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)

New image

I believe that the new image I have uploaded from the 'Dead Man Walking' Torchwood TV story is much clearer than the previous one. I think Dragon and, to an extent, Dragon's Keep, are more easily visible, though I can see how Dragon's Keep can still be a bit tenuous.

Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 13:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The subject isn't even the main focus of that image. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 16:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not really a valid point to make about an image. It fulfils the image policy, then it's fine. It may not have the Shrek poster in direct focus, but if it were, it would be too pixelated to be used.

Epsilon📯 📂

17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User:DrWHOCorrieFan is correct. At Tardis:Guide to images#Images must work as thumbnails, there is a section that states, "The picture should illustrate the thing it's supposed to be illustrating." Not only that, but at thumbnail, the poster is blurry, even though the main focus person is not as blurry. As difficult as it may be, we have to understand that not every page on the wiki can have an image. Shambala108 ☎ 20:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Could this image could be used for the individual seen in the image as well in future? It's the best image available, and it seemed appropriate for the page. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to attempt to resolve the "Dragon & Dragon's Keep" part of this discussion and shed some light on how we should think about this.

I agree that the image is too blurry to be used on the actual page, but it seems fine for purposes of looking at what we're discussing on this talk page. It should not be deleted, so that this discussion remains legible. However, it should not be posted in the main namespace to illustrate purported Dragon or Dragon's Keep pages.

(Whether a closer crop on the poster could used to illustrate Shrek itself in the absence of a better image… would be its own discussion. I think it might, if we care about the spirit of T:GTI rather than an overly strict reading of the letter. But now that we have established we can look at the poster on this talk page without necessarily posting in the main namespace — well — that question is not, actually, relevant to the present discussion about giving the fictional characters separate pages, and is very much an edge-case regardless.)

Back to the topic at hand. Looking at this image, I'm sorry, but that "Dragon" and "Dragon's Keep" are much, much too blurry. An objective observer who doesn't know what they're supposed to be looking at couldn't recognise that grey smudge, or the spiky red thing in the sky, as a castle and a dragon, let alone identify specific fictional characters from the real world. T:NO RW very much applies. The existence of a Shrek (fictional character) page at that namespace is a specific case of a conjectural title for a page that we would have grounds to have anyway. We need to have sufficient data to create Green ogre (Dead Man Walking) in the first place, before we even begin to think about bringing in that element of conjecture for the naming. Here, I think it's plain that we couldn't actually have Unnamed dragon (Dead Man Walking), or whatever. So an argument to identify the red blob as the Shrek character is null.

…In the in-universe sections, that is.

Because, let's take a step back. At the end of the day, what is the actual point of the suggested character pages? What value would they have added to our readers, or even to our abstract purpose as a repository of knowledge, that cannot be achieved just as easily by doing the common-sense thing, and just stating "very blurry images of Dragon and Dragon's Keep are also visible on the poster" in the BTS section of Shrek? (Or even in the BTS section of the general Dragon page, if you must.)

The interesting thing here, insofar as it's interesting, is the cultural reference to a real-world element, which is best described in BTS. The fact that "a blurry image of some red dragon, about which we can, per T:NO RW, know nothing else of import, was hanging somewhere in some Cardiff hospital on the day Owen Harper fought Death" is, in a purely in-universe sense, incredibly trivial. Might as well start making pages for individual trees in the background of the garden scenes in The Eleventh Hour and filling the BTS up with discussions of the genus of willow we think X or Y tree might be!

Summarised conclusions:

• Keep the image but, for now, don't use it in the main namespace.
• Keep Shrek and Shrek (fictional character). Probably Donkey (fictional character) and Fiona (fictional character) as well, though let's be clear they are not terribly useful pages and editing time might, in future, better be spent elsewhere.
• Delete Dragon (fictional character) and Dragon's Keep. Notes of their blurry cameo should be limited to the BTS section of Shrek or Dragon, and perhaps the "Story notes" of Dead Man Walking (TV story).

Thank you for reading. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense, though Dragon currently mentions it in the 'In culture' section of the page, so that may be best moved to the Behind the scenes section. Perhaps information on the shared VA could be on the Shrek page (in Behind the scenes). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Just wanna add, if these pages stay, my The Doctor (pig) page should be undeleted. They're roughly on the same level of frivolity. NightmareofEden ☎ 00:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that I ever had much opposition to that page's existence, personally; but no, one does not imply the other. However trivial, the Shrek poster is objectively seen in Dead Man Walking. It exists in the DWU; we can see it. "The Doctor (pig)" is a somewhat different situations on merits, because it's only a hypothetical. At any rate, if you genuinely want to agree for that page's restoration, in more than jest, then please proceed to Talk:The Doctor (pig). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Look, I just want that page. I don't really care much about the reason. Literally any reason, I just need that page. It was even deleted because "no need for a page for a non-existent character", but we literally have a category called "non-existent individuals". How do you explain that, eh?

Anyway, as for the Shrek debate, I'd like to point that Shrek isn't the only movie with a visible poster with characters on it in the DWU, so what does this imply for stuff like In the Heat of the Night, Dark Shadows, Love Actually, and possibly others, those are just the ones I noticed while skimming the "films from the real world" category? Should the characters visible on those posters also get articles? NightmareofEden ☎ 01:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that some characters from that list (especially in Love Actually) do deserve pages. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 15:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"a green woman with red hair"

Fiona appears as a human in this poster. (TV: Dead Man Walking)

The page for Fiona (fictional character) now refers to her as "a green woman with red hair", despite the fact that she appears to be a human in the poster. While I'm aware that Fiona later appears primarily as an Ogre, this isn't known in the slightest from the poster. Is the name because of her green dress? (also, side note, would this appearance of a dress be good enough to be mentioned in Dress?) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 10:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, well-spotted, my mistake. It's been corrected. (Though this should really have been at Talk:Fiona (fictional character)!) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)