FANDOM

RRabbit42

aka Roger

Bureaucrat Admin
  • I live in the West coast of the US
  • My occupation is Technician
  • I am just zis guy, ya know?
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • 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! :)

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • 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?

      Loading editor
    Evilquoll
    Evilquoll closed this thread because:
    this thread has gone far off-topic
    14:15, September 22, 2019
    • View all 6 replies
    • This reply has been removed
    • This reply has been removed
  • Hey!

    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!

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Someone renamed my Whitebeard page and added on wheels to it.

    Can you fix it?

      Loading editor
    • I saw it about the same time and got it fixed. If it goes any further, I'll set a block.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi! You may have already seen it, but Fandom now has an official Discord server! You can chat about all things pop culture and ask your Fandom related questions there too. Here are the details! :)

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  •   Loading editor
  • 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.

    What do you think?

      Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi. I'm just dropping by to let you know that Fandom will be upgrading to a modern version of MediaWiki which could bring new extensions! More details can be found here! :)

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I missed seeing the full information of the character infoboxes

      Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • I wish there's an agreement to make things less complicated and all

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.