Hey RRabbit! How are you? I know the new Dreamworks movie Abominable premieres today and I wondered if you had any plans for the wiki and need help with anything. The movie looks awesome and sweet, can't wait to see it! :)
Hey, RRabbit42! That evil vandal Evilquoll awfully protect the DreamWorks template, because he is so EVIL! If you blocked Evilquoll, you can unprotect the DreamWorks template. Can you block him for me, please?
I blocked the template (for two weeks) because Red hair cannot seem to grasp the idea of "acquired intellectual property". And I don't see how preventing an edit war is "evil" or "vandalism". Since this user has a history of this kind of nonsense (he got blocked from the Pixar Wiki in 2014 for the same kind of thing), perhaps I should have blocked him instead? This is the old "everyone's out of step except me" attitude which is so undesirable amongst wiki editors...
So as before, you have already been introduced to Special:Analytics numerous times, but I'll leave some thoughts on how these statistics can influence Dreamworks Wiki.
The tool shows the majority of your readerbase view the wiki from mobile phones (55%). You can really help those readers out by adding a Mobile Main Page to the wiki to help those users navigate the wiki easier. :)
As usual, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me!
I proposed deletion of these because they strike me as being the same kind of thing as the debunked and derided "Pixar Theory", hence one of the worst kinds of fanon. Indeed, one of them claimed that Wallace & Gromit: the Curse of the Were-Rabbit was set in 2005, despite conspicuously using pre-decimal currency (which we stopped using on 15 February 1971), and 1960s values (a stick of candyfloss costs 6d; in 2005 it would be more like £1, 40 times as much). However, the setting also has LEDs and diode lasers, and Nick Park has stated that Wallace was born in 1959, making him only 7 in 1966 (the last pre-1971 year whose dates fit this movie) and only 12 in 1971. Hence I think it can be concluded only that this movie is set in an alternate universe which diverged from ours, and the exact date cannot meaningfully be fixed. How many other DreamWorks movies have this kind of problem?
However, I have received a response from the creator of one of the timeline articles attempting to justify it being kept. Bizarrely, he claims his timeline is as important as the Pixar one — which is precisely my view, although differing as to what that "importance" is, and is the reason I have proposed deleting the timelines.
I'll look at it more tonight, but one problem I see is Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas is set "20,000 to 21,000 years" after the two Bible-related stories, which would place them over 15,000 years in our future. That throws off the timing from How to Train Your Dragon on down.
I still haven't read through it fully, but at the top is "I feel that there is some sort of continuing timeline that strings them all together" and that makes it a personal opinion. I moved it into Baldwin17's blog and I'll answer the message he left for you.
Until DreamWorks issues a statement that they were aiming for a cohesive universe like Marvel's Cinematic Universe and the DWCU included all Aaardman films made during their partnership, this is fan fiction. But even if they did say that, attempting to come up with a complete timeline is complicated by the fact that the Chicken Run sequel is being made without DreamWorks.
I think this can stay in a blog. I tried doing something like this a long time ago with Transformers. That was at least 30 years ago, and back then I didn't know about how reboots, "reimaginings", sequels/prequels/midquels worked. It was tough enough as it was.
Regarding Were-Rabbit, if anyone does want to tie it down to a specific year, then they are engaging in fan fiction involving an alternate universe because of the mismatch in technology and currency, like you said. Many animated movies and TV shows deliberately don't give them a year because it isn't necessary to tell the story.
You're not alone feeling that way. The problem was people were making the infoboxes over-full and that's just about the only thing they were doing. Everything went into the infobox and almost nothing was being put on the page. It wound up being like a book where the table of contents is 50 pages long and then you get to the main part of the book and you see one sentence that reads "DreamWorks is a company."
So I made the decision to turn off sections of the infobox so that if people wanted to write things about the character, they'd actually have to write it outside of the infobox.
To my mind, the change to the character infobox did indeed make it less complicated; it reduced the infobox to the short summary it is supposed to be, forcing actual information to be in the article, where it belongs.
There is still at least one extreme case (albeit not a character article): The Trolls (Trolls) page consists only of an infobox, and has absolutely no other information whatsoever. This needs to be fixed.
Another problem which needs to be addressed is people applying excessive categories, instead of putting that information into the article. This includes applying nonsense categories, such as Villains without Villain Songs to characters in films which aren't musicals.