Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should the New York screening hosted by Disney and The Cinema Society be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background

Disney and The Cinema Society held a screening for Frozen in New York on November 2, 2013. This screening preceded the film's premiere and its general release. This information was sourced to US Weekly and corroborated by photographs at Getty Images. The screening was attended by some high-profile celebrities such as Naomi Watts. Coverage of the screening has been removed from the article on the basis that US Weekly and Getty Images do not constitute reliable sources. I would like to obtain further opinions on whether this information should be included in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The disputed edit: [3]

Survey

• Support inclusion – A film's first public exhibition—as opposed to press screenings and test screenings—is a significant phase in the release of a film. The Disney and Cinema Society screening was a high-profile event attended by celebrities such as Naomi Watts. I see no valid reason for excluding coverage of the event:

1. The objection to the sources does not seem valid to me. No argument has been put forward for why US Weekly is not a WP:Reliable source for covering a film screening. The photographs supplied by Getty Images clearly corroborate that the event took place and was attended by high profile people.
2. I do not accept that coverage of the event violates WP:WEIGHT. Coverage in a national weekly magazine suggests that the event is significant enough for us to add a sentence to the article.
3. I do not accept that WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. A film only debuts once, and detailing the film's first public exhibition is something we normally cover in film articles.

Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there is no need to draw a straw poll over this little thing, look at WP:PNSD. By the way, no one says it's not reliable, the point is that its content is inadequate to support a screening to general public, supposedly charging money, etc. If your background is that non-neutral and false, then you know how will things be disregarded, according to your own experience. Just go back to previous discussion - I don't see a problem.Forbidden User (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Notability of event not established - I agree with Forbidden User that this seems excessive, but I'll add my two cents. I find it hard to believe that a "high-profile event" merits a grand total of one sentence and one photograph. No information is included to describe the nature of the event (yes it's a film screening, but is it just for celebrities and invited guests?). Studios have promo screenings in advance of the "premiere" all the time. I attended one for Wreck-It Ralph that took place several days prior to the red-carpet premiere, for example. For the record, I have no issue with US Weekly being a source, but I do have issue with the information mentioned in it (or lack thereof) and with no evidence of its perceived significance. WP:IINFO certainly applies here, barring additional information. --McDoobAU93 03:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability criteria do not apply to content within an article per WP:NOTEWORTHY. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:IINFO, not WP:NOTEWORTHY. I can understand why you don't like it. Doesn't make it go away. Please stop. --McDoobAU93 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I had never heard of "The Cinema Society" and so I did some digging. It seems that this organization has no Internet presence and might be little more than a one man band. Andrew Saffir is described as the "founder" of The Cinema Society, but he might be the whole society. The Wall Street Journal says, "Getting film stars photographed on the red carpet with corporate logos is key to the business model of Andrew Saffir, the 41-year-old founder of the Cinema Society. Mr. Saffir's company hosts exclusive film screenings and parties for the elite in New York's celebrity, fashion and media circles. It's a practice that has gone on for years, but Mr. Saffir has added a new twist to these exclusive gatherings of movie stars, studio moguls and paparazzi: the luxury brand sponsor who pays for the event." To read the whole article about Saffir, "The Cinema Society" and their series of advance screenings, click here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119750812634425381?mod=blog. I also found a blog that says, "The Cinema Society is basically a marketing tool for the film industry, an effective method for creating “buzz” about a film. Saffir consistently brings together a wide group of celebrities for his screenings which are often held in the hip, downtown Tribeca Grand Hotel in its screening rooms. Screenings are often followed by a dinner for all the invited guests at a popular (and hip) restaurant, also downtown.... The result is that Cinema Society’s screenings of new films (some premiering, some even before release) have garnered volumes of publicity for the films in magazines, newspapers and on the internet." You can read that in its entirety here: http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/listpopup.php?tid=84. If you still want more, New York Magazine has an article about his rivalry (or not) with Peggy Siegal for the title of the top socialite party planner. See that here: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/33541/. 99.192.69.93 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say, consensus is against the inclusion, even with a skewed background.Forbidden User (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to make that call, although the anon IP's information above certainly makes the event's significance more suspect. Let's let the debate play out a bit longer and see where things go. --McDoobAU93 14:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support exclusion The anon's post above was pretty damning to the relevance of this premiere, in my eyes. I see no encyclopedic value of including this information. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP has put forward an argument against the notability of the screening, not the encyclopedic value of documenting the screening. They are two different concepts: WP:NOTEWORTHY explicitly states The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. At the moment the article is factually inaccurate by presenting the premiere as the first screening of the film, when other screenings, in fact preceded it. WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are the relevant policies here and it is possible to cite reliable sources that cover or mention the screening. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. What do you think about this post from the Producers Guild of America [4]. I have no comments yet, absolutely neutral. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 02:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Same problem as the NYCIFF cite. This is an advertisement for a screening, not an indication the screening actually took place, and no indication of the nature of the screening. With nothing indicating otherwise, this is another advance promo screening that is not noteworthy per FILMRELEASE. --McDoobAU93 12:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all this argument you keep repeating that advertisements are not "proof" the screening took place are a red-herring. There are multiple sources (including photographs taken by Getty Images) proving the screening did take place so it is disingenuous of you to claim otherwise. Those are available to you and everyone else who participates in this survey in the "Background" statement at the start of this section. Second of all WP:FILMRELEASE is not applicable to this discussion; it is not a policy, not a part of the MOS, it is a guideline created by WP:WikiProject Film that applies exclusively to {{Infobox film}} i.e. the Film Project does not get to create its own content guidelines; those are dictated entirely by Wikipedia's policies. If you look at the diff—again provided in the "Background" section—you will see that my edit did not involve any changes to the infobox. My edit was simply to provide a clear chronology of events in the film's release: the first screening, the premiere, the limited release and then the general release. So will you please stop saying i) there is no evidence the screening took place – yes there is, and there are sources and photographs to back it up, and ii) WP:FILMRELEASE prohibits including the screening – that is a guideline created by the Film project to specifically regulate their infobox, and has no bearing on edits to the rest of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem here is how much weight you're giving to events that take place with practically every major Hollywood release. Studios host promotional screenings all the time that take place before the "official" red-carpet premiere; the ones for Frozen are in no way unique or noteworthy, which is why WP:IINFO applies so well. Its opening sentence includes this important statement: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". This refers directly to article content as well as article subjects. --McDoobAU93 14:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

McDoobAU93, you raise an issue I was thinking about when I found the sources I linked above about Andrew Saffir and his "Cinema Society". One of the sources points out that he does 20 to 25 similar events each year. A google search can quickly uncover many of these, including one for A Most Wanted Man that took place last night, three days before the date listed on the film's Wikipedia page for its US release. If Betty is right and these events should count and be mentioned, then this will affect dozens and dozens of film articles. Saffir has been doing these screenings, the sources tell us, since 2005, not to mention the dozens and dozens of similar events that Peggy Siegal also hosts. And that's just New York. But, it should be remembered, the mere fact that we might need to change information on dozens and dozens of film pages is not an argument against inclusion, just a reminder of the scope of this discussion.

Betty, you have said before that your standard for counting a screening is whether or not it was open to the public - whether or not just anyone could buy a ticket and attend. The sources are not definitive on this, but it really does sound like the events Saffir and Siegal organize are invitation only for celebrities and other big wigs and are free for them to attend. This seems especially likely in the case of Saffir's events, as the sources point out that corporate sponsors pay the cost of the events and in exchange they get photo ops with the invited celebrities. So if the screenings are not open to the general public and not the official premier, they seem to just another pre-release private promotional event. 99.192.76.84 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.69.93)

I think the WikiProject Films group has already covered this, more or less, because the film articles don't discuss such screenings, and they've obviously been done because of all the other US Weekly and People articles about film screenings before the red-carpet premiere (again, proving that Frozen is no different). --McDoobAU93 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur with User:McDoobAU93 and the anonymous poster at 99.192.69.93 for the reasons stated. There is a huge difference between promotional screenings to create buzz around a film and the actual red-carpet premiere, which occurred at the El Capitan Theatre like most other Disney premieres.--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Was this a verifiable screening of the film, in a public venue, attended by celebrities, etc.? Yes. Is the event verifiable? Yes, easily [5] [6]. Is the first non-private screening of any film notable and encyclopedic? Yes. All other arguments (against the sources, against the society, against the size of the event and the coverage of the event) are irrelevant. I'd say it was more the proper placement of this info in the article, rather than its inclusion or exclusion (since it is easily verifiable inclusion isn't the real issue IMO) that is the important issue here; I think it should probably go in the second paragraph of the Release section, prior to mention of the November 6 toys. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your description of the screening as being "in a public venue" is either misleading or unsupported by the sources. Yes, the Tribeca Grand Hotel theater frequently screens films that are open to the general public, but that does not mean that it cannot also sometimes host private events. All evidence suggests that this particular screening of Frozen was a privately sponsored event for an invitation-only audience of celebrities and their kids. So the claim that it was a "non-private screening" is not established. 99.192.89.198 (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.69.93)

I must have pissed you off for an archive site, ya? Take it easy. It is stated repeatedly that it is widely agreed to be promotional, and I see no counterproof from you. Even with you here, this is WP:SNOW, so I'm closing here.Forbidden User (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the close since there is no basis for a SNOW close; discussion is ongoing, and so far we have two for inclusion, two for exclusion, two commenters and one argument that is not applicable (since notability criteria do not apply). If you pull a stunt like that again we will be visiting ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There you go again. My comment specifically mentions WP:IINFO, which specifically covers article content. Please stop misconstruing my comment above. --McDoobAU93 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Prove that the screening is accessible to public.Forbidden User (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I oppose the inclusion, per reasons I mentioned in the previous section and Coolcaeser concurs with McDoobAU93, and so I take him as oppose inclusion. There is 4, instead of 2, "oppose votes". Just saying.Forbidden User (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Closing comment Closure was requested at WP:AN because of Betty's warning of 19:19, 27 July 2014. This is one of those not-a-vote situations: the votes are 2-1 in favor of including it, but the whole discussion very clearly favors removing it. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elsa & Anna's Boutique in Downtown Disney Anaheim

It was announced on the DisneyParks Blog; http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2014/08/elsa-annas-boutique-and-more-thrilling-transformations-coming-to-the-disneyland-resort/ Does this bit of news deserve a mention in the "theme parks" section? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be bold and add them. You should also find sources from third-party news outlets like Wall Street Journal or similar sites to support Disney's self-published blogs. Also, please add this bit to the corresponding articles about Anna and Elsa, OK? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did it, Thanks! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In case you haven't done so, I will archive it for you.Forbidden User (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll find another source if possible, for laughingplace not exactly being an RS.Forbidden User (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Widespread acclaim"?

The reception for this film, unfortunately, is being overstated. In no way am I a Frozen hater (I actually liked this movie, I found it funny) or a Disney hater, but it really is a little much.

When talking about whether or not a film received fairly positive, strongly positive, mixed, sharply negative, etc... reviews, it is Metacritic I have found to be a better source than RT. I like both sites, but Metacritic is better with measuring the degree of acclaim for a movie. If every critic likes a movie mildly, but ultimately (kinda) likes it, the film will have a 100% on RT, but about a 60 or 70-something on Metacritic. How to Train Your Dragon received a 98% on RT, but had a far lower Metacritic rating than higher-acclaimed 2010 films like The Social Network and The King's Speech. What does this mean? RT can sure tell you whether or not critics liked it, but clearly Metacritic better represents how much critics liked it.

Another good example is Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (2011). This was very experimental, and so not even all critics loved it: lower RT rating (84%) than Frozen. Still, a considerably higher Metacritic rating (85%). And when the end of the year rolled around, which one did Sight & Sound vote the best film of its respective year? The Tree of Life. Also, it was The Tree of Life that was calculated by Metacritic to have been the overall most acclaimed film of 2011 by critics. But the Wikipedia article on it says early reviews of the film were sharply polarized.

Frozen received a 74% on Metacritic, and an 89% on RT. That means widespread positive reviews or strongly positive reviews. Not really anything more. Whoever wants to revert Wikipedia's statement of the reception for Frozen back to "widespread acclaim", please reconsider. AndrewOne (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

AndrewOne, the review aggregators are not always all that we should go on for summarizing critical reception to a film; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response. When it comes to the word acclaimed, for example, per past WP:Film discussions, most recently the Summary statement for "Reception" section discussion, the word acclaimed should be explicitly sourced or not used at all; we should not decide what is or is not acclaimed ourselves, whether we are basing the critical reception on Rotten Tomatoes or on Metacritic. But getting a score as high as 80% on Rotten Tomatoes is no easy feat, and, in my experience, means that the film is acclaimed or at least widely thought of positively (among American critics at least). As for the The Tree of Life (film) article, though it currently begins by addressing early reviews, it eventually gets around to addressing how well-liked/acclaimed the film is. A film can be polarizing and have acclaim; another example is 2001: A Space Odyssey, which the Critical reception section of the The Tree of Life (film) article mentions.

As for who reverted you after you made this and this edit, it was Quenhitran (ALittleQuenhi) who reverted you. You've clearly brought this matter to the talk page, but you also reverted before doing so; I think you should have brought the matter to the talk page first, per WP:BRD, and let others weigh in before attempting another go at the lead-in summary. I don't like the wording "strongly positive reviews" and prefer "generally positive reviews" if we are going to simply get across the point that the film is generally liked among critics. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Andrew's concern is legitimate even if the phrasing is slightly cumbersome. The source being used doesn't back up the claim that the film received "widespread acclaim". What it does state is that the film received early rave reviews. The aggregators also show that the film had a predominantly positive reception, although a 7.7 rating on RT and a MC score of 74 indicate that a significant number of critics were obviously reserved in their praise. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are several reliable sources I found calling the film critically "acclaimed". I just pulled a few from the first Google hits but I'm sure there a loads more if somebody really wanted them:

• "Jennifer Lee brought the heat to Disney with Frozen, which has reinvented the princess musical to critical and box-office acclaim" The Hollywood Reporter via Yahoo News
• "The actual "Frozen", which was released back in November, has earned more than $1 billion in box office receipts, making it the highest grossing animated feature of all time. It also had mass critical acclaim and won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature Film and Best Song for the smash hit "Let It Go.""Orlando Sentinel
• "The film has also enjoyed near universal critical acclaim; we called Frozen the "best Disney animated movie since the Beauty and the Beast era" in our review."IGN
• "The film has been critically acclaimed as well as proving a box office smash - and picked up the Best Animation award at The Golden Globes on Sunday too."MTV

So this is really a question of subjective wording really...acclaim, very positive, strongly positive, etc. The later press sources may also take into account its awards (and it won plenty) when calling it "acclaimed". Something to note. DrNegative (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

_____

@DrNegative: I praise your inclusion of other sources for the film's reception, but one or two of them I'm questioning the reliability of. Frozen, really, is a film whose reception could be said to border on positive to acclaim; regarding the IGN one, the editor may be rather impartial to it and choose the one she favors. "Acclaim" is one thing, but to in turn call it "near-universal" is wrong. Out of the 43 critics included on Metacritic, 37 of them liked it and six were mixed. Also, there were six 100 and 90's, and it seemed a majority were either 75 or 70. In addition, out of the 188 included on RT, 21 of them were rotten.

Realistically speaking, phrases like "near-universal acclaim from critics" should be used very sparingly on an encyclopedia anyways. There have only been a few recent films that could truly be spoken about that way. I would say Boyhood, Man on Wire, and The Social Network are the only two from the past five or six years. AndrewOne (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

But remember, is it not up to us (the editors) to decide whether a reviewer is being impartial or not...as long as it is a reliable source and verifiable. Sure, maybe that argument could be made for a Disney press-release, but a second-party source? IGN is a widely published online source with full editorial control. Since you disagree with the writer based on your own findings in analyzing the aggregate scores, what criteria do we use to call the film acclaimed? My cut-off point would be 98%, other editors may be 90%, others still may be ok with 80%, how about all reviews are at least a 70 or above from MC? My point really is the whole thing is subjective and the only real way to solve it is to either not mention "acclaim" or "positive" or "very positive" at all, while letting the reader come to that conclusion...or find sources like I provided that explicitly mention that it is critically acclaimed to back up the statement, both options as Flyer mentioned above. Assuming we went with the latter, there may be editors who disagree with what the sources are saying, but that is irrelevant. DrNegative (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand objecting to "acclaimed" if it's one reviewer stating that the film is acclaimed (I brought up a similar point when discussing with Erik reviewers who summarize a film's reception as positive, mixed or negative), but, in the case of Frozen, there are various WP:Reliable sources calling the film acclaimed. As for "near-universal acclaim," we clearly don't have to use that wording; there is no need for it, especially if only one reviewer has stated that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a long dispute. Well, "widespread critical acclaim" is not overstating, unless you hate the film, as there are enough RS saying so.Forbidden User (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A long dispute? The above discussion isn't long, at least to me. Flyer22 (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording has been changed to "strongly positive reviews" a few times before, all getting reverted at the end. The earliest I reckon was before the article became GA. Honestly, "widespread critical acclaim" is really long standing, and the GA reviewer did't say it is POV.Forbidden User (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know we have another phrase known as "universal acclaim" to use for films with an average rating of 90% and higher on RT. "widespread" doesn't sound that strong at all, and to a certain degree can be used in this case - we don't have many blockbusters with such critical ratings in a year. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 07:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

References

The portrait room where Anna talks to the paintings

Does anyone know what all those Dutch master-y style paintings are based on? One is Jean-Honoré Fragonard's "The Swing"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Heads up re thoughts about breaking off "Franchise potential" section into new article on Frozen franchise

I am thinking about doing it after the Frozen special runs on September 2 rather than waiting until the OUAT fourth season premiere. By September 6-7 we will have some visibility into what Disney is doing next.

Planned tasks:

1. Transfer entire "Franchise potential" section into new article. 2. Develop lead paragraph to lead into successive sections. 3. Bring over all orphaned references from this article into new article. 4. Condense original section into new "Franchise" section in this article. Planned approach is to begin by discussing how Iger went from speaking of "franchise potential" to "top five franchises" in one quarter, then hit the key points: kids went crazy for music, merch, books, parks, TV crossover, musical, etc.

Any comments? --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it will be sent to AfD if you proceed as said. It's a very good split overall.Forbidden User (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh by the way, be careful with the references. It's one of the most difficult thing to deal with.Forbidden User (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get it. Why is transferring references difficult? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The references may be defined elsewhere in the article meaning you will get a load of citation errors. It is easy to get around though: simply copy and paste the whole article and save it to the new page, and then just delete all the sections you don't want. You will still get a lot of citation errors but a bot will come along and retrieve the sources from the previous save within a few hours. It will save a lot of work. Betty Logan (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Aka if only the citation shortcut instead of the entire citation is used in the bit that is being copied over, the reference won't work correctly. And vice versa.--Coin945 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now we know what they're going to do, so I'm splitting off the franchise content. As in right now. I'm making all the edits concurrently and then committing all at once. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Original research in the Plot section

@Quenhitran: the problem with the phrase , since her decision to sacrifice herself to save her sister constitutes an "act of true love" is that the other stuff mentioned in the Plot section is something people can see happening in the movie but a reason for something is not something we can see in a movie and it looks like it was inferred what was going on in the heads of the people who made the movie from what people saw in the movie. I actually did watch the movie but just because the snowman said "An act of true love will thaw a frozen heart" doesn't necessarily mean it's true and just because Elsa said "You sacrificed yourself for me" doesn't prove that Elsa guessed right what Anna's reason for sacrificing herself was. I'm not sure if there was a mistake in the Plot section; since Anna was frozen, shouldn't it be somebody loving Anna, not Anna loving somebody that causes Anna to thaw. Maybe the true love was Elsa grieving for Anna rather than Anna sacrificing herself for Elsa and maybe it's really Elsa grieving for Anna that caused Anna to thaw. Isn't it also original research to guess what true love really means. According to Wiktionary:true love, it seems to me that whether somebody has true love for somebody else is determined by what goes on in their head and not by their actions. Blackbombchu (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Life story" lawsuit

I think a lot of people, including myself, have recently heard that an author (Isabella Taikumi) is allegedly filing a lawsuit against Disney for $250 million, claiming that Frozen plagiarized her life story in her biographical book titled "Living My Truth"[7]. I'm just not sure if it should be added here or on the franchise page. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheMeaningOfBlah: Not sure. :To which section does this information falls into?--Chamith (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it should probably be put under the Release section, in a new subsection ("Life story lawsuit"?). TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Still not sure whether this should be included in the article because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. I will wait for more comments from other editors--Chamith (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammar error

"Flourish, which aided extra movement such as leaves and twigs to be art-directed": I don't think you can aid something to be something. Consider changing verb to allowed or enabled. 31.50.70.172 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using aided in that sentence, as it means "assisted". But I do agree that "allowed" sounds better than aided there. And that word has been used in the next sentence (or sentence after that) so it sounds repetitive.--Chamith (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there is nothing wrong. The fact that "aid" and "assist" are synonyms does not mean that they are interchangeable everywhere. Consider "he was revealed to be a spy" (acceptable) vs. "he was uncovered to be a spy" (unacceptable). The "aided" use is just not idiomatic and sounds bizarre in English. 31.50.70.172 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. However I wonder why you didn't change it in the first place. This page isn't protected so you can edit it from an IP address. There is nothing wrong with being bold. Anyways thank you for you help.--Chamith (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war - Japanese Box Office

Based on these links

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=JP&id=frozen2013.htm http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=JP&id=spiritedaway.htm

Frozen has clearly grossed more than Spirited Away in Japan, thus making it the highest grossing movie in Japan.Corabal (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What the above editor fails to understand is that those are dollar amounts where the Japanese earnings have been converted to dollars using different conversion rates (Spirited Away at 2001/2002 rates, Tiatnic at 1998 rates and Frozen at 2014 rates) i.e. ¥30 billion converts to $230 million in 2002, while ¥25 billion converts to $250 million in 2014 due to devaluation of the dollar. There is a full explanation at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Japan#Alterations_to_the_chart with numerous sources that contradict his claim, but if these disruptive edits based on WP:Original research continue I will request administrator intervention. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Logan, your explanations on both talk pages make sense to me. But what I have been wondering since June is that whether this constitutes "original research" itself, any specific guidelines for such conversions? —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 16:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Article size

The article, at readable prose size of 82 kB (13770 words), is a bit too lengthy to be read comfortably. I suggest that some material should be moved to (or removed from here if it already appears at) sub articles such as Frozen (soundtrack), List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film) and Frozen (franchise). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm the one who reverted Finnusertop's Template:Very long tag, stating, "Discuss on the talk page? There are articles longer than this one, and this article has been split into sub-articles already." Yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also notes that it can be a good argument. I take it that you are basing the article's size only on readable prose, Finnusertop, and are not including references and other things that add on to kilobyte size? Either way, I did bring up the article's size when Coolcaesar kept expanding the article's franchise material. And I've seen that Coolcaesar has been expanding other areas of the article lately. It is my opinion that Coolcaesar gets carried away with expanding; when he was expanding the franchise material, it became about him seeking to have that content split into a separate article. Anyway, I'm of the mindset that things should only be cut when necessary and/or when otherwise beneficial to our readers. If cutting from the areas that you mentioned above is beneficial to our readers, Finnusertop, then I don't mind. But those sections should still have appropriate WP:Summary style. Leaving the sections blank with only a link to the sub-articles is poor form. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: yes, the figure is readable prose excluding references etc. It's positive that splits have been performed before, but the article's current state should be checked from time to time. I'm not strongly opinionated on what here could be beneficial to readers, nor am I very vested as an editor in this article. I respect the choices you have made hitherto as consensus. However, as a matter of scope, I think things such as the Video games section would be more at home over at the franchise article. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving out the video game stuff to the franchise article seems a reasonable suggestion to me. Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on WP:SIZERULE it probably should be divided, although that guideline is mitigated by the "scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". On balance I think a split would be detrimental to the article: the tangential content i.e. the franchise and cultural impact stuff has been cut out, while everything that remains—the production, release and reception content—is all pretty integral to the encyclopedic coverage of the film. It is in the grey area but I think everything that is in needs to be in, and it is unlikely to tip over the 100k limit at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Betty, by "split would be detrimental to the article," you mean that it would be detrimental to split the franchise and cultural impact stuff? As you know, the franchise stuff has already been split; I don't think it would hurt to tighten that section. The Cultural impact stuff isn't that big and doesn't need to be split. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that there was a "cultural impact" article; I must have mixed it up with something else. I agree that the coverage we have in this article at present is not really sufficient to sustain a sub-article. In the case of the "franchise" coverage I think the balance is about right, with the bulk of it the content at the sub-article and briefly summarised in this article. That said I would support moving the video game stuff to the franchise article, since even apart from the size concerns I think the video game coverage is better suited to that article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Works for me: I would also be supportive of moving the video games-related content to the Frozen (franchise) article, as it's not particularly relevant to the film, but is certainly fitting for inclusion there. As for the other sections of this article, there isn't any content that immediately stands out to me as needing to be cut back; if anything, the current length of the article appropriately reflects the cultural significance of the topic. —zziccardi (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'd like to propose that all information pertaining to the Frozen video games be moved to the Franchise section of this article, which seems much more appropriate than the Release section where it currently lives. Thoughts? —zziccardi (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As one of the primary contributors to this article, I fully concur with ZZiccardi's analysis. Article length is fine, but the video games material should be moved. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Coolcaesar. To clarify, were you agreeing that the material covering the video games should be moved within this article, as I suggested for the time being, or that it should be moved to the Frozen (franchise) article? I'm going to go ahead and move the video games content within this article for now. Once we've reached consensus on whether to move it to the other article, we can figure out how much of the material is appropriate to summarize here. Thanks. —zziccardi (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason the video game material should be kept in this article rather than moved to the franchise article. Leave a short mention in this article and move it to the franchise article for consistency. Meters (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Names of king and queen of Arendelle

.

I have tried twice to add that the queen's name is Idun and the king's name is Agdar. I am frustrated because I have cited different sources, but none are accepted by the reviewer. The reviewer cannot read runes, but I can and these are clearly the names of the king and queen as shown in the movie on the grave markers. Can someone else, who understands Wikipedia better than I, find a way to add the names, which are clearly on screen in the movie "Frozen", but just in a different alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregsonVaux (talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the source you provided initially. Being a blog is bad enough. But then the author starts saying things like "I have a slightly different assumption on the King’s name" and "Maybe I’ve misread the runes. I think they are ᛅᚴᚦᚬᚱ but they’re still too blurry to be sure." The author acknowledges these are just guesses. So this is not a reliable source. If Jennifer Lee or Chris Buck says these are their official names, that would be a good source. But not this blog, and not the wikia you offered as a replacement. Reach Out to the Truth 06:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I looked further into the second source and you are correct that it is fan run. However, it took me a while to find that and it seemed official at first. As to the first source, I'm not sure that I understand your mistrust of blogs. The author provides screen captures to back up his assertions. At first, he was unsure of the runes, but then he found clearer screen shots. I agree that direct quotes from the directors or writers would be best, but stills from the movie are pretty good too. Perhaps I rely too much on experience in academic writing where you put out an assertion and then you assume that if something is wrong, a later writer will correct it. If the names are wrong, then I am sure that someone will speak up. I would rather have the names of the king and queen out there and then have a Disney executive tell me that I am wrong, than have the names are buried so there is no way to have them confirmed or rejected by a more official source. GregsonVaux (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I found another source for the King's and Queen's names. This is the blog for Dr. Jackson Crawford who has a PhD in Scandinavian studies. This is the scholar who was hired by Disney to provide all of the runes used in the movie. It was he who provided the text for the book and the grave markers. He is also listed in the movie's end credits. In his blog, he confirms that the previous source that I used is correct. So as far as I am concerned, the names are canon since they appear on screen in the movie and the scholar that was hired by Disney has confirmed their accuracy. I will wait a few days before trying to to add the names again so other people can give their input. The source is: https://tattuinardoelasaga.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-runes-and-old-norse-in-disneys-frozen/ GregsonVaux (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)