Ivo agrees to join him. Shadow takes the keycard from Tails and activates a miniature black hole to destroy the base as he, the Robotniks, and Stone leave. Team Sonic escapes using a ring portal and recruits Tom and Maddie to steal the second keycard from G.U.N.'s headquarters, contending with the Robotniks and Rockwell. Tom successfully obtains the keycard by disguising himself as Walters, but Shadow buys his disguise, gravely wounds him, and takes the key, allowing the Robotniks to launch the Eclipse Cannon. Enraged, Sonic abandons Tails and Knuckles, steals the Master Emerald, and becomes superpowered using the seven Chaos Emeralds contained within. Sonic confronts Shadow, who also absorbs the Chaos Emeralds' energy to become superpowered. Sonic eventually overpowers Shadow but relents upon realizing he was being consumed by revenge. Sonic tells Shadow about the loss of his guardian Longclaw and that their love for the people they have lost is more important than revenge. Having a change of heart, Shadow agrees to help stop the cannon. Aboard the Eclipse Cannon, Gerald intends to destroy Earth to avenge Maria's death. A horrified Ivo attempts to abort the firing sequence, preferring to rule over humanity rather than destroy it, but Gerald destroys the command console. Tails and Knuckles arrive, and the three knock Gerald into the reactor core, killing him. Sonic and Shadow block the cannon's beam as Ivo, Tails, and Knuckles steer it away from Earth, accidentally slicing off part of the Moon. Sonic loses his superpowered form and consciousness while blocking the cannon's beam with Shadow and falls back to Earth. Tails and Knuckles save Sonic using a ring portal to Green Hills. When the cannon’s core begins to melt down, Ivo makes a final announcement acknowledging Stone as his only friend before he and Shadow sacrifice themselves to move it away from Earth before it explodes. Sonic reconciles with Tails and Knuckles while Tom recovers from his injuries. During a race with Tails and Knuckles, Sonic accidentally ends up in New York and is ambushed by an army of Metal Sonic robots but is saved by Amy Rose. Elsewhere, Shadow has survived the cannon's destruction. During a race with Tails and Knuckles, Sonic accidentally ends up in New York and is ambushed by an army of Metal Sonic robots but is saved by Amy Rose. Elsewhere, Shadow has survived the cannon's destruction. . 2601:243:2100:5AC0:11B4:E735:A894:1595 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: the backstory is mentioned first not just because it happens first chronologically, but mainly for easier reading access. Grouping it with another paragraph makes it unnecessarily more difficult to read. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done: Refactored request is reasonable. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protect edit request 2

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

During a race with Tails and Knuckles, 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 with-colored Metal Sonics, 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)

 Not done I understand what you mean; having watched the film multiple times, I have noticed how the additional Metal Sonics are differently colored and look like they're meant to be differentiated visually from the "main" metal Sonic. However, this would be an unsuitable degree of detail for a plot summary, as this is something which to my knowledge only closely attentive fans have noticed and shown an interest in, and I don't think any reliable source has covered it. If you can find a reliable source mentioning it, you may provide it. It won't guarantee a mention of this detail, but it will make it more likely that one is considered. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protect edit request 3

During a race with Tails and Knuckles, 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 with-colored Metal Sonics, but is saved by Amy Rose. Later, it is shown that Shadow survived the cannon's destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:2100:5AC0:2C45:C2C7:B574:8AB1 (talk) 23:43, April 7, 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BarntToust 00:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

They wanted it to be specified in the plot summary that the army of Metal Sonics in the credits scene are a different color from the main Metal Sonic, which has been taken by fans to hint that there's some kind of distinction between them and the main Metal Sonic is the original or master one or whatever. I already declined to implement this since, as I stated above, it's a fairly minor detail and only of interest to fan theorizing about Sonic 4. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

the term of other with-colored Metal Sonics doesn't even make sense. probably meant to be "with other-colored", but still as silviaASH said before, this is too trivial to mention. BarntToust 13:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request on April 9, 2025

Pursuant to BarntToust's request for the page number and quote above:

Make the following wikicode change in the "Filming and voice recording" section:

Change

Trost said that Murphy "had to understand [Carrey]'s performance inside and out" in order to convincingly perform.<ref name="american-cinematographer" />

To

Trost said that Murphy "had to understand [Carrey]'s performance inside and out" in order to convincingly perform.<ref name="american-cinematographer" />{{rp|page=58|quote=Brendan Murphy, a great acting double for Jim, was involved in every [Sonic 3] rehearsal, every conversation, every workshop of the scene. He had to understand Jim’s performance inside and out — and sometimes even anticipate what he might do.}}

Requesting this change here as I should not currently be directly editing the article myself while I am engaged in the ongoing dispute resolution discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I looked at all the places where the refs are used, and I think it's best to just keep the cites the way they are. To do them all would amount probably to copyvio, and I wouldn't have only the refs that require short quotes and leave out the quotations that go on for a long time. BarntToust 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 4

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 Sonics, 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)