User talk:GoneIn60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
User:GoneIn60
 
User talk:GoneIn60
 
Contributions
 
Crystal yast partitioner.png
Home
 
Talk
 
Contributions
 
Wiki Stats



Carolwood Pacific Railroad FAC[edit]

When you have a moment, I would like to see your input on the FAC page for the Carolwood Pacific Railroad here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carolwood Pacific Railroad/archive1. Per Sarastro, he wants someone to confirm whether the article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral. Once that's done, it will be ready for promotion. Jackdude101 talk cont 03:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Jackdude101 :-: Sure thing. I will try to get to it later today. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you a GP?[edit]

On the Gwazi article, you changed it back to “the” Invadr. Coaster enthusiasts should never use “the” before saying the name of a coaster unless it has “the” in the name (examples: “The Beast”, “The Joker”). Also Goliath at La Ronde shouldn’t be called a hyper coaster because neither its first drop or its lift hill are 200 feet or above. ROBLOXfan123 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

ROBLOXfan123: Placing "the" back in front of InvadR was unintentional. I went back and removed it. Speaking of Gwazi, you've now attempted to insert SBNO as the status on at least two occasions. See the discussion at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles, where it was decided to stop using that term. One of the main arguments is that fan jargon should be avoided when possible per WP:JARGON.
As for Goliath at La Ronde, I think you're confusing the fact that the B&M model is called "Hyper Coaster", which is what's listed in the infobox and on RCDB.com. However, you're right that is not classified as a hypercoaster, which is an industry term for roller coasters that are at least 200 ft tall. You can see this explained in the article at Goliath (La Ronde)#Track. The infobox entry you keep changing, by the way, is for the model not the classification.
And what's the deal with GP? What does that even stand for? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
GP stands for General Public. People who have no knowledge of roller coasters and think they are too dangerous and think a coaster is a copy of another coaster (example: They would say Kingda Ka is a copy of Top Thrill Dragster) would fall under that category. They even think Larson Superloops are roller coasters and that coaster trains can get stuck on a vertical loop. They call inversions loop de loops. ROBLOXfan123 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Now you're just trolling. Since you haven't responded to anything else above, I'll take it that you agree. Glad I could enlighten you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You did ask what GP stood for, so I answered your question. I wasn’t really trying to troll. And yes I do agree with the other stuff.ROBLOXfan123 (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Your condescending definition of what "general public" means and then asking if that's what I fall under is the definition of trolling. By the way, you may want to read WP:THREAD to see how replies on talk pages work. There's no need to create a new section for every reply; just indent it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Victim names[edit]

Where was that policy (which I completely disagree with, BTW) specified? I saw discussion on the talk page for the Cedar Fair incidents but there was no consensus at the time. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is from consensus among the editors of amusement park-related articles that summary articles do not need to include victim names for the reader to get the full understanding of what occurred. If there were a full article prepared on an individual incident, the victims' names would be appropriate. Further, Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, suggest that individuals who are notable for just a single thing (such as being involved in an incident) don't rise to Wikipedia's definition of notability. --McDoobAU93 11:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you McDoob for weighing in. Your comments from years ago on the subject are the reason why I've continued to remove names when I see them.
@ 68.156.95.34: There isn't an explicit policy that forbids mentioning names, but as McDoob mentions, it's best to avoid them when possible. WP:1E, which is referenced by WP:BLP1E, even states, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person", when that person is only notable for one event. These incident list articles are doing just that: focusing on the events. Names aren't outright banned by policy, but they are indeed discouraged. Common sense also applies. What value is gained by adding the name? Does it benefit a reader's understanding of what occurred? The main argument here is that it doesn't add significant value, and those searching for information would not be entering search terms that include the victim's name. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I would say that knowing the victims' names are valuable in and of themselves. It helps readers search elsewhere on the Internet for more info by using their names. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a fair point, but realize that any reader on Wikipedia can refer to the sources that are cited for the incident. They'll find the names there, and they'll be clicking on them anyway if in fact they're looking for more info. Also, news articles may typically mention name(s), but an encyclopedia rarely has any reason to. Our policies and guidelines take a cautious stance to avoid giving undue recognition to individuals that are only known for their involvement in one particular event. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability is a policy I've disagreed with since day one. It's one of the reasons I'm grateful for the development of Everipedia. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
As a side-note, what about those individuals who would rather put such an incident behind them? In the vast majority of cases, they didn't cause it, and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. As GoneIn60 noted, the information is available for anyone who cares to look for it, since any summary should have a link that backs it up. I routinely go through these articles and remove incidents that do not have a link (and there are plenty of them). --McDoobAU93 11:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Until the links go dead. Readers shouldn't have to scour the Wayback Machine or spotty newspaper archives to find the victims' names. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yet, the reason you wanted the name in the first place would be to scour the internet for more info. So what's the big deal? You're going to "scour" anyway. If we're talking about an incident that happened a long time ago, having the name isn't really going to change how hard you have to search. Take the accident that happened on New Texas Giant, for example. A Google search of "Texas Giant" death actually turns up a lot more hits than "Texas Giant" "Jacquielynn Floyd". Also, as long as a major publication/newspaper is cited to begin with, chances are it will take you less than 2 minutes to pull up an archived copy on Wayback. As I was typing this, I noticed that the first reference at New Texas Giant for the accident was dead (see this edit). Just had to copy/paste that URL at Wayback to find an archived copy. Piece of cake.
The flipside of your concern is also worth considering. If links tend to go dead without proper archiving, then the last thing we want is an unverified name stuck in the article. That's a lot more serious than an unverified description. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@68.156.95.34: Some sites have higher standards than others, and that's OK. It doesn't mean one is necessarily better, it's just that each is targeting different audiences. If Everipedia is your cup of tea, awesome! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Twisted Cyclone length[edit]

You changed my edit for the Twisted Cyclone length back to the original.

My proof is in this video below which is a copy of the Six Flags over Georgia press conference recorded and posted to "Midway Mayhem's" Youtube page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTX4hW5yyDc

At 6:24 the park employee states that the track length has changed from 2,400 to 2,600 feet.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.75.217 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the source. The information appears to be legit, but it is interesting in how he states it was increased from 2,300 to 2,600 feet. Where did 2,300 come from? The original press release and every major article I've come across all stated 2,400 feet as the original length. So while the new 2,600-foot projection could be correct, I think we should wait for a better source, particularly one that's in print. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so we can afford to wait for well-vetted information. Besides, if it's important enough to know before the ride opens, then other sources will report it. Also keep in mind that RCDB.com usually withholds full ride specs until after it opens. They independently verify them, and as a secondary source, we tend to prefer their claims over the park. Parks often get carried away when marketing a ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

KD Vandal[edit]

Le sigh. --McDoobAU93 11:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed as soon as I refreshed my watchlist. Peristent little bugger! --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I've already gotten into it with the admins on this one, which is why I'm not touching anything that user does (by my personal choice). --McDoobAU93 12:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't blame you. I think we've covered all the bases this time around, although truthfully, a closer examination of that user's edits should have made their disruption pretty obvious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Cedar Point In Pop Culture[edit]

Hello there -

In 2013 (!) you removed something from the Cedar Point amusement park page that I had added.


Here is what I added:

Popular culture Cedar Point has been mentioned in several movies, TV shows, and books:

In the ABC series "Homefront," set in the period following WWII, the 4/15/92 episode "Songs Unsung Are Sweetest" makes reference to main characters Michael and Ruth Sloan having previously overnighted at Cedar Point before they were married.

Here's proof of the add: (See the Trivia): http://www.tv.com/shows/homefront/songs-unsung-are-sweetest-34024/trivia/

And if you watch this link from YouTube, it's mentioned at 10:10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Q_CXM6bIU

Are you able to re-add this with appropriate proof? I'm not quite sure how to show the proof.

Thanks! Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletondad (talkcontribs) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Appletondad: I will review it when I get time, but yes it's likely myself or another editor watching the page would have removed it if there was no source supporting it. When you have time, you should review WP:REFB, which is a beginner's guide showing how to add citations on Wikipedia. Also, keep in mind that trivia has to be kept to a minimum in an article. You can imagine that a park that's been around for a 100+ years could have a lot of it, so much so that it can easily take over an article. We have to include only the most notable entries that received a lot of coverage in reliable sources, and there's some editors that don't believe any trivia should be in Wikipedia articles. I'll see what I can do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Amusement Dark[edit]

Hey! 5 years ago I made a stub in my sandbox regarding Amusement Dark at Cedar Fair. There are a fair amount of reliable sources that mentioned "Amusement Dark" but I don't know if its worth creating its own article since I don't know how much content one could possibly mention about this topic. Thoughts?

Dom497: That's a good question. It seems like at first, the "Amusement Dark" initiative may have been an internal codename of sorts. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that they are continuing to market this as an external brand name. I'm also not seeing a whole lot about "Amusement Dark" in the references you've listed. But on the other hand, if they follow through on multiple installations across the Cedar Fair park chain, we should have a lot more information over the next few years. It's possible though, that they are waiting to see how well-received the first two installations are before pushing full steam ahead. If it were up to me, I'd probably wait a bit longer, at least until the next installation. Covering three different locations/rides in a brief overview of each, as well as manufacturers Art Engineering and Triotech, should be enough to fill a short article at that point. Just my 2¢.
By the way, you may want to update one of the broken ref links you have for Sandusky Register. I think this one may have been its intended target. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Cool. I was thinking along the same lines as you. Regarding the internal codename theory you mentioned, Cedar Fair actually has a logo for it and they use it on their websites. Here it is on Canada's Wonderland's website.--Dom497 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So yeah, since they have a logo on their public website, it's not just an internal codename. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

New Demon effects worth adding?[edit]

Recently A few original effects were restored to Demon in Illinois. These include sound effects both in the lighted tunnel and the Demon head cave. Steven Wilson, author of "Images of Modern America: Six Flags Great America" said on his facebook page "Yes. I digitized the Demon sound effects from an open-reel audio tape years ago. Not too long ago I found out that SFGAm was looking to restore the original audio effects. I sent them the audio files and now the sound effects are back!"

https://www.facebook.com/greatamericaparks/posts/10155577761640959?comment_id=10155577860710959&reply_comment_id=10155578101280959&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

This might be an interesting thing to add to the article as it's kind of a long-forgotten effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukebenne (talkcontribs) 19:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lukebenne: Appreciate the info, however, it would be best if a secondary reliable source published the info, which would accomplish two things. First, it would be considered much more reliable than a forum post. Second, it would show that the detail is significant and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. A passing mention in a forum or social media post unfortunately means it's a rather trivial detail at the moment and would likely be challenged/removed over time without proper support (by Wikipedia's standards). --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

About the Edit...[edit]

How exactly is that being disruptive when I am trying to input factual up-to-date information into an article? Just curious thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingShuffler (talkcontribs) 08:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Factual information according to whom? RCDB.com along with other sources disagree with the edits you're making. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Reshuffling sentences[edit]

Hello, the significant reshuffling of many sentences in the Plot section Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in one of my recents edits to it was not all on purpose. I began editing before your edits and I did not realize someone else was editing. I only realized my mistake once I saved it and found I had shuffled more details than I expected. I take time while editing to avoid mistakes. It won't happen again. I do not have experience editing articles about films and I have had difficult finding my way around it. I will move to editing my usual nature-related articles again. Achat1999 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Achat1999: Thanks for taking the time to explain that. It makes sense now. Your contributions are appreciated, and I certainly don't want you to feel discouraged or unwilling to edit non-nature-related articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. It would be easier if you give me some tips on editing movie-related articles. It is a little more difficult than the articles I am used to editing.
If you ever have any questions, feel free to drop me a line any time. One thing to keep in mind about plot summaries is that they should stay within 400-700 words. You can read more MoS guidelines at MOS:FILM which should answer many of the questions/concerns you'll encounter along the way. You can also join WP:FILM and/pr post questions to other editors at WT:FILM if you want to get others' perspective. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Please see WP:TPO for more, but please pay particular attention to "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". Please do not remove another editor's comments. If you believe them to be problematic, you should either talk with the editor directly, or you can (if you believe it violates a policy or guideline) bring it to the attention of an administrator. —Locke Coletc 06:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Locke Cole: I am well aware of that guideline and was invoking the third bullet point: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism". There is a fine line between a merely uncivil comment and obvious trolling found in this remark. In the context of this discussion, it was clearly an example of the latter. Also in the process of objecting, you apparently missed the personal attack right above your comment here. I don't plan to take further action, but I'm certainly justified to do so. We'll see how the editor proceeds moving forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
His comment was neither incivil nor trolling. I did see his comment, however, you instigated that response by removing his comment in the first place. Don't do that. Next time, assume good faith and either remove yourself from the conversation if you feel there's no way forward, or report the conduct if you feel it is inappropriate. As to your claim that you're justified to take "further action", please do. I'd love it if you asked an administrator if removing another editors comments was within your rights. Please let me know once you've made a notification to either an administrator directly or to WP:AN/I. —Locke Coletc 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the part in my response that I do not plan to take further action at this time. If the editor continues to be disruptive, discourteous, and trolling in nature, my stance on that may change. It's within your right to object to the comment removal, but that doesn't mean it wasn't covered under WP:TPO's third bullet point. We'll just have to agree to disagree that it was a form of unnacceptable trolling; that's all this is, and I've moved on. You should as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru[edit]

Regarding this, sorry if I bugged you by pinging you about QuackGuru. It's just that certain editors (like yourself) have had the experience I've had with him with and his odd interpretations of the rules. And so only we understand what it's like interacting with/debating with him. For whatever reason, he seems to always think that we cannot use any word that the source does not use, despite the fact doing so would lead to WP:Copyvio issues and overquoting. I haven't yet looked to see how he writes articles, but if he's never or rarely using his own wording, that's a problem. If you think you can be of any help at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes, then please comment. And I apologize if that lotus seed plant image bothers you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn: It probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to weigh in on this discussion per WP:CANVAS, as this new discussion isn't related closely enough to the previous discussion I was involved in. However, if QuackGuru doesn't think paraphrasing is allowed or that quotation marks should be used to surround direct quotes, then clearly he's on the wrong side of what any reasonable consensus would conclude. I'd wait to see how he responds, and depending on whether or not you think you two can reach an understanding, you may want to consider dispute resolution starting with a third opinion and working your way up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
And no worries about the pic...it actually doesn't bother me!
I understand where you are coming from with regard to WP:CANVASS (and felt you might be hesitant or object on that rationale). Editors are allowed to ask or suggest that another editor weigh in without it being a WP:CANVASS violation, but my above post isn't neutral on QuackGuru. In pinging you and contacting you on your talk page, I was focused on his interpretations of the rules. Different interpretations of the rules is something I am likely to post a neutral note about at one or more relevant guidelines or policy talk pages. I don't use WP:30, but I do use RfCs (as you know). In this case, if an RfC is needed, it will be after asking for commentary from relevant guidelines or policy talk pages. How QuackGuru will respond is predictable. I will wait, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. These days, I don't have much patience to debate, debate and debate. And QuackGuru is known to wear editors' patience thin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Then again, I might jump straight to an RfC. That is how little patience I have to debate QuackGuru. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I get it. Some editors are a net loss (or more appropriately, a net drain) to Wikipedia, while others are simply misguided. Unfortunately, we waste a lot of time determining which camp they fall under, but it's the approach we're asked to take. Nothing wrong with an RfC, of course, but I would at least give QG time to respond on the article talk page. After all, it's one of the prerequisites before escalating to an RfC. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I intend to wait for a response. I'm just not going to do all of that aggravating debating with him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the edits on the Puss in Boots page...[edit]

The reason I did those edits on that page was not neccessarily because every other movie page on this wiki was formatted that same way, but because I felt the way it looks right now didn't look formatted properly. Plus, according to WP:FILMLEAD, the lead sentence already complied with the minimum requirements needed (including the genres), and labeling the film a children's film didn't really qualify since that was primarily for marketing purposes. Hope this clears any confusion or lack therof up. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

IceWalrus236: Thanks for the explanation, but anytime you string 3 or more adjectives together without commas, there can be issues. It is an odd structure anyway, so finding another way to break them up is preferred. So while we want to meet the requirements of WP:FILMLEAD, we also want to be weary of proper grammar. As for the genre, we have three reliable sources we can look at: AFI, BFI, and AllMovie. It just so happens that they don't agree with one another, and at the film project when this happens, past discussions have preferred to go with AllMovie. If you'd like to start a new discussion about the genre on the article's talk page or at WT:FILM, please do. I'm flexible in that regard, but the sentence structure shouldn't go back to how it was. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mine Blower[edit]

Hi, I'm Rosguill. GoneIn60, thanks for creating Mine Blower!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi GoneIn60, thanks for writing this article. I'm going to go ahead and mark it as reviewed so that it becomes listed by search engines. I'm also tagging a few issues where the article could be improved: specifically, it could use more citations (especially in the Ride Stats section), and some of the content currently comes off as promotional per [WP:PEACOCK] (such as the comments about Gravity Group).

Thanks for helping improve wikipedia!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Rosguill (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Rosguill: Please check the edit history. I created the redirect a while back but had nothing to do with its transformation into an article. Furthermore, templating is not necessary for veteran editors. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October![edit]

Africa (orthographic projection).svg
Video-x-generic.svg

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mine Blower for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mine Blower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mine Blower until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Shrek films[edit]

Hello there, after you left me a message on my talk page about the appropriate categorisation of Shrek films, I find it strange and unhelpful you have decided to delete the categories regarding donkeys and dragons; I think it is fairly easy to say that these categories do belong. Thus I have restored them. --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Dragons and Donkeys.[edit]

Just considering that a donkey is one of the main characters and so is the dragon, why have you removed them, considering they comprise quite an important deal of its plot. Seems to defy basic common sense and logic to me. --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Autumnleaves646: There are categories that say "Films featuring foo", where foo can be any kind of element that appears in a film. Then there are categories that say "Films about foo", in which the film's main premise and plot storyline should be focused on foo. While the Shrek films feature dragons and a donkey, the main plot has nothing to do with what kind of creature they are. This has been discussed at length before at WT:FILM, and if you need links to those discussions, I can try to dig them up for you, but feel free to search the archives as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes I do understand what categories mean, and to be fair you could say that about lots of films in such genre-spanning categories. They both comprise a big and important chunk of the plot, especially Donkey, and their biological species, so using a bit of basic common sense and logic I think here could help... --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Autumnleaves646:So you are telling me that a significant portion of the plot focuses on donkeys (the animal)? You're kidding, right? Although Donkey is a main character that plays a significant role in the plot's development, the film's subject matter is not focused on the animal. The character and animal are two separate entities here (and I don't think we need to dive into the weeds regarding Dragon). --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, please keep in mind there is a bright-line rule that shouldn't be crossed, WP:3RR. I highly suggest you read it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not kidding, it is just plain common sense. The donkey and the dragon have very important parts in the film's plot (particularly the first Shrek) and people widely recognize these films as featuring these elements. I find your argument to be illogical and based on bizarre specifics. The same could be said about the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, as well as the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Both films are in the dragons category but both of their storyline's are not "about" the dragons specifically (a Hungarian Horntail and Ukrainian Ironbelly, respectively), they just happen to have important scenes involving the dragons. I'm not comparing Harry Potter and Shrek in the slightest as they are both separate franchises, but if one rule applies to one film surely it should apply to the rest. --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not necessarily enough, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is why I asked that you build consensus on the article's talk page. --McDoobAU93 15:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I took it a step further since this involves several pages and brought it up at WT:Manual of Style/Film#Categories: Films about foo. Apparently common sense is disagreeing with Autumnleaves646. Other improper applications of "about" categories like this in other articles should also be removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I decided after out last discussion, that it would be better to place the Shrek films which star the dragon under "Dragons in popular culture" (apart from Shrek the Halls and Scared Shrekless). You have also disliked this; the category is not for identifying fictional dragons like you believe, that is for fictional character pages, such as the Jabberwocky or the Skeksis. This category is for works of pop culture which feature dragons to some extent, it is not a question of '"about foo" or not just featuring. I don't see why this still manages to be divisive, can't we agree the films deserve some recognition for its pink female dragon along with other things? --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
In addition to your blatant disregard for the ongoing discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Film#Categories: Films about foo, you have now demonstrated that you clearly do not understand the proper etiquette of how to handle disagreements. Read, eat, sleep, learn WP:BRD: it may be the only advice that saves you from a future block. Your continual disruption of these pages will not be tolerated. If you have further comments regarding this dispute, I suggest you post them at the aforementioned discussion, where the consensus (not just me) is clearly against your interpretation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)