Talk:Shark Tale

message: I was trying to find a better reference for Cinemascore (an empty search box is not a good reference) but instead I found something else. Box Office Mojo reported that according to audience polling conducted by DreamWorks themselves the "definite recommend" was a 75%. PostTrak did not launch until 2013 so I guess before that way back in 2004 studios did pretty much the same kind of audience surveys in house back then, and since we often include PostTrak definite recommend scores for newer films, maybe we should include the definite recommend score here too? -- 109.76.197.58 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite recommend? 

message: Should Oscar have an article? Did You chop down that shark (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No. WP:GNG. His only significance is as part of this film, there is nothing to suggest that the character is independently notable. Also it is not like this article has an abundance of content that would benefit from being split into a separate article. -- 109.79.175.67 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Oscar? 

message: Korea Dragon Sequel Future DreamWorks
Voice actors Fred Tatasciore Frank Welker Roar Snarl 2400:AC40:620:1C11:DCD2:A1C2:BF5D:A084 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Dragon Asian 

message: There are basically two types of film now, live-action and animated, some films using both in some manner. How something is animated, cell, flash, computer, etc., is a mechanism description which is not relevant to the main fact that it is an animated film, not a live-action one. If how animated is important it can be covered in the production section, otherwise it doesn't matter. The normal way of making animated films has been using computers since about 1995, going on 30 years. It is not the exception anymore that needs to be highlighted as a major part of how a film is described, it is almost pro-forma trivia at this point. Traditional animation is the exception now. Also WP:SEAOFBLUE discouraged adjacent linked terms so things like computer animated comedy film is better described as just "animated comedy film". Animated is not a word that normally needs a link as it has become a common word with well known meaning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the text out loud. While technically correct it does not read well and does not make for a better encyclopedia. I agree with Geraldo Perez, it seems unnecessary to emphasize the specific type of animation in the very first sentence. Also "produced by DreamWorks Animation and distributed by DreamWorks Pictures" seems like further unnecessary details for the very first sentence, it is simply an animated feature film from Dreamworks. Details are best left to the Production section. (I have also noticed a recent trend in film articles of editors including specific details about the exact location premiere in the lead section. Only the wide release date is actually worth mentioning, in most cases the premiere date is barely noteworthy, and the specific location of the premiere is not.) More and more information seems to be getting crammed into the lead sections of film articles with due care for weight and relevance. -- 109.79.66.45 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  For intro - animated vs. computer animated