Talk:Shrek

Characters shown on the poster?

Should the characters of Shrek, Donkey, Fiona, and the dragon have their own pages? They're fictional characters from the real world, much like other characters with their own pages. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 10:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

May be stretching it with Dragon, considering she looks like a blob on the cover due to the low quality, but you should be fine to create pages for these characters if you makes sure to add a {{Conjecture}} template. However, you would have to use "(fictional character)" as a dab term instead of "(Shrek)", as we don't cover Shrek.

Epsilon📯 📂

12:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, why would these characters even need a page if this is their only appearance? Secondly, isn't that breaking some sort of rule about putting real-world information onto pages as their counterparts in the DWU could be completely different. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 12:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The above is true: T:NO RW. When in doubt, ask an admin. Shambala108 ☎ 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@DrWHOCorrieFan - we don't decide to create pages based upon notability on this Wiki. One appearance, no, even a mention is more than enough grounds to create a page. Also, we wouldn't be using any real world information on these pages other than their names, which is expressly allowed so long as we mark the page with {{Conjecture}}: we have a massive amount of precendent, and none of it breaks T:NO RW.

@Shambala108 - users are perfectly allowed to ask other non-admin users for advice. Admins, while of course extremely knowledgable, are not of a higher rank than other equally-knowledgable non-admins.

Epsilon📯 📂

14:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@User:Epsilon the Eternal while your second comment is certainly true, new users have no way of knowing how experienced and knowledgeable a non-admin user is. I've seen many relatively new users give (incorrect) advice to other new users in my time on this wiki. It's easier to ask an admin, who are listed on the page I cited, and who are marked by the different font color and size of our names. I never made any direct or indirect statement that admins are "of a higher rank" than others. As an admin I often use my discussion comments to educate users. No need to read more into my comments or take offense. Shambala108 ☎ 14:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough @Shambala108, I didn't consider non-regular users giving out advice. Sorry if any offense was caused by my comment.

Epsilon📯 📂

14:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What about the background castle?

This is really stretching it, but is the castle in the background technically considered valid as a fictional location from the real world? Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You can barely see it so I'd say it doesn't warrant a page. But then again, we do have a page for the number -271.3. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 19:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I do believe that, considering the obscurity of some pages, Duloc deserves a page with a {{conjecture}} template. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant Dragon's Keep. Also, I've made the page - is it capitalised in the film? WikiShrek capitalised it as "Dragon's Keep". Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This is becoming increasingly more bizarre. These pages certainly must break T:NO RW? These characters are not named in any source material and, although I know about the {{Conjecture}} tag, it doesn't change the fact that the pages would only house real world information too. The Shrek poster in the episode is never stated to be for a movie... it is our knowledge of the movie's existence in the real world that presents us with that information. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, you cannot even see the Dragon's Keep on the poster in the episode - rather a grey blob - it is your knowledge that it is there in the real world poster that has led to the page's creation. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen the kind of stuff that does have a page? The poster shows a version of those characters and the location to exist in-universe. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 11:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Pages like these are why this Wiki is a laughing stock on social media. You cannot see the location at all in the episode, nor can you give any worth information about it. None of these pages are necessary. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 12:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that creating pages for Dragon (fictional character) and Dragon's Keep was probably too far considering how indistinguishable they are in the scene, the other pages did have some merit.

Epsilon📯 📂

14:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not in the slightest did they merit a page. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 14:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

T:EVIL TWIN mentions that "Since our inception, we've consistently proclaimed that no subject is "too small" for an article.", and its example for something that goes against common sense is an article for the N-word, not something considered 'too minor' in any way (I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but still). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 14:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't even know the name of these characters in universe, nor anything about them. These pages should be deleted. That is my final opinion and I will leave it to the admins to decide. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 15:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"We don't even know the name of these characters in universe"DrWHOCorrieFan

That is kinda the point of {{conjecture}}. Also, we don't need to know anything about them, just that they exist. Them just existing is grounds for a page, albeit in this instance, with Dragon (fictional character), we can barely see anything more than a blob, so there are cases when a page is too tenuous for existing.

Epsilon📯 📂

15:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of any specific examples? Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 16:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(also, just another note, you could tell that the 'blobs' were of something, it's just their names that are conjectural, at least in my opinion) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 18:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(just another note, when I asked for 'any specific examples', I was referring to your text saying "we can barely see anything more than a blob, so there are cases when a page is too tenuous for existing.") Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 01:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot deletion

The screenshot used for this as a visual representation of Shrek in the DWU was deleted for being blurry. Does anyone have a better image or does it only appear in a blurry state? If so, then surely it would be worth keeping as the only functional image for it. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 13:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Tardis:Guide to images states that we would rather have no image for a page than a blurry image. Shambala108 ☎ 13:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Bit of a shame, really. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)