Talk:Let It Go/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brilliant source

Around minute 14, the Lopez team go into depth about Let It Go. [1].--Coin945 (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 08 February 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that the current title is more appropriate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Let It Go (Disney song) → Let It Go (Idina Menzel song) – Technically, it is her song as she is the performer. For example This Is Me (Demi Lovato song). Even if it were performed by the cast it would be Let It Go (Frozen song) like in Get It Right (Glee cast song). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose For the same logic behind why Beauty and the Beast (Disney song) is not "Beauty and the Beast (Angela Lansbury song)". The artist in this instance, is not the defining component of the song. Also, stating that the song is Idina Menzel's would be arbitrary as she did not compose the song, nor is she the song's only performer in the film or soundtrack (as evidenced by Demi Lovato's cover and the countless dubbings of the song). Using This Is Me (Demi Lovato song) as an example is irrelevant, because in that case, Lovato's name is included to disambiguate between all the other existing songs of the same title by other artists. In other words, the only logical reason that would justify renaming this article would be, if there was another Disney song by the same name, from another Disney film, and even then, the proper title would be Let It Go (Frozen song) to disambiguate between such films. Personally though, I believe the title should be left just as it is now. However, if more editors support the renaming of the article to another title, then my suggestion in that instance would be the aforementioned, Let It Go (Frozen song) title, which would parallel Almost There (The Princess and the Frog song) and Once Upon a Dream (Sleeping Beauty song). ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Same reasons. The song was performed by numerous artists, in the official soundtrack album itself there has already been two. The two songwriters should also be considered for the article name if it is forced to be changed. And I don't think there will be another Disney song from another Disney film with the same name, and if it really happens, the name change issue can be discussed then, not now. Personally speaking, this name is already the best, just leave it like this. Quenhitran (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and even then Frozen song would make more sense.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

I would like to add this article to the page http://thinkersincorporated.com/2014/03/what-is-the-meaning-of-frozens-let-it-go. It is a very, very good detailed article that goes through all of the lyrics in this song, and reveals the underlying meaning both in the context of the movie, and out-of-context. http://thinkersincorporated.com/2014/03/what-is-the-meaning-of-frozens-let-it-go/ Littlejd97 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:BLOGS. Anyone can decide the song has pretty much any underlying meaning they want. I'm sure it's an excellent article, but it's just one person's opinion without any factual basis, and as such does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate translation

In the list of the international versions of Let it Go, the translation for the Cantonese 冰心鎖 (Bing Sam Soh) is Ice Heart Lock. This is a direct translation, and sounds extremely strange. A much better (and more poetic) translation would be Shackled Heart of Ice. Prishanthlinggaraj (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Cover inclusion

Since the cover of the song where a man sings "Let It Go" in the voices of various Disney characters keeps getting removed, I'll start a discussion here. For those who remove it, why do you feel it is not worthy of inclusion? For those who object to its removal, please explain why you feel it should stay. I'm personally neutral on the matter, though feel that if removed it should be explained through edit summaries. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It should stay, since this version has been covered in numerous independent third-party websites (The Telegraph, The Huffington Post). I suggest posting warnings on these IP's talk pages. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 02:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Very true, it has been. If consensus determines this should be included, I will warn those who continue to remove without explanation/discussion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I think you guys must do something for this situation,is quite overwelming,has to keep repeat the same reason over and over again.Want to discuss futre could open a PM me. Aaa839 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Let It Go in translation

• Brilliant source featuring the Lopez' explanation behind how and why the song was written, in regard to translation into other languages. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/frozen-composer-robert-lopez-perils-683171--Coin945 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Idina Menzel's single

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.

---

Chasewc91 added a few lines and a cover of the extended play version of Idina Menzel's version. Jedi94 seemed to disagree and revert it. I opened this discussion to seek consensus on the issue.

This is my opinion: Chasewc91 has a point when adding the release history section, and I agree with this. However, the Billboard source seems unclear about the release date of the radio version, so I'd like to ask them to find another one. The extended play version, which consists of four remixes, doesn't constitute a "single" to be added to the lead infobox. First, the remixes have nothing in common with the official version which was included in both the film and the original soundtrack. Also, the extended play is not part of the aforementioned album. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to include this EP cover and say "Yeah, it's a single." Consider all I know, the only single which was released from the album is Demi Lovato's version of the song last October.

If you want an infobox for the extended play version, develop another #1 heading similar to "Demi Lovato version", and include it there. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 16:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Chase, what sources say Idina's version was a single? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No source says that, I'm trying to argue against it. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Billboard source isn't unclear; it specifically says it was serviced to adult contemporary radio. The date was perhaps a little questionable (inferring January 6 from "two weeks ago" on the January 20 article post date), but that can be swapped out for a less specific "January 2014" if needed. The source is clearly there. As for the dance remixes EP/maxi-single, that is standard practice for pop singles and is considered a single release. Billboard is one of the most reliable music industry sources so I'm not sure why you're trying to discount it when the article clearly says "Idina Menzel's version of the film's 'Let It Go' ... was officially serviced to adult contemporary radio stations by Disney." Couple that with a digital maxi-single release and it seems fair to call this a single. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, here's DMG president Ken Bunt discussing the radio promotion of the Lovato and Menzel singles: "The idea was to go out with the Demi version and follow up with the Idina version. It's a non-traditional pop song for radio. We've been working it for a while, but radio is realizing, 'This is an undeniable song.'" –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not oppose your saying that it was a single, I just oppose your including it in the infobox. As you know, this article mainly discusses Idina's version of the song which is seen in the film, so it's a bit ridiculous when the lead infobox says something about another different remix. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Including, what, the cover? Generally, we include single covers when they're available for identification purposes, and if the remix maxi-single cover is all we have, shouldn't we use that one? –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, if your only issue was the inclusion of the cover, then why did you also revert the other infobox changes? –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course cover is not the only issue. What I want to address here is that, the lead infobox is only used to introduce facts about the original version of the song which is the main object discussed in the article. The remixes are not among this version and we don't discuss the remixes in the article so having facts about the remixes in the lead infobox is not our choice. Simply talking, what I think best here is that we leave the lead infobox exactly like that in Jedi94's revision, but adding your infobox to the "Other versions and remixes" heading (I'll try to develop that section as soon as possible so that your infobox may fit there). And as I perceived, the iTunes link you provided actually stated that this is an extended play, right? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 06:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

But even if you don't want to acknowledge the May remix EP/single release, there's the matter of the original song being released at radio in January of this year. Should the infobox not reflect this single release? And maxi-singles of the dance remix variety are frequently listed as EPs on iTunes. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but (as far as I know) I don't perceive radio releases as singles (I often find references for singles from iTunes or Google Play, and in this case I couldn't). If I'm wrong, could you cite an article which has already used this type of infobox arrangement like this? Thanks. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous examples but there has been consensus on music articles that radio add dates are considered single releases in the United States due to the lack of a traditional single market (barring remix EPs) for post-album single releases. For example Woohoo (a GA) - the song was released as a digital promotional single, but it was decided to list it as an official single due to its release to rhythmic radio stations in the US. Aside from the airplay, there is still the matter of the remix EP available on iTunes and Google Play - if you look at the track listing sections at GAs and FAs such as Bad Romance, 4 Minutes (Madonna song), What You Waiting For?, Halo (Beyoncé song), Diamonds (Rihanna song), etc., there are similar remix EPs that are listed here as single releases. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Would either of you care to discuss this further? If you don't have any more comments, I will change the infobox back and reinstate the release history table as there are sources to back my point that this has been released as a single. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you add it, provide the links to the sources please. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I already included them with this edit; this discussion is taking place because you, Jedi94, and others removed the info despite there being sources (see the release history section in the linked edit). –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My only objections to Chase's original edits were that it made it seem to the reader as though the Menzel version's first-ever release was in January, which it wasn't—it debuted with the album in November of the prior year. This, along with the fact that the original November release was not a traditional single, is what made us (certainly me, at least) revert those edits. If we do go ahead and restore this content though, then my only request is that it not ignore the song's intial November release date, nor that it include this artwork, but rather this one instead (if there as to be any cover art at all). The latter one serves as a broader representation of the article as a whole, rather than the former one which was only intended for the May remix EP. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The single infobox takes the release of the song as a single, not when it is first available to download. The fact that Frozen was released in November 2013 shows that the song existed before its single release. If it's any better, the release field can have a "(radio)" note beside it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That'd be adequate. I think the November release should also be included in the release history table, along with the radio debut and the remix EP. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So all these discussions are about the appropriateness of using the single infobox as the lead infobox in this article. I think if that's the case, it's relatively simple. I have concerns about it because I was questioning what this article was actually about. Is it about the remixes with substantial changes to the rhythms (even the core) of the song? No. Is it about all 41 languages localized of the song in every territory it debuted? No. So the lead infobox may mislead readers at first sight if we mention these versions. I don't object with Chase's ideas, what I propose is to maintain the lead infobox as it has been, and under any other headings can you add the single infobox, as what many song-related articles have done. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The norm in music articles is that when a song becomes a single, the single infobox trumps the song one. The dance mixes are not the only version of the single that were serviced; the soundtrack/album version of the song was also sent to adult radio. Would it be best if the infobox didn't include a single cover for the remixes or the alternate versions? Cover images usually don't add much to song articles anyway in most cases. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with having no artwork in the infobox. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The infobox has been changed back. As the remix single is mentioned in another section, I simply added a reference next to the release date in the infobox which supports the adult contemporary radio release. Let me know if you have any concerns with this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems you work on musical articles. Thank you for helping. However, with the present version of infobox, I'd think your radio version won an Oscar, and gained 3x platinum from RIAA. By the way, the radio version is largely unheard of, while the film version in the frozen album is much more notable. Shouldn't we put the most notable version (and the original version) in the lead? It can be misleading if you state the remix, prompting people into thinking that version won all the prizes. You won't say repeating the film version got xxx award is better, will you? By the way, concensus is the basis of our discussion. I personally would compromise if two editors disagree. On the other hand, I do not think the situation should be called concensus, as far as I've read, there is more disagreement than agreement to making it a single. Meanwhile, questions like why a single remix not from the album should be in the infobox, instead of the version from the album are not answered. I know there are lots of remixes out there, so you mean if Idnia Menzel remixes it it substitues the original one. You cited a chief officer's opinion, but did he represent his company? There are lots of attention to the film version and people expect to know about that version when they clicked here. After all, Wikipedia is for the general public, not professionals which is why technical terms are discouraged). If focusing on a norm damages readers' experience here, we should break it. Forbidden User (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, your examples are from single tracks/albums akin to Taylor Swift's Red. Are they from soundtracks of musical fims like Frozen? Concensus elsewhere does not mean concensus here. This is not a court using the Common Law, citing "similar cases" are not really valid. Moreover, your change on the chronology has an implication that the song belongs to Idina Menzel, which is not the case. It does not form any sort of chronology with other singles on it. I hope you can answer all queries. Before the issue is dealt I'm not reverting. In case you fail to do so, I will revert the content. Anyway, the title says "Disney song" which is from concensus.Forbidden User (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point is that the lead of this article is largely about "Elsa's" version (i.e. Frozen soundtrack version). If the infobox is about her remix (which is not sung by "Elsa" in Frozen), it would cause a mess. I don't think the major intent of this article is to introduce your remix. I know you have much deeper understaning in the industry, while I don't. However, things work differently from article to article. To me, the infobox should stress on the song's relationship with other songs in Disney's animated features (like Wreck-it Ralph, Tangled) instead of the fact that it was performed by Idina Menzel, as we chose the title Let It Go (Disney song) over Let It Go (Idina Menzel song). The latter one is very similar to your GA/FA examples, which is why principle there cannot suit here. If even Wikipedia policies allow exception, norms should not disallow it. Chasewc91, please be noted.Forbidden User (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd use the Frozen albuum cover here, if the final result is reverting back to the original one.Forbidden User (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The album version, the song that the character sings in Frozen, the version that won Oscars was sent to radio per the Billboard source. Radio promotion almost always indicates a single release. I think there's a major misunderstanding here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost always, so is it? I would like to listen to that remix, as I'm rather confused. I've seen some mentioning on that version, but I was not sure. Is it almost identical or a pop remix? You know, a completely different version can be created from the film version.Forbidden User (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read your Billboard source, and I see nothing stating that Idina's version is / will be released as a single. Here selling a "single" along with the soundtrack doesn't count. I think you know that. It is serviced to Disney Radios, yes. A single is to be released? Speculation. Perhaps you can put the cover of the single here first(I mean the talk page).Forbidden User (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume that they wish to promote Let It Go, but from the source, I can only see data showing that Disney Radios is supporting Demi Lovato's version (which is indeed a single). I do not see any "release date" either. If the EP has yet to be released, then its due weight is really low.Forbidden User (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

From revision history I believe that it's a EP remix, and sorry, that's not shown in the "music video". Also, it does not get enough due weight to appear at the infobox instead of the highly notable film version. Yes, a CEO in the industry sai it's important - he can be talking about its importance to the industry, which cannot match the film version's influence. His words cannot represent the public's idea, right? If you can cite an evidence showing that this vrsion has a larger influence to general public, I'd really like to know. I should reaffirm that Wikipedia is not for professionals or amateurs in different aspects. It is for everyone. I wonder how many people get puzzled by the infobox every day. I'm quite sad you have yet to answer my queries. P.S. Now I know there is the single, so I take back the 'speculation' claim here.Forbidden User (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read the source that clearly says none of the album's songs were promoted to radio outlets until two weeks ago, when Idina Menzel's version of the film's "Let It Go" ... was officially serviced to adult contemporary radio stations by Disney. There is no remix. The version that appears on the album, the version that this article discusses, was released to radio, hence the single infobox. The dance remixes are a different discussion entirely - that has to do with a purchaseable single release that occurred a few months after the original version of the song was released to radio. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Still you think people would bother to look at your lengthy explanation before still not understanding why it was called a single. Also, if that version is identical to the album's version then they could just play the same thing with the soundtrack. Are you working inside the industry that you know it is not the case? It's not just me that don't understand, as there are at least three other Wikipedians who don't understand. Even if the radio only got the copy of Let It Go and (you) count as a release while I cannot find a single DVD or the sort then it does not get the WP:Due weight to be in the infobox. Don't you see that the lead has nothing with that 'release' (according to you)? You want to rewrite the whole article then? Without Wikipedia:Consensus you can't. I appreciate your professionalism, but this is different from those GAs and FAs you mentioned above. This song has a very special place in the Disney film and serves a very specific purpose. Therefore its status as a song from Frozen (or soundtrack) is way more important than who sings it. See the move request. This is a consensus. Remember we look at the infobox before the lead. I think we should be able to see the most important information there, and it is not a radio release that are not widely known (give me a source if it actually causes another Let It Go hype).Forbidden User (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it about the remixes with substantial changes to the rhythms (even the core) of the song? No. Is it about all 41 languages localized of the song in every territory it debuted? No. So the lead infobox may mislead readers at first sight if we mention these versions. I don't object with Chase's ideas, what I propose is to maintain the lead infobox as it has been, and under any other headings can you add the single infobox, as what many song-related articles have done.

— User:Quenhitran

You never answered this, and your norm claim has been rebutted. Please, do consider our views.Forbidden User (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If this 'single' is released worldwide and becomes a hype, welcome to cite a reliable source here.Forbidden User (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, that claim has already been replied to, and an agreement has already been made on how the infobox should be presented. So unless you have anything else to say, I will not be replying to this thread anymore. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And I'd really like to see an example of where a song infobox is used at the top of an article with a single infobox for the same song lower on the page. I've been editing music articles regularly for years and have yet to see this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT a single. Yeah, you may think that it is ridiculous to have a song infobox on the top of the same article with a single infobox at the bottom. What about "Long Live"? It's a song by Taylor Swift. Wait. I know, when you click on the article, just one single infobox is present. Listen. This song, is a single for the one featuring Paula Fernandes, but not the original version. It does not mean that just because you have a single in a same article as a song it means the song must be a single. "Let It Go" is not a single, but the Demi Lovato version IS a single. Why don't we ask Idina Menzel on Twitter to see who's right? Never mind. There IS indeed a remix for the song in the movie, BUT anyone can just create a remix. Take this guy, he's a YouTuber. He remixed non-singles from Taylor Swift. So what if it has a remix? One more thing-it is released to radio. So what? I have heard of non-singles being played in the radio before. Popular songs DOES NOT mean they are singles or promotional singles. You get my point? Let's take "If This Was a Movie" by Taylor Swift as an example. (Sorry for using TS again, I'm just a fan of her and don't judge me) This song is popular, and once QUITE popular in my country (it's not US or UK or AUS or CAN or NZ or Europe), same to "Enchanted (Taylor Swift song)". You see, I don't get your logic. You have no source to prove that "Let It Go" by Idina Menzel is a single. Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the sources I've provided? I'm NOT talking about the Demi Lovato version, I'm talking about the Idina Menzel version of the song, which the Billboard link I provided earlier shows was released to adult contemporary radio. Not simply played on the radio - sent to radio by Walt Disney explicitly for radio to play. And remixes of the Idina Menzel version were released as a single by Disney. Not the Demi Lovato version. I'm sorry if I'm being rude, but it's frustrating to present sources that back my point plain as day and my words continue to be misconstrued. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The norm in music articles is that when a song becomes a single, the single infobox trumps the song one. The dance mixes are not the only version of the single that were serviced; the soundtrack/album version of the song was also sent to adult radio.

— User:Chasewc91

This is what you replied, and here is what I replied.

If focusing on a norm damages readers' experience here, we should break it.

If even Wikipedia policies allow exception, norms should not disallow it.

Even if the radio only got the copy of Let It Go and (you) count as a release while I cannot find a single DVD or the sort then it does not get the WP:Due weight to be in the infobox.

This song has a very special place in the Disney film and serves a very specific purpose. Therefore its status as a song from Frozen (or soundtrack) is way more important than who sings it. See the move request. This is a consensus.

— User:Forbidden User

You never said anything about the WP:Due weight issue. Meanwhile, you have never defended your norm claim. As I have told you, there is no one-size-fits-all way to do the infobox, and you have never replied.

I'd be fine with having no artwork in the infobox.

— User:Jedi94

He agreed on removing the cover only. Saying he agrees with the infobo settings now (before the reverting by nahnah4) is definitely taken out of context. Also, tacit approval does not apply in Wikipedia, nor does seniority. If you are from Japan, drop that, though I understand its status in your culture. You cannnot draw fake consensus.

For the example stuff, though presented not so politely, nahnah4 has given some to you.

If you are unwilling to continue this super-lengthy discussion, the result shall be no consensus. According to policies of Wikipedia, this means the version by Jedi94 is kept. I will restore that version for now. Should there be consensus otherwise, I will change that to your version. Thanks, Chasewc91.Forbidden User (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way consensus said it was Disney song. A more trivial matter is that I'll add the cover of the Frozen soundtrack to this page. Should I write a seperate rationale?Forbidden User (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The no consensus claim could be consensus on keeping the original version as well, as only one editor supports the single infobox. You forced me to do this headcount, Chasewc91.Forbidden User (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I quit in the middle because I'm not specialized in music, but films. Nahnah4 seems to be experienced in this field, so I hope that Nahnah4 can give some examples to support this argument. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 12:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Though rather grumpily, he has given articles of some songs by Taylor Swift as examples, showing that a song being serviced to radio is not equal to a single's radio release.Forbidden User (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Nahnah4 provided an example of "Long Live" - the original version of that song was not a single; a remix released in Brazil was - and "If This Was a Movie" - a song that may have received unsolicited airplay but was never released to radio by Taylor Swift's record label. In this case, "Let It Go" was released as a single by Demi Lovato, and later the Idina Menzel version was released as a radio single (not simply played on the radio by interested stations) and a digital maxi-single was released of remixes of the Menzel version. Not comparable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please listen better. It looks like you never bother to look at what I said. Yes, your edit count is 300 times of mine. But seniority never applies in Wikipedia. I am not a kid in need of teaching, savvy? Unless there is consensus on changing the infobox to "single" the "song" version should retain. Read Wikipedia policies again. By the way, it should be common sense that most of the readers are not professional in music industry, as I have repeatedly stated. This song could have both the status as a single and a song. By WP:Notability the more notable information is put on the top. ( If I get its wordings right) Remember changes should reflect consensus. No consensus no change, and this is not BLP issue. Therefore you should not abruptly change the infobox to the form you like.Forbidden User (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Forbidden User. The song might have peaked on 4 or 5 or 6 on the Billboard Hot 100, but a song that enters it mustn't be a single. Like, Ed Sheeran's "Don't" and "Afire Love" are not singles at all. I don't get what is wrong with putting a single and a song at the same article. Idina Menzel's "Let It Go" is NOT a single, but Demi Lovato's IS. There is a difference, okay? What is wrong with that? I'm sorry for using Taylor Swift songs as examples and I have already asked @idinamenzel on Twitter whether it is a single. Too bad there is no reply. This argument will last. And I think this article should be changed to "Let It Go (Frozen song)" as it applies to other Disney songs. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It applies to Disney songs. Same to "Once Upon a Dream (Sleeping Beauty song)". Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nahnah 4 has put the title issue into a seperate section. By the way, he is indeed talking about the Idina Menzel version. He only used the Demi Lovato version for comparison. As for the remix chase stated, this article is clearly not focusing on remixes, per Quenhitran. I am equally frustrated by someone claiming false consensus as well. Tacit approval never applies here. Yet I still make sure I do not scream with block letters.Forbidden User (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nahnah4, the song is not a single solely because it charted at #5 on Billboard. The song is a single because, unlike the Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran examples you continue to cite, Menzel's "Let It Go" was both promoted by the record label at radio (heads up Forbidden User - despite your repeated claims, this is not about any remix of the song) and digitally released for sale as a maxi single (which is a type of single; read the definition and examples on this page, and you'll see that this describes this release perfectly) on iTunes.

I've already demonstrated the WP:BURDEN here, and repeated it multiple times, now please let me know what else you two still don't understand so this verified, sourced info can be added back into the article without fuss. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not base my statement on it being a remix. I have made arguments on both situations. If this is a remix, then this is not what the article is about; if it is identical, then it has both the status of being a single and a song from the album Frozen. Even Quenhitran agreed this. What both of us (heads up Chasewc91 - despite your repeated claims, there is no consensus on accepting your change at any time) stated against you is that by common sense we should put the most easily-recognised status up (a song from the soundtrack of Frozen). An anecdote is that only one of my friends on Facebook (who is specialised in music industry like you)knows about the maxi single. I'm only using it to demonstrate how low the weight of this single is. Jimbo himself said that Wikipedia is for everyone, savvy? Also, what you are doing is straw man: disguised displacement of others' logic. "Promoted by the record label at radio" "almost always indicates a single release" (by you) is a speculation itself. Still you call this sourced. Afterwards you say this is a radio release, and discussion follows was about the due weight of that release, and whether norms should have exceptions (you never answered this - face it, there is a lot others), not the maxi single anymore. You saying that the maxi single justifies your version (which has been rebutted by Jedi94 and Quenhitran) is a concept change in disguise.

Meanwhile, I have rebutted your examples, showing they are not comparable. You claim so for nahnah4's example as well.

I don't want to cite what I have said before which you have yet to explained, but it seems you cannot listen well without my doing so:

Unless there is consensus on changing the infobox to "single" the "song" version should retain.

• I have demonstrated why you "consensus" is fake, while you never get solid evidence for your "consensus"
• The policy should well override your arguments, no matter how well-sourced it is

Don't you see that the lead has nothing with that 'release' (according to you)? You want to rewrite the whole article then? Without Wikipedia:Consensus you can't. (This shows how awkward the page is with your version; there is not even a discussion on changing the lead, do not do this without consensus)

You never said anything about the WP:Due weight issue. (I based it on the notability of the radio single)

I appreciate your professionalism, but this is different from those GAs and FAs you mentioned above. This song has a very special place in the Disney film and serves a very specific purpose. Therefore its status as a song from Frozen (or soundtrack) is way more important than who sings it. See the move request. This is a consensus. (Yet you still argue on whether the song has the status as a single)

— User:Forbidden User

That's what you claimed about the maxi single:

"a digital maxi-single was released of remixes of the Menzel version"

— User:Chasewc91

Then you say you are not talking about remixes.

"Let It Go" is not a single, but the Demi Lovato version IS a single.

— User:Nahnah4

Then you accused him of talking about Demi Lovato's version instead of Idina's.

Don't you see you have never listened well in this discussion? How can others (except me, perhaps) continue with such an attitude from you?

By the way, cite a source proving that the film version of Let It Go is released as a radio single (I suppose it's a disc which can have sales figures), not one that is an 'indicator' (the Billboard source), or your WP:BURDEN is not demonstrated.

P.S. Really, stop reverting to your version, or it will somewhat constitues an edit war.Forbidden User (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of edit warring when you're doing it just as much, and after an agreement was originally reached among the initial editors involved in this discussion. Following said discussion, the infobox was restored, and should have remained such until you reached a new consensus. Your changes were inappropriate, which was why I reverted back to what was originally agreed on before you continued the discussion, and you shouldn't have reverted that back.

In case you're not following, which you're clearly not since I've said this multiple times now, the remixes are ONLY for the maxi-single. The radio release was for the original version of the song. Consensus at numerous music articles has shown that a digital single release and a radio release (which you continue to discount for some reason) equals a single release, and the song being a single trumps the song infobox. Having two infoboxes is unnecessary and redundant. And I said that Nahnah was talking about the Lovato version because he was clearly confused and entered this discussion without reading what others, mainly myself, had to say - he came in baselessly accusing me of putting the single infobox up solely because of the song charting on Billboard and the Lovato version's single release, which isn't the case.

Also, your repeated claims that I did not garner consensus with this original discussion are false. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and know that it's not a head-count of who agrees with what; it's based on the quality of the discussion. Through compromise to include the infobox without the Let It Go Remixes cover, several of the editors and I had already come to that agreement and I waited several days to hear from those who did not respond and were presumably uninterested in continuing the discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You said you guys have a consensus, huh? I wonder where is the policy that states tacit approval as a means of showing agreement. It looks like if I have to go on a trip and will be off for a few days (or I'm having other articles to work on) disabling me from continuing the discussion you will say we have reached the agreement. I have repeated it quite a lot. So please listen. Until now you still cannot give a source that says "the Idina version of Let It Go (the original version) was released as a radio single on......". According to you, your Billboard source, which says "serviced to radio", "almost always indicates a (radio) single release". This is a speculation, or your own interpretation. It's not that I'm really discounting it having the status as a single,(that should be left to Nahnah4, though I personally agree more with him than you) it's that you need to cite a source that does not raise doubt, i.e. it should be explicit; there should be no need to see your (lengthy) explanation in order to understand how a "radio release" is justified by the source. The Billboard one cannot satisfy. Remember, Quenhitran and Jedi94 are Wikipedians, and yet they raised doubt on your source. How about other Wikipedians? How about readers who are not even Wikipedians? Do you have concern of them?

Next, check what it means by "compare". Nahnah4 used the Demi Lovato version (oh, there was an agreed version with the version's single infobox under the song infobox, which stayed for months before your interjection, Chase) to give his definition of "single". I know you will feel that Nahnah4 is being rude, but that does not mean you have no need to listen. He has always been comparing. He does not agree that there is such a radio single. You should reply Nahnah4 if you disagree with his/her rationale.

Then it comes the rationale under your "the song being a single trumps the song infobox". The only explanation I saw is norm, not even guidelines (remember there are instances that guidelines (or even policies) can be breached, see one at a discussion on the inclusion of a subsection about perceived LGBT parallels in Frozen, where WP:FRINGE materials are included because of consensus). Here is the instances I replied on this rationale:

By common sense we should put the most easily-recognised status up (a song from the soundtrack of Frozen.

Don't you see that the lead has nothing with that 'release' (according to you)? You want to rewrite the whole article then? Without Wikipedia:Consensus you can't. (This shows how awkward the page is with your version; there is not even a discussion on changing the lead, do not do this without consensus)

I appreciate your professionalism, but this is different from those GAs and FAs you mentioned above. This song has a very special place in the Disney film and serves a very specific purpose. Therefore its status as a song from Frozen (or soundtrack) is way more important than who sings it. See the move request. This is a consensus. (Yet you still argue on whether the song has the status as a single)

It should be common sense that most of the readers are not professional in music industry, as I have repeatedly stated. (Now I repeat once more)

Remember we look at the infobox before the lead. I think we should be able to see the most important information there, and it is not a radio release that are not widely known (give me a source if it actually causes another Let It Go hype).

You never said anything about the WP:Due weight issue. Meanwhile, you have never defended your norm claim. As I have told you, there is no one-size-fits-all way to do the infobox, and you have never replied.

Your examples are from single tracks/albums akin to Taylor Swift's Red. Are they from soundtracks of musical fims like Frozen? Concensus elsewhere does not mean concensus here. This is not a court using the Common Law, citing "similar cases" are not really valid.

Your change on the chronology has an implication that the song belongs to Idina Menzel, which is not the case. It does not form any sort of chronology with other singles on it.

Things work differently from article to article. To me, the infobox should stress on the song's relationship with other songs in Disney's animated features (like Wreck-it Ralph, Tangled) instead of the fact that it was performed by Idina Menzel, as we chose the title Let It Go (Disney song) over Let It Go (Idina Menzel song). The latter one is very similar to your GA/FA examples, which is why principle there cannot suit here. If even Wikipedia policies allow exception, norms should not disallow it.

— User:Forbidden User

I shall reinstate that Wikipedia is for everyone, according to Jimbo. If the song infobox at the top (no one say you can't put a single infobox in the remix section) causes less doubt to non-musically professional readers (like me), then it benefits Wikipedia more. If my memory serves, exceptions are allowed if that benefits Wikipedia.

By the way, there is something you said:

And later the Idina Menzel version was released as a radio single (not simply played on the radio by interested stations) and a digital maxi-single was released of remixes of the Menzel version. Not comparable (to the "radio release").

Menzel's "Let It Go" was both promoted by the record label at radio and digitally released for sale as a maxi single (which is a type of single; read the definition and examples on this page, and you'll see that this describes this release perfectly) on iTunes.

— User:Chasewc91

If there is someone who (tries) to mix up the two release that is you. I'm quite sure the main issue is the so-called radio single, yet you always mention the maxi single when trying to justify yourself. I'm listening carefully. Please look at the talk quotes.

I actually understand why other editors chose to leave - you are always forcing your opinion. I think I've seen a section in a page talking about false consensus. Go read that.Forbidden User (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is False-consensus effect. WP:CCC and WP:TEND are useful as well.Forbidden User (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Section Break:Compromise to solution

Quenhitran suggested adding the single infobox at the remix section (as your maxi single is a remix), which is a good compromise solution to this conflict. Why couldn't you care to consider making this article the first example of such solution? Are norms so powerful that Wikipedia should not be diversified? I know you are experienced, which makes it hard for you. You can continue arguing above this subsection. However, I'd appreciate if you consider this solution.Forbidden User (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason that does not work is because the single release involves more than just the dance remixes, as the original version was also released as a single to adult radio, and having two infoboxes is redundant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it redundant? If a remix is a single, there must be a separate infobox for it. It applies to "Radioactive (Imagine Dragons song)". And Chasewc91, you don't seem to know what I am talking about. Only you want this to be a single. No one is on your side. Therefore, majority wins. Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think to non-professionals and non-Wikipedians this solution is better than your version. By the way, consensus itself consists of different people's opinion in proportion to the said opinion's status as majority or minority view. It should be beneficial to the majority of stakeholders as well. This solution suits.Forbidden User (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, don't you think there is no one supporting you, yet you filibuster all the way here? With such time costs most editors simply bail away. Yes, I read Wikipedia:Consensus before saying so.Forbidden User (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion refresh

This discussion has gotten long-winded and unnecessarily hostile, so I would like to take a step back from anything I have previously said and try to reiterate my main point in a clear, concise, and more polite way - and I apologize for not doing so earlier. Let me go through this discussion and readdress every standing concern again (or possibly for the first time, in case I missed something), bulleted for convenience. I invite any editors I am about to mention back to this discussion to revisit my points.

• Quenhitran's initial concern was that the maxi single release (which I will refer to as "the remix EP" for now for the purposes of this discussion, as that is how it is listed on iTunes) was not enough to justify a single infobox and that I find another source to back the song's radio release, as this Billboard article was "unclear" about its radio release (despite explicitly saying that the song was "officially serviced' to adult contemporary radio stations by Disney)." I later addressed this problem by posting an article from Rolling Stone which explains in more detail Disney's release of the song to radio - "A few weeks before the album made its debut last November 25th, the company's music division put out reliable pop star Demi Lovato's version of "Let It Go" — and it barely earned any radio play. But somewhere around early January, the album hit a tipping point, shortly after Disney began pushing the version by Idina Menzel, who plays Elsa in the animated film." Quenhitran has still not replied to me after I addressed this initial concern.

• XXSNUGGUMSXX wished to know my sources, and Quenhitran claimed I had none. (Nahnah4 also made this claim later on in the discussion.) Two were provided for the radio release, and iTunes/Amazon/Google Play support the release of the remix EP. Now, I'd also like to share a few sources I had not provided earlier that refer to Menzel's version of the song as a single. An article from Playbill refers to the song - not remixes of the song - as a single in the title (Listen to Club Remixes of "Frozen" Single "Let It Go" from Dave Audé, Papercha$er and More) [emphasis mine] of this article about the song's dance remixes. There is also another Billboard article about the dance remixes (just one, actually) of the song, but like the Playbill article, it also refers to the main Menzel song as a single: "'Frozen' is about to put a chill on the dance floor: its top 10 Billboard Hot 100 single 'Let It Go' has been remixed for clubs." Again, emphasis mine, and that bolded word is important, because the Billboard Hot 100 is not a chart just for singles - it reflects the 100 most popular songs in America every week, regardless of whether or not they were released as singles.

• Jedi94 expressed concern with the inclusion of the remix EP cover (which was a part of my original changes to the article) and proposed using a cover for another release by Walt Disney Records that includes the "Let It Go" song in every language. Quenhitran was opposed to this, and still opposed to the use of the single infobox: "I have concerns about it because I was questioning what this article was actually about. Is it about the remixes with substantial changes to the rhythms (even the core) of the song? No. Is it about all 41 languages localized of the song in every territory it debuted? No. So the lead infobox may mislead readers at first sight if we mention these versions." As the remix EP is not the only way the song was released (the main song, which this article is about, was also sent to radios, as I addressed in the first bullet point), I understood Quenhitran's concerns as being with the inclusion with the inclusion of a single cover at all (be it for the remix EP or the Complete Set). I proposed not including one, as a cover wouldn't add particular significance anyway, and Quenhitran never responded to this proposal.

• Forbidden User also expressed concern: "Thank you for helping. However, with the present version of infobox, I'd think your radio version won an Oscar, and gained 3x platinum from RIAA. By the way, the radio version is largely unheard of, while the film version in the frozen album is much more notable" and said that "questions like why a single remix not from the album should be in the infobox, instead of the version from the album are not answered." I just want to clarify that, as the sources in the first bullet point show, the original Menzel song from the Frozen album and film is the one that was sent to radio, not a separate "radio version".

• There was a proposal that the song infobox be used at the top with a single infobox located later down the page, which I still am opposed to. I find that to be inappropriate and redundant as the song and single infobox would represent the same song ("Let It Go" by Idina Menzel from the Frozen soundtrack, in case we're not being clear), not different versions of the song. Nahnah4 pointed out "Long Live" as an example for this (for the record, this article uses only one infobox; not both as Nahnah4 stated) - however, that refers to such a case where the original song (from Taylor Swift's album) and the single release (a duet with another singer) were different. Nahnah4 made a comparison to this, saying that another version of "Let It Go" was a single (referring to the Demi Lovato version, I believe, but I am making the point that Menzel's version was also released as a single).

• Nahnah4 also said, "There IS indeed a remix for the song in the movie, BUT anyone can just create a remix. Take this guy, he's a YouTuber. He remixed non-singles from Taylor Swift. So what if it has a remix?" But the remix EP consisting of multiple remixes of Menzel's song was officially released as a digital single by Walt Disney Records - these aren't random remixes by YouTube users.

• One more point from Nahnah4 that I'd like to address - they discredited my sources showing the song was released to radio, saying, "I have heard of non-singles being played in the radio before" and listing various Taylor Swift songs that were not released as singles but that this user heard on the radio in their country. I would like to point you to Cprice1000's essay WP:SINGLE?, about promotional singles, which describes what does and does not make a song a single. It differentiates "Being played on the radio" from "Serviced to US radio with an official radio add date". See the first bullet point with sources from Billboard and Rolling Stone that show Walt Disney serviced the song to US radio.

Do any of you have further concerns? Is there anything I could state more clearly? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may way in, according to what I understand if there are reliable sources pointing that the song was released as a single to radio, regardless if a date is actually given shouldn't the page reflect as such? Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You would think. But some users disagree. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Single (music) a song is considered a single if it is released "separately for promotional uses such as digital download or commercial radio airplay, and in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album." So if it has been released to radio and there are reliable sources then the page needs to reflect as such. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I may point this out since Chase used reliable sources to show that it was released as "commercial radio airplay" it also states in WP:SINGLE? that a song has been "Serviced to US radio with an official radio add date" (January 2014) and is "Promoted as a single and listed as a single in several publications" (there are two reliable sources stating the song is a single by Menzel. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If Chase's edits comply with WP:SINGLE? (which they definitely do), then they should be included. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 01:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Jedi, look more closely. That is an essay, not even a guideline. I can write an essay to immediately rebut that essay, and Chase can do so much quicker. Do you have proof that this article is just like every other music articles? I have told you that norms are not necessarily followed, even guidelines and policies are. If Quenhitran's proposal reflects the not-so-notable release (I'm going to talk about your sources, Chase) and the worldwide-notable (Here the US is not the whole world) film release in proportion to their notability and due weight, then why are you (you and bumblebee) so stuck with your experience and norms? This does no good to improvements of Wikipedia, which should have the information written in a way that most readers don't get puzzled.Forbidden User (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hereby I request Bumblebee9999 to revert all his edits, which significantly changes the article, including what have yet to be proposed. Even if the final consensus is to go for the single infobox, the only change shall be the infobox itself. Others should be left for another discussion/ There is only two people talking and you think there's already a consensus? Moreover you have made quite a lot of mistakes in it, like the YouTube views, that is 260 million, 130 times of 2 million. This is an intolerable and uncivil act.Forbidden User (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Another notable thing is that according to your sources, the "single" has only the English version. We have stress on the other versions, which are no singles by themselves (I'm talking about this version, not the one made without consensus). Wait until the majority of them get the "single" status. Quote something besides essays (that are presumably written by people (or a person) like you). Here the conflict is between a Disney article and a song article because of differences in practice. The consensual version should reflect both. Quenhitran's is a perfect example. The final subsection in Frozen is indeed a long one, but that is because of the need to have a consensus. You two appear to love editing without discussing, like Chase with the infobox and bumblebee with the current event. This is not something that should appear in Wikipedia, as this creates conflicts. Read False-consensus effect, something you believe is normal is not in others' eyes. Here I ask you to stop. Discussion is disrupted with what you are doing. Forbidden User (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall reinstate that Wikipedia is for everyone, according to Jimbo. If the song infobox at the top (no one say you can't put a single infobox in the remix section) causes less doubt to non-musically professional readers (like me), then it benefits Wikipedia more. If my memory serves, exceptions are allowed if that benefits Wikipedia. This page is extremely notable, and most people reading would never be professionals, which is why I propose Quenhitran's version. This is exceptional because this article itself is exceptional, having elements of a Disney animation-related article and a music article. How does it harm readers' experience? I (along with some others) wish it looks like Disney animation-related song articles while you wish it to look like the music articles you have been dealing with (though this is really different). Why don't we consider doing so, per WP:Consensus? By the way, that is a policy, and what you cited to support your norm claim is an essay.Forbidden User (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

My only question is: what sources indicate this edition isn't a single? Chase provided sources to support his edits, I'd just like to see Quenhitran and Forbidden User to provide counter-sources before a decision is made. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Found five by now, still working on. I will demonstrate general perception besides professional views, so that people can really understand why not adapting Quenhitran's proposal causes more trouble. By the way, is there no one concerning about WP:Due weight? I dare say another worldwide hype isn't coming for that "release", and people aren't reading this article for that "release". How about the RfC? any opinion?Forbidden User (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"after Disney began pushing the version by Idina Menzel, who plays Elsa in the animated film." Wow, so explicit. Artists push notable songs in their soundtracks to enhance sales. You should know it. By the way I'm looking at other stuff, I hope you won't mind answering for others. P.S. I will be off from 2 to 7 July. I think the discussion will at least last until then. If you do not mind, please stop and wait for my turn to speak before you guys decide - I do not wish to see you using your admirable debating skills to shove everyone to "consensus" before I'm back. I'm considering a RfC as well, as it looks like the situation turns around whenever a new person comes in, which does not look good.Forbidden User (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Chase, let go of the remix. This is simply something to add in the "Other versions and remixes". Its status is a single, yet it is a remix. Done. Why are you still talking about that, huh? Stop changing concept in disguise, please.Forbidden User (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

His sources on supporting its status "solidly as a single" are like "Disney began to 'push' Idina Menzel's version", "almost always indicates a single release" and later citing an essay (see the talk page, there are disagreements of higher quality on that essay, one of them saying that a single release is justified if it can be bought or sold in commercial markets, which shows that the essay is more of an opinion) I can't find it on iTunes, by the way. Meanwhile, the disagreements are not addressed, which, by Chase's logic, shows consensus on the lack in weight of that essay. Jedi, please be noted.

Others actually talks about remixes. The term singles has no strict definition within the industry; when talking about Billboard Hot 100 a usual practice is adding the word "singles" at the end and have the word kept when mentioning songs in the list, as this makes less confusion there, even more so when talking about remixes with the same name that are singles. They don't write for us to cite. If you insist, I will cite some articles using the term "song":

1. From Billboard (or you can say The Hollywood Reporter)
2. From Marshable; Idina Menzel herself replied
3. From Broadway
4. From World News
5. Updatable description at the music videos posted by Disney (so you mean they are so stupid they don't know it is a single while you know? And Disney is silly enough not to use the chance to promote their "radio single" for business potential?)

They are results I found by entering "Let It Go Frozen Idina Menzel" into the Yahoo! Search Engine here and appear in the first page, while none (when I searched) claims "single"

According to the Yahoo! engine, "Let It Go Frozen Idina Menzel song" has 967,000 results here and "Let It Go Frozen Idina Menzel single" has 56,600 results here. This is a general preference in calling it a song. When searching I banned words "August","September","October","November","December" and set no country or language preference to ensure that all results are written after your "radio single" release (I cannot ban "2013" as the film release date, 27 Nov 2013, is usually mentioned in the articles). They can be verified in my link.

The Marshable source, besides using the word "song", also states:"Elsa's "Let It Go" anthem of liberation has taken a life of its own" , does it not show that Elsa is even more known than Idina for the song? That's why I oppose stressing on the singer and affirms stressing on its Disney musical song status, and so is heavily related to other animated features (hence the song infobox, with soundtrack chronology only). That's why I chose to put the song infobox at the top; again, to show your "radio single"'s status, it is fair to put it (why not with info about maxi-single by Idina as well!) in the remix section.Forbidden User (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I didn't notice the note warning that WP:SINGLE? was an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. Honest mistake. I hereby retract my previous comment. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I cited SINGLE? as an essay, not a guideline or policy, just to point out to Nahnah4 the distinction between being played on the radio and being a radio single. My apologies if that seemed misleading, though I did explicitly refer to it as an essay.

Forbidden User, a single is by definition a song, so your sources do not contradict any of mine. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And you continue to say that users will get confused when they see the article with my edits. Please explain how? The article explains everything about the song; the single infobox would highlight its single release, which you would think would inform readers.

Again, the problem with two separate song and single infoboxes for the same Menzel recording is that it is absolutely redundant. The information contained in both, aside from the release date (the song infobox would take the soundtrack album's release date, while the single infobox would take the January radio add date), would be exactly the same. Despite you telling me I'm getting caught up in the norms at song articles, it seems you are basing your opinions on the norms at other Disney song articles, and "Let It Go" is a unique exception that unlike "Beauty and the Beast", "Colors of the Wind", or even this song "Let It Go" prior to January of this year, to cite a few examples, the film version featured in the movie was also released as a commercial single in addition to being featured in its parent film. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(←) I've invited Kww to this discussion as he is more experienced than I am when it comes to music articles, chart issues, single releases and such. Perhaps he can explain things better or point out something I may not be seeing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about inviting Kww into this myself, good idea. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 18:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at my comments again. If both professionally and generally (here I refer to the general public) prefers using the term "song" to the term "single", then describing Let It Go generally as a song would be better accepted. I wonder if someone (not in Wiki) would bother to write that a song is not a single. They call it a single when they think so. By your statement, you are trying to make yourself "invincible", and no, a "single" has meanings more than a song. I have shown that people prefer "song", that is, they don't think it qualifies as a single. Otherwise they would call it a single, and there won't be so few articles calling the song a single.

Meanwhile, you have mistaken my proposal. The chronology shown will be different as well, and I wish Idina's maxi-single can get into the lower infobox (the proposed one at the "Other versions" section), though that needs your help, Chase. By the way, I thought you'd include that Disney-owned (or is it?) studio into your envisioned version. You can do that in the lower infobox. There should be some videos of the maxi-single or such, that can get into the music video of the lower infobox. That satisfies us all.

Thank you for thinking that I've known very much about WP:DISNEY with a month or two here. I just look at the articles, and conclude that there is conflict between the two practices. I'm explaining why people'd get confused here: First, there are already Wikipedians that get confused, and look at the length of your explanation just to state your facts. They are Wikipedians with experience, and yet such a ton of explanation is needed. This shows that without deep knowledge in the music industry (yours, and of course Kww's, are indeed deep), one (especially non-Wikipedians who does not even know what the heck a talk page is) would probably have to look at either your painfully-long, yet not-so-complete explanation (if they know about talk pages), or learn the whole thing right from some term-definitions, just to understand an infobox. It is not their problem - the majority only thinks this is a song, while knowing there is a thing called a single. Now you're trying to "inform" something that is not really agreed even in the industry (or more clearly, a rather minority view) and put it at the top, which implies its majority and WP:Due weight are that high. Putting it at a lower position does not harm the comprehensiveness or informativeness - I can still find out about those single stuff and look into that if I wish, but if I don't want to know anything besides that song called Let It Go - just look at the lead and ignore the "Other versions". This helps Wikipedia more, remember it's for everyone - I see the requirement of certain professional knowledge as a barrier.

Besides, you guys must have dealt with lots of songs by lots of artists. How about songs that are part of the plot of musicals? Or animation musicals? As I've stated, including a single infobox in anywhere of this article already breaks the norm (if there are any) of those articles. Remember, this is for the first time (in forever) a song from an animation musical goes to such a hype (or the second, if you count Circles of Life). Everything is different.

For your sources, I've told you how casually Playbill (etc) use the term "single" because there is no regulations or strict definitions on the term. If using the term is more convenient and sounds more fluent in that article, then they use it - you think they would consider that some Wikipedians would take that seriously, and so they should be stricter in using the word? No, they don't care. They take care of typos, information accuracies, etc, which is why we call them reliable. I've given some that chose not to use the term as well. If they believe "that's a single - common sense !" then they'd subconsciously use the term very often, and that is not the case. That's another reason of confusion. If no consensus is to be formed, just leave the article with only that song infobox alone - that one was long-standing. You don't want that, and I don't want to go that hard, which is why I turn to Quenhitran's proposal (perhaps mine is a little bit different, anyway). I hope you can consider these. Kww seems to know more, but just do not put him on the judge seat. I pity him if you guys really do.Forbidden User (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a neutral party here, just looking to know what sources everyone based their edits off of. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 19:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral as well. My only concern is that people are not reading what is written and making bad arguments here. From what I have read Forbidden User and others are basing false claims that Chase is making his edits based on the EP that was released to iTunes and Amazon.com, when it is clear he is not. He is making his argument based on what I assume is two very reliable sources as if anyone were to look throughout all WP music pages Billboard and the Rolling Stone are used quite frequently if not almost all the time on music pages and they are disputing that because they are misreading what Chase is saying because they are so fixated on it not making a single (which it is) that they are just twisting everything he is saying and Forbidden is just basing their information on outdated sources that are from last year and are not updated to show that the song is a single. Sorry, but the argument against it not being a single is weak regardless if you discount WP:SINGLE? because if you look at the definition set up on the WP page Single (music) the song qualifies as a single as it has been released twice (once for Lovato's version and again for Menzel's) and that it was planned by Disney to release both as a single. I am just intervening because I noticed the weak argument and the twisting and felt that Forbidden and others were being a bit unfair and harsh on Chase and are not showing any WP:Good faith at all when it comes to his edits and are just plain making it all about what they want and not considering the sources and their dates, etc. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I may add, Chase has also made some weak arguments calling the EP a Maxi-single when it is not. They are two completely different things if you look at the pages for an Extended play and a Maxi-single, the two are not the same. The EP is called an EP by iTunes, Amazon.com however does not. But at the same time, basing it on a Maxi-single is not the same thing as a single itself two completely different things but he has given reliable sources that clear state it was released as a single. Sorry, but it is one whether Forbidden and others can except it or not. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I may also state this, the suggesting of two infoboxes for the same song with the same information does fall under WP:REDUNDANT and there for I concur that only one infobox must be used for Menzel's version and that it should reflect that the song was released as a single in that infobox. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may add this last part, I think the main problem here is no one wants to base the information on the reliable sources and only wants to base the page on their personal opinion, personally I could careless which way it goes, it is just a page after all, no real reason to get so worked up over something so, well for a lack of a good term, pathetic. If it gets posted as a single (which it should) then great the page is showing the correct information, if it does not then it is what it is and oh well, even though the information would be wrong. But as I said, it is just a page... Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have requested for a temporary full-protection until this dispute is resolved to end any edit warring. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First, it is you that does something like edit-warring. It is you that try to make the version you like stay. Everything should be at Quenhitran's last version while you, bumblebee, abruptly changes the page to the version of Chase without consensus. This only harms discussion. I have requested you to change the page back, and yet you don't seem to listen well. You are not the judge, not the one who decides consensus. By the way, you are making false claims. I have ensured that what I cite (here I mean the five sources I cite directly) is from 2014. You did not look at my sources. I have seen Chase's sources. What I'm saying is that people, professional or not, prefer using the word song. Are you saying that the world is not as smart as you are? We should trust group intelligence, and calling anyone's contribution pathetic is not a good conduct., not to say calling group intelligence so. We base our pages on what benefits Wikipedia, not any personal exoerience. Honestly, do you think that many people's experience adding up won't have any weight? I have personally given sources to show that it is not widely acknowledged to call it a single, unless you are superior to those professionals. Meanwhile, it looks like you think Disney does not know what they are doing and saying, as you discount their choice of words.

About my proposal, the two infobox provides different information.

1. It shows different release dates.
2. It shows the song's relationship with different chronologies clearly.
3. Possibly information about the EP in the single infobox.

You also accuse others of not assuming good faith without giving very solid proof, which violates assuming good faith (a policy) already. Be careful of your words.

The reliable sources that Chase gives (which are not about remixes, as in English, "single remix" = "remix single", people in the industry don't expect any controversy on that) say "after Disney pushes Idina Menzel's version of Let It Go", here pushes can be interpreted in too many ways, which does not account as reliable here. Meanwhile, is Single (music) a guideline or policy? No. All the things you two have cited to support your definition are WP:USERGENERATED, and on the talk pages, there is quite a lot of disagreement (raised by experienced editors on music articles) which remains unaddressed. You think you can cite that to help you? Here I cite a definition of "single" from Cambridge dictionary: "a record or CD which has only one main song on it" Do you mean that Cambridge professors with high knowledge in linguistics and others in pop culture are not as reliable as you are? This definition can be cited in the academic world, while Wikipedia content cannot. Are you saying that those non-guideline, non-policy "proofs" you (and Chase) cite for your "norm" claim are reliable sources? It is not just a dictionary definition, but a common knowledge (different from experience) to the majority of people in the world. I have cited sources to prove so (the 20-fold difference in search results). I don't think Let It Go is even discussed on the Internet before the film release in November.

Bumblebee has only repeated what Chase said, and he has stated his neutrality, so I hope his act matches his speech.Forbidden User (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have searched the official site of Disney, only to find that Disney posts nothing about the "radio release". Are they trying to promote a "single"? Or are they pathetic, according to Bumblebee?Forbidden User (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ken Bunt, president of the Disney Music Group, said,"The idea was to go out with the Demi version and follow up with the Idina version. It's a non-traditional pop song for radio. We've been working it for a while, but radio is realizing, 'This is an undeniable song.'" This is from the Rolling Stone source (here) which Chase used. The president (supposedly having more creditability than Wikipedia) himself describes the thing played on radio as "a clip from the film" and uses "song" instead of single to describe the Idina version twice. So is he so forgetful that he forgets he has just made a "radio single"? And does he know nothing about business that he does not say anything in promotion to that "single"? Is it a fault in "pushing a song in radio"?? I'm using Chase's logic here.Forbidden User (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think I'm still talking about the EP, you are wrong. I have said "Let go of the maxi-single."Forbidden User (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As already stated, Forbidden User, a single is a song (while a song is not always a single). Per consensus at numerous music articles, a radio release constitutes a single release. I have two sources showing the radio release. So you can find all the sources in the world that call "Let It Go" a song (you can find sources that call any #1 hit single a song, for that matter), but it does not contradict any source I have provided that calls it a single. For your argument to have any weight, you will need a source explicitly claiming that the song was not released as a single. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, re:your claim that "push" in the RS article can mean multiple things - as stated earlier in the discussion, there is also a quote in that article from a Disney record executive who states that their plan was to release Lovato's version to radio and follow up with Menzel's version. If that isn't clear enough for you, there's the "officially serviced to radio" quote in the Billboard article. Quite frankly you're being very stubborn and choosing to ignore information that has been clearly presented to you multiple times, and if you don't have anything new to say, it would be best if you allow other editors to comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

One more comment regarding your references to Cambridge definitions - Wikipedia is rooted in verifiability. If there are reliable sources that call the song a single (which there are), there are reliable sources that say the song was released to radio (which there are), and we can verify that this information is in said sources (which we can), then the information needs to be in the article and the main infobox needs to reflect this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The one who is stubborn is you, if you like personal attacks. First of all, one RS cannot oust all other RS that does not say so. I don't think professionals don't have a sense when to call a song a single, and I can't believe when the president was interviewed about the matter, he still doesn't call it a single. As grammatically, saying "Let It Go single remix", "single 'Let It Go remix'" (the remixes are called Let It Go as well) or so are the same (to most writers), what we have to deal with is only the "officially serviced to radio" from one source. How can you explain that why no one says so beside that source? Even Disney is too lazy to help promoting that "release"? Or is that writer the only one deeming Disney's action as "serviced to radio"? You have ignored the fact that the definition of "single (or single release)" differs among professionals. Sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was dealing with that statement. I have done another search for RS calling it a "single" (directly using the term) without talking about remixes (so that it really is talking about your radio release), and of course not Demi, here. There is no RS in the results. "There are reliable sources that (here I add, claerly) call the song (exactly this song) a single" is false. For your argument to have any weight, you will need a source explicitly claiming that the song was released to radio / released as a single (in exact wording). Remember the WP:BURDEN lies on you, it is you that needs to cite sources using the wording.

Also, the definition of "single" in Wiki is disputed. You have chosen to ignore the disagreement made by fellow editors working on music articles. There are a considerable amount of opinion questioning the very definition of "single" itself (and by the way, Single (music) did not cite anything for the definition there, and hence gets heavy questioning at the talk page; the same happens to that tiny essay). They are not bothering with you ≠ there is no such dispute. Using disputed definition in a dispute is not a good idea. Cite a reliable source saying that your "serviced to radios" = "single release". I have cited one against it. Are you sure the Cambridge definition can be ousted?

The rationale behind "single"="must go on single infobox" itself is based on a norm (which is based on music articles of songs by Taylor Swift, Adele, etc) while here, the song is part of the plot of an animated musical, "sung" by a character inside. Does that happen to the "numerous music articles" you cite? "The main infobox needs to reflect this" again, that is only your thinking. Obviously you have yet to read False-consensus effect. If this is a fact, we can reflect it in many places. Of course you want it to go with your practice, but I'm pretty sure you have never thought of others. There are a considerable amount of opinion questioning the very definition of "single" itself (and by the way, Single (music) did not cite anything for the definition there, and hence gets heavy questioning at the talk page), with the only rather undisputed meaning being similar to the Cambridge definition. Do you think your words here have solved that prolonged dispute, not only in Wiki, but also in the music industry? To be honest, you never say anything on why you think your definition is the right one. And then the WP:Due weight issue. Prove its weight. Prove that your "indirectly implied single release" has got the due weight. You cannot find many people interested in the song "Bad Romance" who does not know Lady Gaga sings it. Here, there are indeed many people still saying the song is sung by Elsa. This is due to the relative unimportance of Menzel in Let It Go and Elsa getting high cultural influence. This is why this page can be treated differently, and the due weight becomes unclear.

One last note before my leave (I will only be back on July 7, here I hope other editors here can listen to me again before making comments): When we contribute on Wikipedia, we wish to improve it. The most important thing is this, not any policies. Wikipedia is for everyone, which is why I propose the two-infobox solution, so as to satisfy both sides to the most balanced extent. This is not really about who argues better, guys. I had wished that Chase could make some compromise with me doing so first, and so I turned to Quenhitran's solution. However, it seems I have to take on a harder side now, with the refusal to compromise from Chase.Forbidden User (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice job twisting my words Forbidden, proof of exactly what I was talking about, anyone who does not agree with you you go and pretty much criticize them for it and you wonder why I said you show no WP:Good faith. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Single definition: ²single

(noun) c (1): a recording having one short tune on each side (2): a music recording having two or more tracks that is shorter than a full-length album; also: a song that is particularly popular independent of other songs on the same album or by the same artist. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. What a lot of energy expended on something of no particular importance. First, I have no doubt that Disney has marketed the song for individual purchase outside the confines of an album release. In today's murky music market, that makes me tend towards describing it as a "single", and it would take reliable sources specifically dismissing it as only being an album track for me to shift away from that position. Second, the importance of an infobox is overrated, and for a song that has been released by 45 different artists in a matter of months, having an infobox about one particular recording as if it is somehow definitive seems misleading. If you must have an infobox, I would describe it as a song by Kristin Anderson-Lopez and Roberto Lopez and focus on the information about the song, not one particular recording by one particular young female that the Walt Disney Company selected for the role of an animated character in one specific language. Take your cue and inspiration from Route 66, where I hope we can all get some kicks.—Kww(talk) 05:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather unavailable to address what chase gave, and for Bumblebee it looks like he is more interested in me. I will deal with that later. I don't have time to look at the comment. What I wish to add is that Cambridge has reviews (a lot) on its dictionary, consulting professionals for consensus. Besides a RS, it reflects a broader and more professional consensus. I have yet to check the one cited by bumble, but that at least shows dispute in the 3rd definition, but not (1) (2), which would be preferred for it being less disputive. Forbidden User (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The more important thing would be the focus of this article. It is not about a particular version. I will elaborate once I return, if needed.Forbidden User (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there mention of sales? I cannot find the Idina version (non-remix) sold separately on iTunes. Correct me if I'm wrong, though the same person has elaborated on the article focus, which has greater importance.Forbidden User (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic, XXSNUGGUMSXX, IPadPerson, Status, and Acalamari: What you guys think? It is so long already. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing you by name, Kww. For your reference (not saying you have given any reference that I wish to comment), among official non-remix versions, only Demi's has been on sale individually, and we have another infobox for Demi. Not really important though.Forbidden User (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what Kww is saying (and if I am wrong please correct me) is that the infobox should reflect the writers instead of Menzel's version and that even though the song is a single that is not the core of the article and that by saying Menzel's version was released as a single is not inaccurate but the infobox should not reflect it nor should it reflect Menzel's version of the song especially as the song has been recorded by 42 artist in different languages, again correct me if I am wrong. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Forbidden User: I am not remotely interested in you. I just want you to stop twisting my words. I made arguments for both sides, Chase's and yours and I feel that you are not seeing that at all. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(←) I've reorganized and restructured the article to primarily focus on the song as it appears in the film. Any editor who disagrees with this edit may feel free to revert and open a new section on this page to discuss per WP:BRD. Does this new structuring change anyone's opinions on how the single release is treated? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I like the new structure very much. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Much better good job Chase! Bumblebee9999 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed it up just a bit for the track listing for the soundtrack. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bumblebee9999: For your "word twisting" statement - well, if you were only describing the tendentious discussion instead of people who discount the "single"'s importance, then I shall apologise, though I hate commenting anything as pathetic. If you think I'm not assuming good faith, you can use your own words to describe how I'm not doing so, here or at my talk page, instead of just saying I'm not assuming good faith. I wish to talk about the article instead of taking care of comments directed at me.

Chase, good work! I don't have many amendments. I hope cooperation has returned in this page. Good luck editing, guys!Forbidden User (talk) 04:49, 7 July 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.

PC protection?

Resolved

Edit rate here is not very high, but this article is very notable (see the page view statistics). Therefore I think it's best not to let people see IP vandalisms.Forbidden User (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The place to ask would be WP:RFPP. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Snuggums!Forbidden User (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This song should be changed to "Let It Go (Frozen song)".

It applies to "Once Upon a Dream (Sleeping Beauty song)". Can't this be like it? Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In Disney there is only one song called Let It Go. By the way, in a previous discussion this title was decided to be kept. See the move request. This is a true consensus.Forbidden User (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The "sic" issue

Someone keeps deleting "sic" from the quote from director Jennifer Lee. The problem is, that's the exact words she used and it's not quite grammatical. Same problem with the new Rolling Stone quote someone else added. In formal written English, the general rule is that you always mark quoted text with "sic" to show the error was in the original text, or you correct it and mark the corrections with brackets to warn of that. But you never leave it alone, or else educated readers will think it was your typo in copying the quote.--Coolcaesar (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE states that you only need include [sic] if the error is significant. Simple spelling or grammatical errors can be fixed, and not include one. I believe "to vs too" would be fine to just fix. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

GA?

This article seems to be approaching GA. Do you guys see anything to be improved?Forbidden User (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not ready yet- the tag for "reception" section needs to be addressed before GAN. I also feel we could perhaps add more to Demi's version of the song. I will nominate when it's ready. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Translations Table

I feel like the Languages and Performers columns should be switched. It seems backwards to look the language up on the right.24.1.8.85 (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. I'll wait a bit, and then apply it if there is no objection.Forbidden User (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Languages

I've removed reference to "foreign languages" using "languages" or "other languages" instead. Languages other than English are not necessarily foreign, particularly for a film with a global release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.236.14 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Alexi Walker

It's true that this young singer is best known for her cover of "Let It Go," but she has sung other songs, see e.g. <rmvd link to a copyright violation> It's not right that searches for her name are only redirected to this page. She should not be confined to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The person you mentioned does not have a wikipedia page and is not mentioned in this page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter. What external search engines that are not part of Wikipedia do and serve results has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Let It Go (Disney song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140319090143/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=8&current_year=2014&chart_Time=week to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=8&current_year=2014&chart_Time=week
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140306061106/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=10&current_year=2014&chart_Time=week to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=10&current_year=2014&chart_Time=week
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131213143509/http://phoenixfilmcriticssociety.org/article/208/phoenix-film-critics-society-2013-award-nominations.html to http://phoenixfilmcriticssociety.org/article/208/phoenix-film-critics-society-2013-award-nominations.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140625110103/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/?nationGbn=T to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/?nationGbn=T
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222063605/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=E&current_year=&current_month=1&current_week=06&chart_Time=month to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=E&current_year=&current_month=1&current_week=06&chart_Time=month
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222063643/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=06&current_year=2014&chart_Time=week to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=06&current_year=2014&chart_Time=week
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150205203726/https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/let-it-go-glee-cast-version/id953548276 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/let-it-go-glee-cast-version/id953548276

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Let It Go (Disney song). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://musicweekly.asia/charts/top-30-singles-philippines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Title

I doubt ("Disney song") as the parenthetical disambiguator is best. Many people are unable that Frozen was even made by Disney; they just associate it with the film Frozen.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Let It Go (Frozen) and Let It Go (Frozen song) redirect here for those searching for those that way. Let It Go § Songs is sufficiently descriptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Official and unofficial versions in other languages

I feel there's the need of opening this topic, as lately there's been a bit of confusion on the subject, so let's try to figure this out. Besides the famous 41 languages included in the album "Let It Go the Complete Set" (42 talking about the whole movie, since the Canadian French version used the European French singer for Elsa's singing parts, making only one French-language version of the song), more dubbings were added year after year. Several covers of the song in different languages can be easily found on youtube and other platforms, but these, being covers, cannot obviously be considered official, since they are only fan-made versions. Then comes the problem of TV dubbings. Some local channels made their own version of the movie, dubbing it in their local language. Among these is included a group of three versions (namely: Albanian, Persian and Karachay-Balkar) which were not made by Disney, but were dubbed by indipendent studios and aired on local TVs. For all of these three cases, Frozen was not their first Disney dub (the first known release of an Albanian dub is dated 2000), so they've all been around for several years now with different movies. At this point, I would like to ask: should these three versions be included in the table? The other part of the TV dubbings I talked about above consists in the Hindi and Indonesian dubbings. These two versions of the movie were aired on the Indian and Indonesian Disney Channel during 2015. Thus, they should be considered without doubt "official Disney dubbings", as they are aknowledged and were supervised by Disney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninahi8 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I might question about the re-dub version of Albanian version,No doubt it first is using independent studio instead of Disney assists. But they has change the studio and re-dubbing it which has disney assist.it has been air on Disney Albanian Youtube channel. So would you still consider albanian version as non official now? Aaa839 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In 2015, what we could name "Disney Albania" re-dubbed a short part of "Do you wanna build a snowman?" and completely re-recorded "Let it go". Still, the YouTube channel you cited is not official, and you can tell this also by the fact that it does not have a verification badge, differently from other Disney channels on YouTube (e.g. Disney FR, Disney IT, Disney België, and so on). Thus, the re-dubbed version, which was not made under Disney's supervision, cannot be considered official anyway. Ninahi8 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok Thanks for clarification But I must mention THSQ6,because he is broke up the page for many many times.Everytime when he broke up the page,his reason was quite silly? what "he" means not listed in Let it Go Complete Set.is not official,first of all,the CD was release at 2013-early 2014. How can he consider some version after this CD release was not official,that was totally misleading others.I'm totally agree Ninahi8 first comments.Please proof how Hindi and Indonesia is not official.remember they have been air on Disney Channel.not just the cast from their own TV station,casting was from Disney not Local TV station! Aaa839 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Let It Go (Disney song). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6VF4L8FLb to http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2014&cat=a
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160110122748/http://www.ultratop.be/nl/goud-platina/2015 to http://www.ultratop.be/nl/goud-platina/2015
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GuWJIOEO to http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2013&id=C19496E7-CEC0-C453-D8A1-BD80E56E610F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Tagalog Official or not?

Even it is first air in TV5 in Philippines which should not consider as official However. Disney Philippines has release the Official Tagalog version of Let It Go (Tagalog:Ako To) in youtube.It is sing by Owen Caling.should we add it to the list as official? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x-3Fdcraw0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa839 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To this date, the Tagalog dub is to be considered just like the Albanian, Karachay-Balkar and Persian ones: it was made by Synchresis, an indipendent studio which has recently started to dub Disney movies (Brave, Wreck-it Ralph, Mulan, Aladdin and maybe more have already been released). Still, it is not an official dub. The Youtube channel you indicated is not an official one, and I even doubt it is owned by Synchresis itself. So, if the Albanian, Karachay-Balkar and Persian dubs don't belong here, neither the Tagalog version does. Ninahi8 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Low note F3 or E3 instead?

Heaven knows I've tried <- last word. Could be even Eb3 --93.106.10.163 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Need a copy of the vocal score to make sure it is not someone's personal evaluation of a given performance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

 Warning Knock it off or blocks will be forthcoming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Let It Go (Disney song). 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/20140129120217/http://www.studiosystemnews.com/awards-spotlight-robert-lopez-kristen-anderson-lopez-make-beautiful-music-together-for-disneys-frozen/ to http://www.studiosystemnews.com/awards-spotlight-robert-lopez-kristen-anderson-lopez-make-beautiful-music-together-for-disneys-frozen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140324001614/http://www.studiosystemnews.com/spotlight-frozen-director-chris-buck-on-crafting-well-rounded-female-characters/ to http://www.studiosystemnews.com/spotlight-frozen-director-chris-buck-on-crafting-well-rounded-female-characters/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714192845/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/lifestyle-opinion/frozen-disney-song-go-childrens-7318645 to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/lifestyle-opinion/frozen-disney-song-go-childrens-7318645
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2014&cat=a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106172236/http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/ to http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Parody versions

E! News and other verifiable sources have reported on it. It is within the scope of the article. I have moved it to a new section. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:F9D4:D46A:66DC:3932 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with everything Geraldo Perez has just said here - Many people do song parodies however it doesn't mean we should include them regardless of sourcing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes we should. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:F9D4:D46A:66DC:3932 (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No we shouldn't, Revert again and I'll have whole page protected which means you wont be able to edit it. –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

See if I care. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:F9D4:D46A:66DC:3932 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it should not be in the article. Leave it out while the issue is being discussed as that was the state of the article before the proposed addition and it shouldn't be added until a WP:consensus is formed to add it. Other editors disagree that it is appropriate to highlight just this. Some source found this one amusing and reported it. Doesn't make it a worthwhile addition or in any way add value to this article. The fact that parodies exist and that this song is a popular parody target may be worth having in the article if that information is backed by reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:F9D4:D46A:66DC:3932 (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Geraldo Perez and Davey. I will remove the addition. Dolotta (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I dont think you should remove it just yet (at least until a consensus is reached) 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:F9D4:D46A:66DC:3932 (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not the way it works per WP:BRD. Goes back to old consensus version until new consensus reached for change. You made a change, others disagreed with it and removed it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I dont care how you think it works. Im letting you know, on Wikipedia, about the Parody version. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:F9D4:D46A:66DC:3932 (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care what you think, Point is we have guidelines and policies that we have to follow, Don't like it ? ...go to another website!, You can throw the "it's my way or the highway" - attitude as much as you like it's not happening - You want the parody added ? ... get consensus like the other 20 million editors here. –Davey2010^Talk 02:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of the song being ripped off from Jaime Ciero's 2008 song "Volar"

Jaime Ciero claims in a lawsuit "Let It Go" was obviously inspired by his 2008 song "Volar". A quick search on youtube found several videos of him singing the song posted as far back as 8 years ago. If you listen to both songs they are pretty much the same song. Jeffery Thomas 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 8 February 2020

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: Pages moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Let It Go (Disney song) → Let It Go
• Let It Go → Let It Go (disambiguation)

– Honestly surprised this move hasn't been requested before. Sure, there are too many other topics listed at the dab page to count, but that doesn't stop this song from being an obvious primary topic. When the views for this page are compared to those for the other topics that have both articles and the exact title "Let It Go" (songs, set 1 songs, set 2 albums), we can see that the Disney song has views in the millions while the second most-viewed article, Let It Go (James Bay song), only has 353,541 views. Additionally, the first three pages of Google results only show results related to this song, and none of the other topics seem very well-known, especially when compared to the Frozen song. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - there are just way too many alternatives for this title. While the Disney song (currently) may be the most prominent, I am not convinced it is more prominent "than all the other topics combined" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). -- Netoholic @ 00:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Also Oppose, as the disambiguation page has way too many "Let It Go"'s. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support: While I am generally reluctant to concede primary-topic status to what seems like an ephemeral use, the Disney song doesn't just have more traffic than any other single use, it has (if my rough math is accurate) about three times more page views than all other "Let It Go" articles combined. (Obviously topics without articles are almost impossible to figure.) This seems to make it a good primary-topic candidate, in that putting it at the plain title saves more clicks than it costs. YMMV.—ShelfSkewed Talk 04:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, overwhelming primary topic. "too many other entries" is irrelevant since the Frozen song dwarfs all of them put together by an order of magnitude. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Although it may be difficult to prove this is a primary topic by page views, I do accept this is a primary topic by long-term significance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - It's PRIMARYTOPIC by a long mile, Whilst page views aren't everything like the nom says Google only brings only up this song. –Davey2010^Talk 09:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This song dominates the Google results. See "Let It Go" -wikipedia. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This use towers over the others combined. It's the primary topic. SnowFire (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support primary topic. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with ShelfSkewed's cogent analysis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support - "Let It Go" has been the title of songs, stories, etc. for decades. But it's clear that this phrase will be primarily associated with this song for years, if not decades, to come. So I think it makes sense, though I don't strongly feel this way. Songwaters (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two Japanese Versions

According to The Complete Set there are two Japanese versions of "Let It Go" as heard in the film, one performed by Takako Matsu and the other performed by May J. May J.'s version is not mentioned in the International section at all. Why is this? Sources are Amazon.com's release and Apple Music's release. May J.'s version appears on the "third disc" of the set. 68.39.14.187 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May J.'s version is a cover of the movie version which was featured neither in the movie nor in the end credits, so it doesn't belong in either of the tables. The fact that she made her own cover is however mentioned with the end credits versions. Ninahi8 (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2020

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: not moved and reminder that there is no "too many topics" cut off for one topic to be primary. If there are a thousand topics for a title and one of them is primary, then one of them is primary. If the usage eventually declines (changes) such that in the future it is no longer primary, in the future the topics can be rearranged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Let It Go → Let It Go (Disney song)
• Let It Go (disambiguation) → Let It Go

– The page was moved to Let It Go with a recent RM. Six moths later, is it possible to undo the last RM looking aggain at the other pages under Let It Go (disambiguation)? (As a side note, the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Songs and compositions (non-classical) lists "Let It Go (Disney song)" as an example. So, the recent RM has affected the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Songs and compositions (non-classical) page. But at least, examples in that page can be changed.) – Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Per the previous RM, this is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We are not going to have an article with an incorrect title just because that wrong title is used as an example in a Wikipedia guideline. We just need to change the example there. We have thousands to choose from. El Millo (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo "Disney song" is not an incorrect title. There are songs which use "Disney song" as a disambiguation. An RM was proposed back in 2014 to move the page to Let It Go (Idina Menzel song), which failed. That RM talks about "Beauty and the Beast (Disney song)" as a similar example and six years later, "Beauty and the Beast (Disney song)" still has "Disney song" as as a disambiguation. So, please edit your comment with proper wording. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh, I'm confused, why not just update the naming conventions page with one of those examples?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It is an incorrect title if this is the primary topic which, according to the consensus achieved in the previous RM discussion, it is. Now, that consensus can change, but the purpose of my comment was to explain why the reason given in this current proposal is not valid. El Millo (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:SONGDAB cited by the nom says you "may" use disambiguation if "disambiguation is necessary". Disambiguation is not necessary here since this page was determined to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So the example at WP:SONGDAB should just be changed since it's out of date Nohomersryan (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems like we may need to update the guideline with a different example, and it doesn't make much sense to override a consensus instead.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• And if we're instead just going to rehash the primary topic conversation, we had that a few months back with a clear consensus above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The Disney song is displaying a steadily declining trend in pageviews over the last 5 years, such that when compared to the long list of entries on Let It Go (disambiguation), we should not retain it as primary in the long-term. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Check this graph, it contains as many other Let It Go... articles as I could put in there. In July 2020, the ones with the most page views were both this article and Let It Go (Disney song) (which as we know redirects here), with 16.303 and 4916 page views, respectively. In third place is Let It Go (James Bay song) with 2036 pageviews. I think that 16.303 to 2036 is enough distance to consider the Disney song as the primary topic. El Millo (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I'm aware that comparing individually that may be the case, but WP:PRIMARYTOPICs should be those that are "more likely than all the other topics combined — to be the topic sought when a reader searches". Considering the very large number of alternatives which could be searched for, plus the declining interest in the Disney song over time, we should have no primary. -- Netoholic @ 06:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Here are two other graphs containing the rest of the articles included in the disambiguation article: one and two. If my calculations are correct:

This article's pageviews (16.303) are more than double than all these other articles' pageviews combined (7032). El Millo (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The example at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Songs and compositions (non-classical) has been changed to "Love Will Find a Way" (Disney song). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, User:Paine Ellsworth. Given that the concern in the nomination is now resolved, and we just had a primary topic discussion already with an overwhelming consensus, I'm going to say my view is this should now either be speedily closed, or at the very least I can ping the participants of the previous discussion so we can rehash this all over again...--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy closure is not called for because there is no WP:SNOW going on. The thing is, there is no consensus in regard to the length of a moratorium except to say that everyone agrees that the longer one waits, the more likely their move request will be successful. I think the figures most used for "moved" and "not moved" decisions is "6 months to a year" before opening a new request. Consensus can change, so this request should be allowed to continue for at least the prescribed seven days. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yep I'm not actually going to !vote for that because that is totally right! I just think it's not a necessary discussion given a recent clear consensus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I have also changed my argument in the proposal. I am subitting this RM not because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Songs and compositions (non-classical), but because of the other pages under Let It Go (disambiguation). Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this doesn't change my opinion. The amount of articles with a name is not relevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Nohomersryan (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Pinging @Vaporgaze, NowIsntItTime, ShelfSkewed, Xezbeth, Shhhnotsoloud, Davey2010, Colin Gerhard, SnowFire, Rlendog, Shhhhwwww!!, Coolcaesar, and Songwaters: the move proposal here has now changed to be to undo the move from February. Pinging to give the opportunity to explain if your view has changed since.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was overwhelming consensus just a few months ago that this is the primary topic, and there's been no significant change since then. Station1 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for being a spurious rehash of something decided just 6 months ago where nothing has changed since in that short time to justify revisiting the issue. Maybe in a couple of years we can test this again but this is too soon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per opinion stated at previous RM and possibly speedy close since nothing substantively new has been brought up, and the original RM was overwhelming. As a matter of user conduct - @Neel.arunabh:, editor's time and attention is valuable too, which you're wasting with doomed RMs. Please don't open RMs just to raise a point, e.g. Talk:Fuel_pump#Requested_move_12_July_2020 - if you were confused by the example on the policy page being out of sync with the current title, just ask on the policy talk page or on the article talk page first. Don't open a Requested Move as the first course of action. Please also read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for why all of these various pages are not disambiguated. SnowFire (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I still stand by my assertion that the phrase "Let It Go" will forever—or at least for the next several decades—be primarily linked to this one song. Ergo, it will be what the overwhelming majority of people typing it into the search bar will be looking for. Songwaters (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No significant change over the past six months. —ShelfSkewed Talk 19:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the previous RM where consensus was to move as per PRIMARYTOPIC, Pointless RM imho. –Davey2010^Talk 19:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. For July 2020, I count 16k pageviews for the Disney song and 7k for the rest combined. Clear primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rlendog (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons stated above. Also concur with User:SnowFire that the proposing editor appears to be showing a disturbing pattern of wasting other editors' time with meritless requested move proposals. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Netoholic. The Let It Go (disambiguation) page lists 63 entries with this title — far too many for one entry, no matter how popular, to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Would support, nevertheless, this song's continued positioning at the top of the disambiguation page. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:46, 11 August 2020 (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.

Should we bring back or remove all international singer list of Frozen

Someone kept saying youtube and itunes cannot be reliable source,I agree but if the information is release by Disney Official?and they put that in their youtube channel(remeber youtube had a human/company verification.

also when I take a look at this article,it listed quite ""If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source. If there is a question to a YouTube video's validity or appropriateness as a reference, alternatives include using the {{cite episode}} or {{cite AV media}} templates, citing the original media without the use of any link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links

If deleted reason same as mention. The list showing other "official translation version" must be deleted just under the "DEMI LOVATO" section in this wiki page.

Aaa839 (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns in the Demi Lovato section

I, as well as a few other editors, have tried to edit the quote from Anderson-Lopez used in this section to use Demi Lovato's current pronouns (in brackets), but another editor keeps reverting these changes, stating not to modify a direct quote. However, MOS:GENDERID says to "Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering", so I don't think these edits are harmful or violating any rules? If anything, I would argue it's more harmful to keep using their old pronouns in the article. 2600:1700:9540:1E30:D942:7037:9E44:E022 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There are two main singers of this song in the article. Using a plural pronoun where it is unexpected is confusing as to antecedent. If you must remove the feminine singular, paraphrase the quote and don't use inappropriate plural pronouns. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I hesitantly agree that using [They're] here creates ambiguity, but I do agree with the intent of the IP editor's change. I have paraphrased the quote to avoid using either wrong pronouns or square brackets. It now reads Anderson-Lopez said that choosing Lovato was inspired by the singer's own past experiences, which were "similar to Elsa's journey of leaving a dark past..." The exact phrasing is open for tinkering, but hopefully this is elegant enough. Courtesy ping @Geraldo Perez. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 19:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I was thinking of something similar but what you did was better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)