Talk:Shrek the Third

message: The Shrek 4 page should be made again. There is clearky evidence that there is a fourth one in production if there was an interview with someone affiliated with the movie. If they said that there infact is a Shrek 4, then there is no reason that this page should've been deleted. Could whoever deleted this page please recreate it. Yahoo! Movies says that it is in developement, but no premise has been released. This is another form of proof that this movie exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk) 
:That's not proof.  A news article where the producers ay 'Yes, we're doing this.' would be proof. And as it's a couple years out, is pretty speculative. A lot of projects get canceled. This is one instance where patience is a virtue :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrek 4 

message: I thought they were more Wizard-of-Oz type talking trees... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ents?

message: It says on the cast list in the article that Jonathan Ross plays Doris in the UK version like he does in Shrek 2, but I have the UK DVD of this film and it is definitely Larry King's voice. Is the cast list inaccurate or do I have the US version on DVD for some reason? Christophee (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doris 

message: :::I found a few cultural references in Shrek the Third. Could these be put on the page? I'll tell about the references below.
* King Harold is buried in a shoe box that says "Ye Olde Foot Locker" with a knight on top of the logo. This is a parody of the chain Foot Locker.
* Like the second movie, the Far Far Away sign is a parody of the Hollywood Sign.
* When the villians take over Far Far Away, some hang up some letters on the Ye Olde Bootery to call it "Ye Olde Hooters" and several men run inside. This is a refference to Hooters.
--24.147.1.197 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be original research for us to claim that these are cultural references unless a reliable source has taken note of them. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they appear in the film is not the point, the point is that it's not our place to state whether something that appears in the film is a cultural reference; we must rely on reliable sources to do so; otherwise we are engaging in original research, as I said before. If you look at the sections in the other film articles you will notice that citations are provided. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Culturel References/Edit Request 4/6/14

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Shrek the Third. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080411111537/http://annieawards.org:80/35thwinners.html to http://annieawards.org/35thwinners.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shrek the Third. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128173811/http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/2008awards/2008featurenominees.html to http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/2008awards/2008featurenominees.html
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614045533/http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/ves-awards/previous/6th-annual to http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/ves-awards/previous/6th-annual
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shrek the Third. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118061704/http://wireless.ign.com/articles/787/787829p1.html to http://wireless.ign.com/articles/787/787829p1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Shrek Forever After was produced by PDI.
--Evope (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDI 

message: In order to say that without synthesis, we would need an independent reliable source to say that. We do not have that.
Other than individual reviews (of no help here), we have two review aggregators. RT gives it a 40%, "Rotten" according to their algorithm. We also have MC's algorithm applying the term "mixed or average". As the aggregators' algorithms are not subject to editorial oversight, they are not reliable sources.
Additionally, citing one or the other in the lead implies it is speaking universally, which neither one does (thus the reason we use both. Finally, "Rotten" is not "mixed" and "mixed or average" is not "mixed".
While I understand the desire to be able to spit out one judgement of a film as the word from critics, the real world seldom works like that. Some critics like a film that others hate and still others think was just average. "Mixed or average" can be a number of different things. Half the critics loved it, half hated it gives an average of 50% and "Mixed or average" ("polarized" world be more accurate). All of the critics think it was average gives the same result. A wild mix of scores can also give that same score. Using synthesis to boil all three of those scenarios (and numerous others) is contrary to encyclopedic writing. It presents your opinion of an aggregator's algorithm's automatically applied label based on a sample of some critics as if it were a true summary of critical response.
Let the sources speak for themselves. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with SummerPhDv2.0 that it's not a bad idea to let the sources speak for themselves and avoid summarizing in the lead. Some articles do summarize, but they usually peg that summary directly to a reliable, secondary source outside of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. We prefer one-step removed from the aggregators whenever possible. It's also not absolutely essential to have a summary of the critical reception in the lead. For films that received accolades and overwhelmingly positive reviews, we tend to make exceptions, and usually in those cases you have plenty of reliable sources to base it on.A good place to discuss this in more detail is at WT:FILM, but I would search through the archives to find past discussions before beginning a new one. It has come up dozens of times in recent years. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "received mixed reviews from critics" 

message: There was an unfortunate typo in 5th para. of plot: "...with help from Donkey, Pus, Lillian, and Dragon." I have changed that to "puss". 75.164.209.63 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunate Typo