Talk:Frozen 2

Latest comment: 16 hours ago by Geraldo Perez in topic Using adding Info or not?
Featured articleFrozen 2 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 23, 2023.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2016Articles for deletionRedirected
July 16, 2021Good article nomineeListed
July 28, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 10, 2021Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 4, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 11, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
December 5, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
January 31, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 17, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson called out Disney for an inaccurate Frozen II poster?
Current status: Featured article


"story by" credits

edit

The credits of the film say the story was written/conceived by the collaborative efforts of Jennifer Lee, Chris Buck, Marc Smith, Kristen Anderson-Lopez, and Robert Lopez. I see no reason why these credits should be removed. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Northuldra

edit

I like this article very much. It presents a pretty accurate description of the plot and makes some nice references to true stories it might have been inspired by. In one of these analogies the author claims that the Northuldra have magical powers. However, in the movie, it is made explicit that the Northuldra have no special powers, but that they just take advantage of the (magical) forest's gifts. Emmiehil (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can add that statement in respective place where it talks about. Fade258 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Norwegian culture

edit

How is this sequence „Frozen's all-white characters were controversial; the sequel's characters are somewhat more diverse, but still stereotypical.[7]“ even allowed on Wikipedia. First of all, the term „all white“ is an Americanised phrase. In Scandinavia or more specific Norway (and over Europe) people are identifying themselves on nationality or cultural aspects. And of course the characters are all portrayed as ethnic Norwegians. The story is set in MEDIEVAL Norway. And until around 50 to 60 years ago there was no ethnical diversity in Norway, especially no ethnical diversity from non Scandinavian or non European countries. It’s ridiculous to think that a movie, which is set in medieval Norway HAS to portray diversity, even though there literally was no diversity during that time. That is rewriting history and also kind of disrespectful to Norwegian culture (claiming that ethnic Norwegians shouldn’t be portrayed in that numbers in a movie SET in Norway) Cell.83 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

First, the movie is not actually set in Norway.. it is a fictionalized country and society... inspired by Norway but not actually Norway... second the controversy was mentioned in reliable sources so it's inclusion is appropriate... we don't make value judgements we report on what sources say. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Blu-ray Special features

edit

There is no Easter-based short film hosted by Olaf, a behind-the-scenes feature or child-friendly activities and contests. 86.130.26.236 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Typo Error

edit

In the last part, Elsa touches Nokk and her icy powers transforms Nokk into ice with reins. There is also a calling to Elsa which leads Elsa to run off into the wind, leaving everyone in peace. The ppl who made this article forgot this part 175.156.80.174 (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Songwriters in the infobox

edit

About the music parameter in the infobox, I'm thinking about using the {{efn}} template for the songwriters (in this case, it's Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez) to reduce some potential clutter while keeping Christophe Beck as the primary composer. Thoughts before I implement the template? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with adding it as a footnote. The primary creator of music in a musical is the songwriters, not the score composer as it would be for non-musical film. See my IAR justification at Talk:Frozen II/Archive 1#Music credit in infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 2 September 2024

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 08:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply


Frozen IIFrozen 2 – Let me begin by establishing the fact that Frozen 2 is unequivocally the actual and official title of the film, per the official website, official trailer, social media, press releases, and press materials (do a Ctrl+F search for "Frozen 2", then do the same for "Frozen II"). Of course, the official name is not necessarily the COMMONNAME, so let's examine usage in reliable sources. Although "Frozen II" has gained some ground in recent years, ngrams show that "Frozen 2" still maintains a lead over "Frozen II". On Google Trends, the picture is even clearer: "Frozen 2" has an obvious and insurmountable lead. There are 7,270 scholarly results for "Frozen 2" on Google Scholar, and only 1,220 for "Frozen II". Likewise, Google News yields 48,100 results for "Frozen 2" and only 6,730 for "Frozen II" — that's an almost 90% drop! A survey of specific sources shows the same result. From the past two years: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. A sampling of reviews published when the film was released in 2019: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40].
Now that the COMMONNAME argument has been addressed, there are several other reasons "Frozen 2" is a more appropriate title than "Frozen II" even if "Frozen II" is the COMMONNAME, and especially if both are deemed equally common (in which case, the official name should naturally serve as tiebreaker). Firstly, "Frozen 2" is more recognizable to the general reader than "Frozen II". As seen with the Google Trends analysis, the natural instinct of readers is clearly to type "Frozen 2" into the search bar rather than "Frozen II", which is logical, considering Arabic numerals are more common in titles of works and beyond. The Frozen 2 redirect has received half as many lifetime views as the target page! When readers watch the film on Disney+, it's "Frozen 2". When they listen to the soundtrack on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple Music, it's "Frozen 2". The documentary is called Into the Unknown: Making Frozen 2; the podcast is called Inside Frozen 2. Now, let me play devil's advocate: perhaps the distinction between "2" and "II" is so minor that the impact on recognizability is negligible; if so, wouldn't it make sense to go with the actual title since there is no harm in doing so?
Secondly, as established earlier, Frozen II is not the actual title and is merely a stylistic device used in marketing materials. Per MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects and MOS:TMRULES, article titles should not normally emulate logo or marketing stylizations. For example, we use Fantastic Four (2015 film) and not Fant4stic; Mission: Impossible 2 and not M:I-2; and WALL-E and not WALL·E. This extends beyond film titles: see Lego (not LEGO), Eminem (not EMINƎM), Toys "R" Us (not Toys Я Us), Pink (singer) (not P!nk), AOL (not Aol.), etc. I acknowledge that the film's title card also uses "Frozen II", but there are many films whose onscreen title differs from its actual title: Dune (2021 film), Fast & Furious 6, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, Iron Man 3, etc. Thirdly, with a third and fourth film recently being announced, sources are already widely using "Frozen 3" and "Frozen 4": [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. (There are dozens more, but I don't want to spam this page any further.) Our draft pages are currently (and correctly) located at Draft:Frozen 3 and Draft:Frozen 4; we should be WP:CONSISTENT in our approach to dealing with these logo stylizations.
I recognize that this is a long read, but I am anticipating an uphill battle and felt it was important to demonstrate a strong rationale. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support per nom. Nommed like a boss. Lewisguile (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.

Utter nonsense. It's Frozen II onscreen and on the poster and DVD/Blu-Ray packaging. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of films with a different title onscreen:
List of films with a different title on the poster and DVD/Blu-ray packaging:
InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Using adding Info or not?

edit

Hey just a question, even though Frozen II is Disney's 58th animated film, what's the point of removing that info on the lead article? I just wanna know why? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would need a reliable source that explicitly states that. Also it is non-notable trivia so really doesn't belong in the article. Something being first, second or last might be notable, but 58th? Also a Wikipedia list article is not a reliable source for any information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I get it that Wikipedia needs to add a source on any website since it's not a reliable source, but how is it a non-notable trivia fact? Explain please. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
We generally don't add that sort of ordinal info to the lead of film articles from major film studios, Disney isn't special. Check most film articles. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the first Disney animated feature film and it is noted as such by most sources due to its importance. Pinocchio is second, but after that ordinal doesn't matter as much. Also the ordinals for Disney animated films are somewhat fuzzy based on what is counted. The article List of Disney animated films used to be numbered but that was removed as not being of defining importance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Funny part, even if something was notable, why can't things be allowed on the lead? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
"The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" per WP:LEAD. It is judgement call as to what goes in the lead but less important details about a topic generally just get covered in the article body. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply