Talk:Toy Story 3/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"And final" --> "And currently final"

For the third time I have once again changed "and final" to "and currently final". In that source, as well as saying they have no plans for Toy Story 4, LU also says "Now there may be more opportunities for Woody and Buzz in the future, but we don't have any plans for that right now" and then, days later, he announces the Toy Story short film (in front of Cars 2) indicating that things had changed quickly for that. Therefore, since things like this can change easily (the may decide to make Toy Story 4), I am keeping it in this wording to state the obvious in case this happens. This is also further notified by the reference on the franchise page that mentions Tim Allen having signed on for any TS4. trainfan01 talk 14:31, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Mild approve ... the source does leave the door open for another movie, and it does not explicitly say one will never be made. Just nothing in mind right now. --McDoobAU93 03:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree - "Currently final" should be the wording. Jusdafax 04:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree per the concerns by Justdafax and Trainfan01. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Week agree Unless you have a binding contract with the brand owners they can release another movie in the series any time they like. Saying it's the final and sticking to that can lead to a version of "The fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's Trilogy" that's intended to be taken seriously. On the other hand, what does it matter? Today it's the last instalment, if later it's not then we change the entry. Kiore (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree The phrasing is awkward and there's no reason we can't note that the producers have indicated an interest in an as yet unspecified project down the line (Tim Allen's signing, etc.). There's also not reason we can't simply alter the text should an announcement be made regarding the same; we do this all the time for release dates, shooting schedules, etc. Personally, I would leave the phrase at "and final" and add a clause to the sentence noting LU's comments or something similar (of course said sentnece would also have to be added to the body of the article to warrant inclusion in the lead). But seriously, "and currently final" is awkward. Millahnna (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree As long as they don't actually officially announce a Toy Story 4, let's just keep our wording here as "and final" because we can change it later to add "third of four films" or something like that. Saying "and currently final" really makes it seem like Wikipedia or one of its editors is desperately wanting a fourth Toy Story film. dogman15 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note Never edited this article before but responding to PC request. I have just rejected an IP's change for currently final to final and removed the ambiguity altogether with It is the third feature-length film in the Toy Story series. The ref makes it clear that future projects have not been completely ruled out; seems to me by not mentioning the word final at all we will avoid an unnecessary amount of reviews for the same change. Pol430 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that move. Well-handled. --McDoobAU93 05:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree So obvious I can't believe none of us thought of it. Nice. Millahnna (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Easter Eggs section

Ususlly, in a film there are many hidden pieces that you have to look for. (Example, Buzz's battaries are Buy-N-Large branded, a significant part of the Wall-E movie.) Pixar seems to do this a lot.

I think that there should be a section because I know there are a lot more hidden eggs but I still need to find them. Do you think the we (Or I) should create a section?

(Found another one, the truck that Lotso, Big Baby and Chuckles rode on the bumper of is the same Pizza Planet truck found in the first movie.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.119.184 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That can be placed in the List of Pixar film references article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Where was A113? Mcoov (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A113 was the license plate of Andy's mom's car (see A113#Pixar_films). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Push?

I am considering a push on this article for at least GA status. If there are any issues that we need to deal with before we take this to GA, let me know here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There were a few points in the Lead Section that wasn't really needed there. They digressed a lot from the topic. So, I edited them out. You can see the changes that I made here. If at all you think that my edits were wrong, you can revert it. I'm cool with it ; ) And, I'm with you to push this article to the GA status. Halemane (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Set in Michigan?

Article is under the category of "Films set in Michigan"...where is this confirmed? I was always under the assumption that the setting was never made explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.209.93 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I removed the category. I searched the article for any mention of "Michigan," and the only appearance of the word was in the aforementioned category. If someone has reliable information that the film is set there (either by direct mention within the film or an interview with the filmmakers saying "We set the film in Michigan because insert filmmaker lived there"), and that information is cited and added into the article, then perhaps it could be added. --McDoobAU93 19:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Factor in 3D?

I've heard a lot of talk that TS3 only did so well because of the 3D. It appears that your average 3D ticket sells for nearly twice as much as a normal ticket. Considering the fact that the majority or close to that goes to see big movies like this in 3D suggests that there could be something to these accusations. Remove the 3D factor by slicing the total gross in half, and you get a about $518 million. This is a little lower than what it would have gotten since there were 2D tickets sold as well, but adjust the division slightly, and the calculations suggest that if less than the majority of moviegoers saw it in 3D, Shrek 2 would have retained its title as "#1 animated movie of all time". Is that worth mentioning?Ntr11023 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Right now it's nothing but original research on your part. Without proper citations from reliable sources to back up your theoretical figures, no, it should not be mentioned. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If anything, the added cost of a 3D ticket is no different than the general inflation in the cost of a regular movie ticket. Gone With the Wind made a now-modest $198.5 million in its many releases and re-releases, and many of those were during periods when movie tickets were maybe 10c, 20c, etc. When adjusted for inflation, Gone With the Wind blows away (no pun intended) Avatar's domestic take by a factor of 2:1. Check out this list for more information. (All that said, FennShysa is right; your "slicing the total gross in half" would indeed be original thought, and thus not appropriate.) --McDoobAU93 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I can understand that totally. I mean, my first time in a movie theater was 2D. But I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and it blew me away.

Image

I changed the image of this article, just for a change and we'll see if it works out! If anyone has questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks Monkeys 9711 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessarily long box office section

First off, this movie made 1,063 billion, not million, so change that under the gross thing. This article is long as it is. Do we really need a section about the movie's box office results in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, United States and Canada? This text is basically only about numbers and that the movie was a universal box office success has already been stated (repeatedly) in the reception and in the beginning of the box office performance section.

My suggestion is that we try to short it down a bit. We don't need a sub-section about the movie's box office performance in every continent, for example. Besides, this article is way longer than other wikipedia articles about animated features from the same year, such as How to Train Your Dragon and Despicable Me. Wikipedia should not give the impression of having extra extensive articles about certain movies simply because they are more hyped.


--Carlminez (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The box office section has more text than another other section combined. Featured film articles don't display a detailed box office like this. This is taking "worldwide view" to the extreme. —Mike Allen 06:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


It is 1,063 million. 1 million times 1,063 is 1,063,000,000. But you should change it to the full number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benschar (talk • contribs) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sequel...

On Wednesday June 29, 2011 Tom Hanks revealed a fourth film in Pixar's Toy Story franchise is on the way, the Herald Sun reports. He disclosed this while speaking to the BBC about his new film Larry Crowne, Hanks voiced the cowboy doll Woody in the series' three films to date. When asked if there would be a Toy Story 4. Hanks said it was already in the works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.182 (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Toy Story 4" become Time Travelling Film

Pixar add a story to "Toy Story 4" is a Time Travel film about Toys set off in a Time Travelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.212.34 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You even have a source for that? 50.46.237.146 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

3D Blu-ray

In the Home media section it states "No 3D version of the Blu-ray has been announced."

Blu-ray.com announced on 8/19/11 that 3D Blu-ray editions of all three Toy Story films will be released on 11/1/11: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=7144 The three films will be available individually as Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital copy combo packs or packaged together in "The Complete 3D Toy Story Collection" set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.137.250 (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable review from "Lumino Magazine"

Resolved
 – Non-notable review should be removed from the article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a removal of the review from Lumino Magazine (http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/content/view/3118/4) as it looks like that the page and its review are not notable enough. Wikipedia has already reached consensus that Lumino Magazine is not notable enough to have its own page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumino Magazine --Carniolus (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, just because a magazine or a critic may not be notable doesn't necessary prevent the source from being considered reliable to use in WP.
That said, next to all the bigger names already cited in the critics section, and the little difference this one review offers from the current popular opinion, it is definitely unnecessary to have. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I also support removing it, since it is not one of the bigger names cited in the critics section and difference the review offers here. The review is absolutely unnecessary in this case. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with Japanese transliteration

In the Marketing section, I added the Japanese name for Lots O Huggin bear as shown in the Japanese version of the faux ad. I work on an iPad, and unfortunately, since google's transliterator (not the translator) is not working, I am forced to write the translated Japanese words. Can anybody do the following thing?

1. Go to www.google.com/transliterate.

2. select Japanese from the languages in the drop down box.

3. Type "Haga haga bear chan"

4. Open the marketing section of Toy Story 3, and replace the word written in japanese with the one provided by the transliterator.

If anybody does this, please notify me in my talk page- I am User:Nairmayukh. i will award a star to the friendly editor whosoever.

Cheers, --Nairmayukh-your ever-friendly co-Wikipedian. (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


"Neutral language"

Hello there,

Someone sent me a link to this some weeks ago and it's about how Wikipedia is trying to use 'neutral language' in critical reception for films and not "critically acclaimed" or "universally panned". (See here for the discussion: this discussion at WikiProject Film )

I have been editing pages that have 'acclaim' or 'panned' in them and changing it simply to either 'positive reviews' or 'negative reviews'. The same goes for the Toy Story pages, but editors on Toy Story 3 are reverted my edit with a little note to 'Anchor Critics', I've looked that up on Wikipedia and I can't find anything. But whenever I revert it back I put in the link to the "WikiProject Film" discussion. Which you can read for yourself.

The 'neutral language' is about showing that a film gets just 'positive' or 'negative', there is no special treatment or no EXTRA word (e.g., acclaim, panned).

Charlr6 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add that I agree that terms like "universally acclaimed/panned" are undesirable. We should use terms which state the facts in neutral, encyclopaedic language, not "peacock" sounding terms which give the impression we are making our own judgements. Begoon talk 14:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
For example, what would we write in the 'reception' of a film if it gets negative reviews by critics but the film earns a cult following? Do we say "Negative reviews, but earned a cult following that acclaim it"? No, we would just mention that it gets 'negative reviews and a cult following'. Not how many 'followers' of the film there is. Charlr6 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also "panned" is slang. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
I'm going for "very positive reviews" in this case. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. This is very lukewarm language - if I read that a movie got "very positive" or "mostly positive" reviews, I'd think that it got 75% on Rotten Tomatoes, not 90% or above. The language is not proportionate to the amount of praise the film has received. Don't you think that "overwhelmingly positive" or "near-unanimously positive" would be better? This is the kind of edit a person would make if they didn't like the film. 67.188.133.142 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Crying

It would be nice if this article contained more information about the sentimental aspect of the film. I remember that being a big story in the news; how much people were crying at the end and how little it was expected from an animated film (a sequel at that). Just an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Monkey's voice actor

I never heard Lee do animal sounds before, I don't think it was him in the film that voiced him. I kinda think it sounds more like Frank Welker that voiced The Monkey in the film, because Frank can do all kinds of animal sounds. FrozenFan2 (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Image of Woody and the incinerator

I have to question whether the image of Woody and the incinerator is really appropriate here, especially since there are multiple other fair use images in the article. Saying that the scene uses "special effects, photography, and music to emphasize drama" isn't really saying anything significant, since the same could be said for the climax of pretty much any other animated film. I believe that Wikipedia actually has a limit of two fair use images per article, although I'm not familiar with the exact policy. --Jpcase (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone actively watching this page? I'll wait a little while longer before doing anything, but unless somebody voices an objection, I'll go ahead and remove the image. --Jpcase (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I've gone ahead and removed the image. If anyone has an objection, please ping me and we can discuss. --Jpcase (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I had the same thoughts when I noticed it a while back - the image seemed unnecessary, and the caption sounded very generic. When I checked the cited source, I saw that it specifically mentioned the incinerator scene in the context of pushing the technology behind the movie, and another editor had previously reverted the image's removal (full disclosure: by an IP, without explanation), so I left it in place. All that being said, the source doesn't exactly support the caption, and it's still too generic to justify the image, so I'm fine with your removal of it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Trash Truck driver... an adult syd?

How do you know that the trash truck driver is an adult sid philips? that is never mentioned in the movie, not even the toys mention anything about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Change "Positive reviews" to "Critical Acclaim"

Hi, Toy Story 3 is an amazing film. It is only one of three animated movies to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It has been widely lauded as one of the greatest animated films of all time by critics and audiences alike. Rotten Tomatoes has given it a 99% rating, IMDB gave it an 8.4/10 and Metacritic gave it a score of 92%.

I truly find it hard to believe that a film that has been praised and acclaimed by so many different people from all over the world only received positive reviews. I urge wikipedia to change the "positive reviews" at the critical reception section to "Critical Acclaim" or "Universal Critical Acclaim".

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.90.82 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Critical response" section says that "Toy Story 3 received very positive reviews.", which seems to me to be an appropriately strong statement. The section then goes on to enumerate what "very positive" means. To substitute "universal" is to make the statement too strong, as 99% is not universal. Is "critical acclaim" appropriately and indisputably stronger? Dhtwiki (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Universal critical acclaim" would mean that EVERY critic in the world LOVED the film. If this were true (which it isn't), there would be no way to source it. Rotten Tomatoes 99% means 99% of critics (surveyed by RT...not all critics everywhere, of course) gave it better than average reviews (from "Gee, it wasn't bad" to "OMG, this is the greatest film EVRRRRRRR!!!") 1% of critics gave it negative reviews (somewhere between "Most films are better than this" to "Holy crap, that sucks.") That 1% means reviews were not universally positive, let alone "acclaim". As for "very positive", vs. "positive" vs. "critical acclaim", it's a matter of opinion. By "opinion", of course, we mean WP:POV. As a radical suggestion, how about instead of combining what the review aggregators say into a new statement that neither on gives we say what the sources say? In addition to the advantage of not having to arrive at a consensus POV, it is actually verifiable. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Toy Story 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toy Story 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Toy Story 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toy Story 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Toy Story 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

The first paragraph is badly written - beyond the director, it is not clear who fulfilled what role from this:

"It was directed by Lee Unkrich, the editor of the first two films and the co-director of Toy Story 2, written by Michael Arndt, while Unkrich wrote the story along with John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton, respectively, director and co-writer of the first two films."

I do not know how to correct it, as I do not know the correct information. Was the story written by Michael Arndt, Unkrich, Lasseter or Stanton? I'd recommend a total re-write of this part of the entry. 2A00:23C5:1202:C700:518C:7DD8:A8C9:BF8E (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2020 (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. Aasim 04:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: The part of the quoted article sentence that is confusing to me is, if the film was "written by Michael Arndt", what constituted "Unkrich wrote the story along with John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton"? Maybe Arndt wrote the dialog, or shooting script, on the basis of the others' notes on themes and dramatic arcs. However, I, too, don't know enough to rewrite the sentence with confidence. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

World premiere at Taormina Film Fest?

The article states that the full-length film premiered at the Taormina Film Fest in June 2010... however, sources I found from Collider, ComingSoon.net, Den of Geek, and much more tell a different story, that it premiered at ShoWest on March 17, 2010. What is going on? HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Dead link.

This following link is dead:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2079149_2079152_2079171,00.html
Please tag it as dead {{404}} and leave the bots to add an archive copy. (It is in the first paragraph of Critical response.) The article is locked otherwise I'd have done it already. -- 109.76.203.103 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done – I've place a dead-link template. I looked for an archive snapshot. What I found didn't seem to provide the full list, but pressing the arrows eventually takes to this movie (11th place, one ahead of Toy Story itself). Dhtwiki (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. The page may still be available elsewhere on the Time website or it may have been moved behind their paywall. I've tried before to fix Time.com links but I wouldn't waste my time or ask anyone else to waste their time looking for it, an archive copy should be more than enough. -- 109.76.215.235 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Improve the plot 2600:6C42:6400:5EF7:2508:27F6:7A0E:EE2C (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2021 (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. Pahunkat (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

Iheartgatsby391 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Another mid-credits scene is that of Buzz fixing the spaceship Bonnie was using with Woody and her other toys, with the help of Totoro, while Jessie is with Bullseye by a radio and after she glances at Bullseye, he turns on the radio and Buzz suddenly dances the flamenco dance, even though he doesn't know how to do that dance(it's residual from his time as Spanish Buzz, but he has no recollection of his time as Evil Buzz and Spanish Buzz). He apologizes to Jessie, but she just tells him to embrace it and they dance together, while You've Got a Friend in Me plays in Spanish. The other toys dance in the background.

 Not done: We don't really list mid-credit scenes if they're not significant to the plot. Which this isn't. SkyWarrior 05:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Plot section messed up - others missing

The second edit with a Sept 13 timestamp messed up the Plot section of the article. In addition, the Voice Cast, Production, Release, and Reception sections are now missing. Recommend reverting to an earlier version of the article without these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.237.134.29 (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kendallgriffin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

To include a separate article Toy Story 3 (soundtrack) in the Music section. 27.58.137.156 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2022 (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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I've taken out some of the less-important info in that section and added a {{main}} hatnote on it. Hopefully that's what you meant. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

To remove infobox and track list as they were featured in the main soundtrack article. 27.58.137.156 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Terasail[✉️] 12:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Please add the following template to the article:

2601:241:300:B610:D80F:9308:353B:DFF7 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toy_Story_3/Archive_2&oldid=1214167940"