Talk:Rio (franchise)

Status of 3rd film
@2600:1008:b037:5bc4:5c1a:dc37:8737:2f8e Can you explain why you've removed the clarifying line about the status of the 3rd main-series film? I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be there, unless you believe it's somehow untrue. This appears like the 4th time you've made this edit with no summary. FEZfan (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm an outsider who doesn't care about the subject matter, to be clear, so I don't have a bias on the content. That said, the line "" probably shouldn't be used in the article unless you have a source that is claiming this, and if you do, then it should say "according to X Magazine, no other information has been released", instead of saying in Wikipedia's voice.  This falls under "You can't prove a negative".  You can't prove that no information has been released, only that you haven't seen it, which is not the same thing.  It is unnecessarily superfluous.  Since you can't prove directly that no other info was released, that kind of makes it original research, and should be avoided.  This isn't an opinion on how it sounds, this is my understanding of the policies on editing here.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 04:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And even if one cited X Magazine, one would have to site the date. The article is not automatically updated if some piece of promotion is released. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, but without the line the previous paragraph makes it seem like the film is officially confirmed to be in development. Is there some other way to structure the section such that it doesn't make such an absolute negative statement, but doesn't make the film out to be more than a comment in a 2-year-old production document? (I would personally be ok with removing the section entirely). As for a source, unfortunately I don't believe any reputable publication has reported on the possibility of the film's development at all. FEZfan (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "a comment in a 2-year-old production document" seems to be precisely what the section says it is. About the only other thing I could suggest is the adding of the word "possible" to the header. Possible third Rio film (we needn't say "untitled"; just because we don't know the title doesn't mean it doesn't have one.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since this is all talking about things that didn't come to pass, I'm not sure it needs to be included at all. Dennis Brown 2&cent; 23:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An animation script that was being written two years ago is unlikely to have come to pass already so that's not a sign of its non-existence, and we commonly list in film articles sequels that were publicly stated to have been in development but never reached production. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)