Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:24, 6 January 2025 editSilviaASH (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,703 edits →Superfluous addition to plot summary: changed list formatTag: 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:29, 6 January 2025 edit undoSilviaASH (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,703 edits →Superfluous addition to plot summary: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 181:		Line 181:

	As such I feel that "meteorite containing alien hedgehog" (without wikilinks to any of those terms) is sufficient, given that it quickly summarizes the context of Shadow's origins in this film's specific adaptational storyline, and anything else is probably too much. Before reverting Chance again, I wanted to open a dialogue here so that they might have the opportunity to argue for keeping their additions and other editors can weigh in. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 03:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)		As such I feel that "meteorite containing alien hedgehog" (without wikilinks to any of those terms) is sufficient, given that it quickly summarizes the context of Shadow's origins in this film's specific adaptational storyline, and anything else is probably too much. Before reverting Chance again, I wanted to open a dialogue here so that they might have the opportunity to argue for keeping their additions and other editors can weigh in. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 03:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			:(Chance has also made similar additions of links to the "Cast" section, such as wikilinking to ] and ] in Tails' and Knuckles' description, which I also feel is unnecessary for similar reasons- "fox" and "warrior" are common English words and we don't need to remind most readers of what those are, and once again, both characters have dedicated Misplaced Pages articles that are already linked to if anyone ''does'' actually need context for what they are.) ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:29, 6 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" film – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games: Sega Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[REDACTED]

This article is supported by the Sega task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates

List of generation II Pokémon (nom)
Kim Kitsuragi (nom)
Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom)
Ethan Winters (nom)
Fallout: New Vegas (nom)
The Legend of Dragoon (nom)

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

Sun Haven

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

December 15 to 21, 2024 (9th)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) at the Reference desk.

Typos in cast description

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are two typos in this passage: "Carrey said an intrinsic difference between Gerald and Ivo was that Ivo was from an older, tougher generation, describing him as as tough as 'the rock that he crawled out from under'." First, the word "as" is repeated. Second, Carrey said that *Gerald* is from an older, tougher generation. You can check the original source to confirm.

2600:1003:B139:8F51:18C0:9537:5DDF:70FB (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Regarding Release > Box Office Projections_Box_Office_Projections-20241218005500">

This isn’t intended to be a matter of preferring my own edits over anyone else’s; the reason I have continually insisted on that particular choice of words is because

a) the film was named as Sonic 3, and not Sonic the Hedgehog 3, which as far as I am aware is improper and there is no identical colloquialism identified in the introductory section

b) While the info will probably change anyway as the film opens, it’s better to highlight the film’s box office projections on their own rather than directly comparing them to Mufasa by saying it “beats its competitor” (paraphrasing). We shouldn’t be saying it “beat” anything until the numbers come in. Thus, I sought to acknowledge the two films open on the same day while highlighting the projections for Sonic 3 (when I refer to it as such, it’s fine, because these are informal discussion pages that don’t abide by all the same rules as an article). InedibleDevon (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)_Box_Office_Projections"> _Box_Office_Projections">

Info about sequel

Popcornfud, why did you remove "It is the sequel to Sonic the Hedgehog 2"? It was just fine the way it was until you just removed. That thing you removed was not an improvement. Did you unnecessary had to do that in the first place? No. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud removed it citing WP:DUH, which is the correct thing to do.
It was just fine the way it was until you just removed is not a legitimate argument for inclusion, @Mr.Shadow514. The reason this was removed is because it is glaringly obvious that 2 comes before 3, therefore cluttering up the opening paragraph with that would not be of encyclopedic value. Barnt Toust 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the WP:DUH guideline and it dosent say, "You can't say that it's the sequel to whatever it is". I know you guys are strict, but please. Your making it appear like where not allowed to say about being a sequel. I just hated it. Now i can't look at the article anymore thanks to you guys. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You pushed the same argument at the Sonic Adventure 2 article but it didn't get consensus there either... Popcornfud (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My other question is, why does everything have to be a rule on Misplaced Pages? What's the point. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh and what consensus are you talking about? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Another thing is, i removed other links, and instead keep the term "second film", and the link for the opening paragraph. So disappointed. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Another thing is that plenty of sequel articles use the term "It is the sequel to" something, but not anything about Sonic, which is just hypocrosy. You guys dont realize this huh? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about other articles. the number "2" coming before the number "3" is obvious. @Mr.Shadow514. Look, I skimmed over your personal talk page and I'm not particularly impressed by the low literacy of the english language you have been writing out, nor by the questionable contributions you are responsible for. Barnt Toust 00:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I get it, but it's not even a big deal to mention about being a sequel. But know you just removed it thinking it's a bad thing to say that in general and the guideline that Popcornfud sent me doesn't mention about being a sequel or that were not allowed to use that term. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And how the term about being a sequel is not an encyclopedic value? I just wanna know the whole reason. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Reeves as Shadow

what does singled out as a highlight mean for the sentence, "The film received positive reviews, with critical praise to Carrey's performances, while Reeves's portrayal of Shadow was singled out as a highlight."? 64.88.88.193 (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It means that Reeves as Shadow was heavily focused on and praised. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

But it's definitely a word salad. Popcornfud (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

okay thanks. The way singled out as a highlight was used confused me. 64.88.88.193 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis

The movie has already been released and had Thursday pre-show screenings at basically every major theater in the US. Deleting the synopsis until tomorrow is totally unnecessary and arbitrary. MaximumMadness2 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

UK release date does not match the one cited in the reference

The article claims that the UK release date is 21st December; the citation links to the Guardian's review, which says that the UK release date is the 27th. I cannot edit this myself because the article is protected. Gormuu (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The former is correct as I went to see it myself today in the UK, so I'm not sure why that the Guardian got that wrong, being such a big news source here - mistakes happen I suppose! The source should be changed to one that is correct. BasicEdit (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

THursday

press control F and search for thursday. one of those are Thursday, the other one is THursday. fix asap :) 12.4.11.58 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Notable things or not

Hello. Popcornfud. Im gonna ask you one simple question? What's with you obsession with removing stuff like being the third installment? Why because you act like it's not supposed to be in the article. Your making it look like were not allowed to say something about being a sequel or installment. What is with you and than. Just tell the whole reason. If one other specific thing can mentioned about being a sequel, but not Sonic, then it's hypocrosy. It's either that you don't understand or don't feel like it. It's notable about mentioning a sequel at the lead. Even of something was notable, why your always acting like it's not supposed to be in the lead? Just tell why are you so strict over one simple thing about being a sequel or installment? BTW Merry Christmas.Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I have to agree with Mr.Shadow514 that this should not have been removed. Per MOS:OPEN, the first paragraph "...should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". MOS:CONTEXTLINK applies too: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." The film series, in this case, is the broader topic under which this film falls. It's less about it being identifiable as a third film in general and more about a link-friendly context. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

In my view, if a sentence is going to exist in a Misplaced Pages article, it ideally ought to add information. The sentence in question contains no information, and only wastes the reader's time by restating what's already obvious — it goes without saying that the film Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is the third film in the Sonic the Hedgehog film series. It therefore doesn't serve the principle of MOS:OPEN, because "the set of circumstances or facts that surround it" are already clear.

Let's be clear. The actual function is to provide a wikilink to the page on the Sonic film series. That makes MOS:CONTEXTLINK the more convincing argument IMO, but if we're going to follow it to the letter and get that clunky "the film Sonic 3 is the third film blah blah" wording into the lead sentence, then let's at least accept that it comes at a cost: it's making our prose worse.

For a comparison, look at the way the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (game) page does it: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is a 1994 platform game developed and published by Sega for the Sega Genesis. Like previous Sonic games, players traverse side-scrolling levels while collecting rings and defeating enemies. That link to the Sonic game franchise has a prose reason to exist and isn't just dumped in there. Popcornfud (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We understand that. But still, mentioning about being a sequel is considered notable no matter what. Why do you have to be strict over every single thing? And why the term "It is the second installment or it is the sequel" provides no info? It should. It's not a rule. So please. Also, what Wikilink are your referring to? Just a question. Mentioning about being a sequel is not clunky. In your opinion, it is. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a waste of time. MOS:OPEN also says earlier, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic..." and it is only incidental that the title is obvious. We have to write such articles from an enduring perspective, not just today where everything is "obvious" from the ads and social media chatter. So to define the film's place in the film series and in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise does that. MOS:FIRST says, "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." I get the "duh" angle, but we have to write for the layperson. Maybe they learn about this film first and are curious about the whole series before going any further and click that series link. Maybe they don't. I don't care as much about how it's written as to provide access to the broader topics that are part of the interconnected whole of Misplaced Pages per MOS:BTW. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Erik is right, Popcornfud. You need to understand that. That's how the world works. You can't be strict over every single thing about mentioning installments or sequels even if Misplaced Pages isn't reliable. I know it's your view, but still. It's not a big deal. Like i said, if other any sequel articles can mentioned that it's a sequel to whatever something, but not about Sonic, then that’s the sign of hypocrosy. You should understand the whole thing about that. This is not how Misplaced Pages works. Even when I'm honest and when i'm telling the truth, your always with that strictness and disagreement into thinking everything should be a no, when clearly, it's not. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgable on Misplaced Pages's policies but I don't see how big a deal it is whether or not the lede prose mentions this sequel as a sequel. Neither have I ever heard some specific criteria where the predecessor to the sequel has to be mentioned. If anything, this lede was developed the way it is naturally. I guess there's value in a line like "the third installment in the Sonic the Hedgehog film series" but at the same time it's important the lede remains concise and not repeat too many subjects or the related.

Also Mr.Shadow514, Popcornfud has been editing since at least March 2011, and is following not their policy, but Misplaced Pages's policy. Their experience isn't to be taken for granted, and you shouldn't disrespect them calling them a hypocrite and all. Neither is making an argument like "That's how the world works." Not really any more constructive than accusing them of being strict just for a couple of slightly unimportant lines in the lede.

Lastly, this is the second section you opened over this matter, and it isn't any better in tone compared to the previous section. It's not a big deal to not mention this as a sequel to what either, so long as it doesn't bloat or repeat anything. Pinging previous user BarntToust, if she's interested in commenting here. Carlinal (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand you Carlinal, i didn't know calling a hypocrite was disrespectful. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, for uniquely titled films it's worth a mention in the opener. Like for the case of Across the Spider-Verse. "The sequel to Into the Spider-Verse, it is..."

For films in a series labeled simply as #1, #2, #3, it's sort of obvious that it is a sequel to the prior number. But links like that can provide directory to the related topic. Eh, I think it clutters up the opener and someone interested in #1 or #2 can type in the search box. Barnt Toust 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've reinstated a link to the film franchise article using as few words as possible. Hopefully this is acceptable as a compromise. Barry Wom (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks great. Thanks for the help! :) Carlinal (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Colleen O'Shaughnessy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plot bloat removed

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Not done: The refs currently indicate $210m.

Superfluous addition to plot summary

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

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

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

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

Categories: