Talk:Rio (franchise)

@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 "No information or promotional material on the film has been released since." 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¢ 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¢ 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)

  There have been recent repeated attempts to add claims about a third film. Per WP:NFF, we don't include suggestions that such a thing is an actual film until the animation process has begun. We have no sources indicating it, so it should not be on the list of films any more than Rio 4, 7, or 2032 should be. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  but there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Rio 3 was cancelled. ~2025-35877-18 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to have been canceled to not be included. Most scripts that are made for the big studios never get turned into a film. We have mention that a possible third film was in early development; that is not enough to have it included in a list of actual projects, per our guidelines on dealing with future films. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

An editor has been repeatedly inserting a claim that the third film in early development is without Blue Sky's involvement. Problem is, we don't know that that's true. Clearly, Blue Sky does not continue to be involved in any development that may be happening. However, we don't have any sources telling us when development started on this; that something was stated as being in development in 2022 does not mean that development had not yet started in 2021, before Blue Sky closed. We should not be making this claim without a source to back it up. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@CallahanKieranKiki420: You just added yet again material claiming Rio 3 as an actual film in progress. However, the one new source you added, which is from 2 years ago, makes no claim about production except to say that two years before that, another article notes that the sources we've already used said that another Rio franchise script was being written. That's all. There's no new info, no sign of any effort occurring for over 4 years now, much less that an actual film release is pending. This is sufficient information for saying in the body of the article that another film was at least considered; as discussed above, it is not enough to claim that there actually will be another film in the franchise, and not enough to be worthy of inclusion in the infobox. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)