Talk:Frozen (2013 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Frozen (2013 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject United States / American Cinema (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Animation / American / Films / Computer (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disney (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Something to look out for in published reliable sources[edit]

The Disney Animated iPad app has some interesting exclusive materials on the making of Frozen, but it would be difficult to cite them here, because a lot of things apparent from those materials require comparisons to the final film which is original research in violation of the "No original research" policy. For example, the app has an early version of the "That Happened" clip published by WDAS on YouTube, the scene where Kristoff and Anna are trying to lower themselves down the cliff to get away from Marshmallow. It shows several important differences between the early versions of Anna, Marshmallow, Olaf, and Kristoff, and the final versions. (E.g., Anna was far more skittish about jumping off the cliff.) Hopefully at some point a reliable source will discuss the evolution of the film as revealed in the materials published in the app and then this article can cite to that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like something in the Development section. Enthusiasm appreciated, Coolcaesar! We should wait, of course. My opinion is that Disney may publish something alike by itself.Forbidden User (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another issue to look out for in published sources is who were the different animators working on different segments of the film. Several Frozen animators and TDs have already started publishing their demo reels on Vimeo to show off their work. From looking at those (they gray or black out scenes worked on by others), and knowing the supervising animators haven't posted demo reels, it's possible to infer which scenes were probably animated by the supervising animators. Unfortunately, I can't post my own guesses into the article because that's original research, but hopefully at some point more sources will eventually clarify that issue. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Lopez links as overlinking[edit]

Links in the lead are no substitute for having links in the text, especially for readers that come in via a link that takes you to a subheader, and skips the lead like I did. You should not be forced to search through 35 headers of information to find a link to Robert Lopez. Only by your definition is that considered overlinking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Richard. To me it's fine to have links here. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 02:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
After reading the MoS more closely, I think I was wrong. Apologies.Forbidden User (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for your politeness, a rare commodity here at Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Classics numbering?[edit]

I think the differences in Classics numbering should be highlighted. With Winnie the Pooh being not considered a "Main Disney film" here in the UK, this film is considered the 52nd. I'm not trying to start an edit war, but this is true! Visokor (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no edit-war, you're following BRD. I reverted mostly on Forbidden's undue-weight point. Is it really worth mentioning or relevant to the reader even when "53rd" is so prominent in the lead? If anything, maybe a footnote? It felt random and out of place. DrNegative (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Concur with DrNegative. The whole Winnie the Pooh mess is a tangent. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates in infobox[edit]

We already have two dates in the infobox, one for the "official" world premiere and one for the wide-release date in North America. Editors are now trying to add a third advance screening date. However, this is the only place where this date is mentioned (i.e., no discussion in the article of this release). So the question is this: do advance screenings outside of the premiere of a film need to be in the infobox? I saw Wreck-It Ralph before the world premiere at an advance screening through D23, but I wouldn't advocate changing the release date in the infobox accordingly. What do others in the community say? --McDoobAU93 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If we were to adhere to WP:FILMRELEASE, then the earliest release date for the movie should definitely be there. I don't see why the November 10 screening at NYCIFF should not be included. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked at FILMRELEASE and read the whole sentence: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." If the film appeared at the NYICFF, then I would agree with your statement. However, our own article on the festival says it runs in March, and the 2015 festival is scheduled for the same time next year. So the November release would not have been part of the regular festival. Reading more into our article on the festival, it says that the festival sponsors monthly screenings of films that fit its purpose. This means their performance of Frozen is most likely part of that series, thus making it a special advance screening and not an entry in their standard juried festival the previous March. As such, the El Capitan Theatre world-premiere screening should be the first date mentioned. --McDoobAU93 21:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Films often have advance press screenings or test screenings etc that we don't include. However, if it was a screening that was accessible to general members of the public then yes, I would say it should be included since it would be the first public exhibition of the film. The acid test here is could you or I have purchased a ticket and watch the film on that date? Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Betty's comment, I think the November 10 screening of this movie should not be considered a "special" screening that should be excluded. Just because Frozen isn't part of the annual three week long festival doesn't mean that the monthly presentations are no longer part of the festival. That's why I think the November 10 screening should be included, as it is part of NYICFF and provided for by WP:FILMRELEASE, being part of a film festival. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's presume that the information on the source is correct, that a performance was scheduled for November 10 and was offering tickets for sale. I have two related questions: (1) Did the screening actually occur? (things do happen, and all this source says is it was scheduled); and (2) What is notable about it? At this point your only proposed addition for it is in the infobox. What else are we going to say about this screening? --McDoobAU93 21:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Notability is the criteria for article creation, so isn't applicable here. It probably isn't notable to the point that we would create an article about this particular screening of the film. However, if it indeed was a publicly accessible screening of the film then it is significant to the point that it is the first time the film could be publicly viewed, and by convention we do include such dates in film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I think the fact that it was scheduled is a pretty good indicator that it did occur (unless there is a reliable source saying that it was cancelled). Secondly, I think the fact that it was the first release date in itself qualifies it as notable. I don't know if it's mandatory to discuss every single release date in the body of the article, but I think that at the very least, it should be included in the infobox. If the infobox is the only place in the article where that date appears, so be it. If editors wish to add more information about it in the body, they can do so separately. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually it can be, but admittedly that's beside the point. My point on notability is that we're so far only going to add this in the infobox (if it actually occurred). The infobox only summarizes what's in the article; it's not intended to provide content that doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. I believe that's the argument another editor used to undo this earlier, so it seems like we need more than just an advertisement for a screening that happens to take place prior to the red-carpet premiere. As to Eventhorizon's point, advertisements aren't reliable enough for sources on home media release dates, so why should this advertisement get better treatment? --McDoobAU93 21:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy that mandates the discussion of all information in infoboxes? The way I see it, WP:FILMRELEASE says that films' first release dates should be listed in their infoboxes, and that's what we're trying to add. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There is: per MOS:INFOBOX: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article." --McDoobAU93 01:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It could be quite easily integrated into the "release" section in the same way other dates are, but then again the run-time and "language" aren't mentioned in the article either. I don't really understand the opposition: if it was indeed a publicly accessible performance then by all accounts it should be included in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Simple: 1) no proof it occurred and 2) no indication this is anything other than a sneak preview advance screening, pay or otherwise, which FILMRELEASE discourages as setting for the release date of a film. A reliable source describing the event would help a lot since it would establish it, especially since they exist with a red-carpet or other event premiere (like Pocahontas premiering in New York's Central Park). --McDoobAU93 01:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
FILMRELEASE makes it explicitly clear that "sneak previews" do not apply to festival screenings. If it is verified that a festival screening did indeed take place then I will be supporting the motion for it to be added to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
As indicated above, the provided source clearly states that the presentation is sponsored by the New York International Children's Film Festival, but the timing of the screening (November) shows that it was not part of the juried festival (March). Would I presume that a festival screening takes place during the main event itself, such as a film that premieres at Cannes (as Up did)? --McDoobAU93 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 13-level indent?????? Anyway, that's not the main point. We should not adhere to non-policy, non-guideline statements as strictly as policies and guidelines. The MoS says we should use infoboxes as a summary, then we should not thwart this to adhere to something in a template description. Stop citing anything like guidelines and policies. Secondly, sources should directly support the statement, per WP:Verifiability. "Scheduled" ≠ "occured", don't think that "indicators" can work as sources and throw that out as if it's common sense - look at False-consensus effect. Thirdly, per WP:Due weight, it doesn't have any weight in the article, while whether it has is way too disputed. Now I have two policies and one guideline against the inclusion. Your turn.Forbidden User (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC) McDoobAU93 cited WP:IINFO as well, and I don't see anything that has countered its application.Forbidden User (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources covering the New York screening—it was covered by US Weekly and was attended by celebrities such as Naomi watts—so WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are not valid reasons for excluding the date from the infobox. In the context of film's release—or publication in general—the film's debut is clearly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE: it marks a significant event in the film's release phase and also inaugurates the copyright term. I also question your reasoning as to whether an infobox should only summarise the contents of the article; it seems to me there is quite a bit of selective application of Wikipedia's guidelines here, since a consistent approach would require that the language and the run-time are also removed from the infobox, neither of which are mentioned beyond it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You'd better not edit before gaining consensus. Cite a source to prove that its copyright term starts at Nov 2. Besides, cite a source that says it's available to the general public (not just celeb). Make sure they are RS. I'm not asking about adding them, but that's for verifying that it is not special screening. Reverted for now. If you can give the sources, put it here and revert me.Forbidden User (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Concur that this US Weekly source isn't much better. It's one sentence and doesn't describe the nature of the screening (celebs-only or general public? juried festival entry or promotional show?). Without evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is this is a promotional advance screening and thus not notable per FILMRELEASE. --McDoobAU93 15:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

No. See my comment at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Background[edit]

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

The disputed edit: [3]

Survey[edit]

  • Support inclusion – A film's first public exhibition—as opposed to press screenings and test screenings—is a significant phase in the release of a film. The Disney and Cinema Society screening was a high-profile event attended by celebrities such as Naomi Watts. I see no valid reason for excluding coverage of the event:
  1. The objection to the sources does not seem valid to me. No argument has been put forward for why US Weekly is not a WP:Reliable source for covering a film screening. The photographs supplied by Getty Images clearly corroborate that the event took place and was attended by high profile people.
  2. I do not accept that coverage of the event violates WP:WEIGHT. Coverage in a national weekly magazine suggests that the event is significant enough for us to add a sentence to the article.
  3. I do not accept that WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. A film only debuts once, and detailing the film's first public exhibition is something we normally cover in film articles.
Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose there is no need to draw a straw poll over this little thing, look at WP:PNSD. By the way, no one says it's not reliable, the point is that its content is inadequate to support a screening to general public, supposedly charging money, etc. If your background is that non-neutral and false, then you know how will things be disregarded, according to your own experience. Just go back to previous discussion - I don't see a problem.Forbidden User (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Notability of event not established - I agree with Forbidden User that this seems excessive, but I'll add my two cents. I find it hard to believe that a "high-profile event" merits a grand total of one sentence and one photograph. No information is included to describe the nature of the event (yes it's a film screening, but is it just for celebrities and invited guests?). Studios have promo screenings in advance of the "premiere" all the time. I attended one for Wreck-It Ralph that took place several days prior to the red-carpet premiere, for example. For the record, I have no issue with US Weekly being a source, but I do have issue with the information mentioned in it (or lack thereof) and with no evidence of its perceived significance. WP:IINFO certainly applies here, barring additional information. --McDoobAU93 03:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Notability criteria do not apply to content within an article per WP:NOTEWORTHY. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:IINFO, not WP:NOTEWORTHY. I can understand why you don't like it. Doesn't make it go away. Please stop. --McDoobAU93 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I had never heard of "The Cinema Society" and so I did some digging. It seems that this organization has no Internet presence and might be little more than a one man band. Andrew Saffir is described as the "founder" of The Cinema Society, but he might be the whole society. The Wall Street Journal says, "Getting film stars photographed on the red carpet with corporate logos is key to the business model of Andrew Saffir, the 41-year-old founder of the Cinema Society. Mr. Saffir's company hosts exclusive film screenings and parties for the elite in New York's celebrity, fashion and media circles. It's a practice that has gone on for years, but Mr. Saffir has added a new twist to these exclusive gatherings of movie stars, studio moguls and paparazzi: the luxury brand sponsor who pays for the event." To read the whole article about Saffir, "The Cinema Society" and their series of advance screenings, click here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119750812634425381?mod=blog. I also found a blog that says, "The Cinema Society is basically a marketing tool for the film industry, an effective method for creating “buzz” about a film. Saffir consistently brings together a wide group of celebrities for his screenings which are often held in the hip, downtown Tribeca Grand Hotel in its screening rooms. Screenings are often followed by a dinner for all the invited guests at a popular (and hip) restaurant, also downtown.... The result is that Cinema Society’s screenings of new films (some premiering, some even before release) have garnered volumes of publicity for the films in magazines, newspapers and on the internet." You can read that in its entirety here: http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/listpopup.php?tid=84. If you still want more, New York Magazine has an article about his rivalry (or not) with Peggy Siegal for the title of the top socialite party planner. See that here: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/33541/. 99.192.69.93 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say, consensus is against the inclusion, even with a skewed background.Forbidden User (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's too soon to make that call, although the anon IP's information above certainly makes the event's significance more suspect. Let's let the debate play out a bit longer and see where things go. --McDoobAU93 14:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support exclusion The anon's post above was pretty damning to the relevance of this premiere, in my eyes. I see no encyclopedic value of including this information. Corvoe (be heard) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The IP has put forward an argument against the notability of the screening, not the encyclopedic value of documenting the screening. They are two different concepts: WP:NOTEWORTHY explicitly states The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. At the moment the article is factually inaccurate by presenting the premiere as the first screening of the film, when other screenings, in fact preceded it. WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are the relevant policies here and it is possible to cite reliable sources that cover or mention the screening. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. What do you think about this post from the Producers Guild of America [4]. I have no comments yet, absolutely neutral. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 02:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Same problem as the NYCIFF cite. This is an advertisement for a screening, not an indication the screening actually took place, and no indication of the nature of the screening. With nothing indicating otherwise, this is another advance promo screening that is not noteworthy per FILMRELEASE. --McDoobAU93 12:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all this argument you keep repeating that advertisements are not "proof" the screening took place are a red-herring. There are multiple sources (including photographs taken by Getty Images) proving the screening did take place so it is disingenuous of you to claim otherwise. Those are available to you and everyone else who participates in this survey in the "Background" statement at the start of this section. Second of all WP:FILMRELEASE is not applicable to this discussion; it is not a policy, not a part of the MOS, it is a guideline created by WP:WikiProject Film that applies exclusively to {{Infobox film}} i.e. the Film Project does not get to create its own content guidelines; those are dictated entirely by Wikipedia's policies. If you look at the diff—again provided in the "Background" section—you will see that my edit did not involve any changes to the infobox. My edit was simply to provide a clear chronology of events in the film's release: the first screening, the premiere, the limited release and then the general release. So will you please stop saying i) there is no evidence the screening took place – yes there is, and there are sources and photographs to back it up, and ii) WP:FILMRELEASE prohibits including the screening – that is a guideline created by the Film project to specifically regulate their infobox, and has no bearing on edits to the rest of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem here is how much weight you're giving to events that take place with practically every major Hollywood release. Studios host promotional screenings all the time that take place before the "official" red-carpet premiere; the ones for Frozen are in no way unique or noteworthy, which is why WP:IINFO applies so well. Its opening sentence includes this important statement: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". This refers directly to article content as well as article subjects. --McDoobAU93 14:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
McDoobAU93, you raise an issue I was thinking about when I found the sources I linked above about Andrew Saffir and his "Cinema Society". One of the sources points out that he does 20 to 25 similar events each year. A google search can quickly uncover many of these, including one for A Most Wanted Man that took place last night, three days before the date listed on the film's Wikipedia page for its US release. If Betty is right and these events should count and be mentioned, then this will affect dozens and dozens of film articles. Saffir has been doing these screenings, the sources tell us, since 2005, not to mention the dozens and dozens of similar events that Peggy Siegal also hosts. And that's just New York. But, it should be remembered, the mere fact that we might need to change information on dozens and dozens of film pages is not an argument against inclusion, just a reminder of the scope of this discussion.
Betty, you have said before that your standard for counting a screening is whether or not it was open to the public - whether or not just anyone could buy a ticket and attend. The sources are not definitive on this, but it really does sound like the events Saffir and Siegal organize are invitation only for celebrities and other big wigs and are free for them to attend. This seems especially likely in the case of Saffir's events, as the sources point out that corporate sponsors pay the cost of the events and in exchange they get photo ops with the invited celebrities. So if the screenings are not open to the general public and not the official premier, they seem to just another pre-release private promotional event. 99.192.76.84 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.69.93)
I think the WikiProject Films group has already covered this, more or less, because the film articles don't discuss such screenings, and they've obviously been done because of all the other US Weekly and People articles about film screenings before the red-carpet premiere (again, proving that Frozen is no different). --McDoobAU93 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Concur with User:McDoobAU93 and the anonymous poster at 99.192.69.93 for the reasons stated. There is a huge difference between promotional screenings to create buzz around a film and the actual red-carpet premiere, which occurred at the El Capitan Theatre like most other Disney premieres.--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. Was this a verifiable screening of the film, in a public venue, attended by celebrities, etc.? Yes. Is the event verifiable? Yes, easily [5] [6]. Is the first non-private screening of any film notable and encyclopedic? Yes. All other arguments (against the sources, against the society, against the size of the event and the coverage of the event) are irrelevant. I'd say it was more the proper placement of this info in the article, rather than its inclusion or exclusion (since it is easily verifiable inclusion isn't the real issue IMO) that is the important issue here; I think it should probably go in the second paragraph of the Release section, prior to mention of the November 6 toys. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Your description of the screening as being "in a public venue" is either misleading or unsupported by the sources. Yes, the Tribeca Grand Hotel theater frequently screens films that are open to the general public, but that does not mean that it cannot also sometimes host private events. All evidence suggests that this particular screening of Frozen was a privately sponsored event for an invitation-only audience of celebrities and their kids. So the claim that it was a "non-private screening" is not established. 99.192.89.198 (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.69.93)
I must have pissed you off for an archive site, ya? Take it easy. It is stated repeatedly that it is widely agreed to be promotional, and I see no counterproof from you. Even with you here, this is WP:SNOW, so I'm closing here.Forbidden User (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the close since there is no basis for a SNOW close; discussion is ongoing, and so far we have two for inclusion, two for exclusion, two commenters and one argument that is not applicable (since notability criteria do not apply). If you pull a stunt like that again we will be visiting ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There you go again. My comment specifically mentions WP:IINFO, which specifically covers article content. Please stop misconstruing my comment above. --McDoobAU93 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Prove that the screening is accessible to public.Forbidden User (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: I oppose the inclusion, per reasons I mentioned in the previous section and Coolcaeser concurs with McDoobAU93, and so I take him as oppose inclusion. There is 4, instead of 2, "oppose votes". Just saying.Forbidden User (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Closing comment Closure was requested at WP:AN because of Betty's warning of 19:19, 27 July 2014. This is one of those not-a-vote situations: the votes are 2-1 in favor of including it, but the whole discussion very clearly favors removing it. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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


Planning ahead for splitting off "Franchise potential" section as "Frozen (franchise)" in September[edit]

Once Upon A Time season 4 premieres on September 28. As there has been feedback on this page that the "Franchise potential" section is getting really long, I plan to break off that section into a new article on "Frozen (franchise)" by then. At that point, it will no longer be hypothetical that the film is actually giving rise to real spin-off media products (beyond the usual wave of books and merchandise that saturates retail outlets for a couple of months with every Disney film).

My plan is to take each of the major points in the section (crazy lines in parks, merch shortage, etc.) and summarize it in one sentence that will remain in this article (under the heading "Franchise"), with the idea that anyone looking for the gory details can go to the full article. Any comments? --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To me it's ok with more than one sentence. Don't be too harsh on yourself!Forbidden User (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. (Snow close) Armbrust The Homunculus 19:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Frozen (2013 film)Frozen – This is clearly the primary topic. It's a worldwide phenomenon of a movie, and is the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Frozen, as in the word, has its article located at Freezing. GeicoHen (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article about "freezing" may be located at Freezing but it is still overwhelmingly the WP:Primary topic for the thermological term. It's a part of every day lexicon i.e. frozen food, my toes are frozen etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, too many things using that title, as big as this film is. Agree with Betty Logan on this one. --McDoobAU93 02:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the film may be big but not so big that it overtakes freezing. If anything frozen should redirect there.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should follow the same name format as Brave (2012 film) Hcobb (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:RECENT, and given that it is a (2013 film) what else would anyone expect the title to be? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the primary topic is clearly that in the article freezing. frozen objects are a worldwide phenomenon, and for a much longer period than this film. The industry of frozen things is much larger than the entire worldwide gross of this film. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Clearly not the primary topic. BethNaught (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the reasons above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are tons of films using the title, and per reasons above.Forbidden User (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Apparently Elsa's presence is being felt ... think I'm seeing some WP:SNOW. --McDoobAU93 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The polar vortex in January was indeed back mid-July, bringing some chills to the US summer that couldn't be warmer, couldn't be sunnier. Just kidding. Please close this.Forbidden User (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously not the primary topic. Given the phenomenon the film creates, it's still misleading to have such a common word redirected to a specific film. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It actually redirects to the dab page not here.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I mean "If" :) ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 07:04, 6 August 2014 (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.

Soundtrack[edit]

Question - how come the album/soundtrack has not one mention here, when it had just as phenomenal success as the movie? Academy award, no. 1 in 9 countries ... it should probably be in the lead in my opinion, but I'd like others to comment. JTdale Talk 06:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... the music section here has talked enough about the music. Anything more relevant to the soundtrack article belongs there. Talking about the soundtrack here distracts readers from the content about the film. If they want to know about the soundtrack, use the {{main}} link to the soundtrack article.Forbidden User (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a sentence or two about the soundtrack's performce wouldn't go amiss. But true, we have an article on the soundtrack for a reason, hence the {{main| template. Putting the info into the franchise article would also be a good idea. it's what I've been doing with the other franchise articles: Hercules (franchise), Mulan (franchise), Pocahontas (franchise).--Coin945 (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, our music subsection is under section Production, so the soundtrack release results are not relevant. You can say the songs are individually sold as a soundtrack (with no results, whatsoever) and cite a RS, though it's rather meaningless with the {{main}} template indicating the existance of a soundtrack. Looking at it myself.Forbidden User (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In reception there are critics' response on music (in passing mention), and to me it's all enough. Spin-offs like the soundtrack should be in the franchise article, though it won't take much weight there either.Forbidden User (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In the context of the film (the main piece of media Disney is producing for this project), wouldn't the soundtrack fall under marketing, as it is a tie-in released beflore the film is released to create and spread buzz?--Coin945 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It is customary for film articles to include a soundtrack section per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack if the track is significant. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, a music subsection in Production is enough. We have one here (and it is a large subsection). Isn't it replicative to repeat it in a "soundtrack" section? Though its performance (sales result) can be mentioned under the Franchise (potential) section, set to be split into a new article later.Forbidden User (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A quote from the said MoS subsection:"...it can be covered in a "Music" subsection of the article's "Production" section. Otherwise, a "Soundtrack" section can be used to provide a summary background about the film score or the collection of prerecorded songs."Forbidden User (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, does a soundtrack count as part of a franchise? If so → Franchise potential; otherwise → release or just don't add.Forbidden User (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A soundtrack would count as merchandise because it is packaging something from the film—a franchise is sequels, musicals i.e. things that extend beyond the film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, looking at the MoS section, our coverage on music is enough (the musical comprehensiveness is quite FA to me).Forbidden User (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

More new information to look out for in published sources[edit]

Just found something interesting. It's a video of the Lopezes being interviewed on stage by the head of Williams College's music department at the Williams College Alumni Weekend, June 12-15, 2014. Most of the presentation goes over information already discussed in other interviews, articles, and the "Art of" book. Key points not previously disclosed elsewhere are as follows:

  • 3:00 - Kristen says she wishes someone had told her when she was growing up that there were women songwriters. (She then goes on to discuss a point she's already explained elsewhere: she spent many years trying to get into Broadway theatre but kept getting typecast in nun-in-New Hampshire roles and finally realized one day her talent was as a lyricist.)
  • 6:30 - Bobby says Book of Mormon is in many ways a Disney parody.
  • 8:10 - Kristen says "The sandwiches come first" when they start writing songs, they "do a lot of talking, drinking Diet Coke," working through character motives.
  • 8:28 - Bobby says "When we came on board the project was so different ... Elsa was the bad guy from the very beginning of the story to the very end until the very last second where she kind of turned good. No, she didn't really turn good."
  • 8:42 - Kristen says "She didn't turn good. She kidnapped Anna from her wedding, and, and then took her up, and, and was going to freeze her heart, like it was a whole different story."
  • 8:50 - Bobby says "And at the end she came down the mountain with a whole evil snowman army to invade the town and get Anna back so that her heart could properly freeze."
  • 9:01 - Kristen says "This story didn't sing to us."
  • 9:07 - Bobby says "We tried to put some songs in it and they all fell on the floor, they got cut."
  • 9:15 - Kristen says "The person who wrote the script got fired, and we got a new person ... and it was someone who was really excited to write a musical and we all kind of started from scratch again."
  • 11:00 - Kristen and Bobby discuss their process of creativity (which has been discussed elsewhere). One additional point Bobby clarifies (which had been only implied elsewhere) is that he plays the piano but Kristen doesn't really play the piano that much. But they are both involved in singing (i.e., developing melody and lyrics).
  • 19:07 - Kristen says "There was a time, like last year, that we just thought this was going to pull our whole career [sic] like it was we were going down. We were like maybe, 'I could become like a birthday party clown or something.'"
  • 19:20 - Kristen adds, "The movie wasn't working until about July of last year."
  • 19:24 - Bobby says "We only wrote this song about a year ago, For the First Time in Forever. We didn't have it [before then] ... this song became the linchpin of the whole movie."
  • 30:31 - Kristen says they were brought in when "they knew it was going to be a sister story. They knew it was going to be loosely based on The Snow Queen. And they had a script that was just a first pass at a script. And they brought us in and we started talking about where songs could possibly go. And then in this case, which is unusual, the whole script imploded. And we got to build it together with Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck. So we really got to put a lot of our DNA" into the project.
  • 31:50 - Kristen starts discussing the early table read explained by Lee elsewhere where Menzel and Bell were present. It turns out that the Lopezes were present too.
  • 32:07 - Kristen says "They sat John Lasseter right between Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel reading this script that was really flawed. But at the end, suddenly, suddenly someone wheeled out like a Casio. And, and, they started singing Wind Beneath My Wings in harmony over him. And Bobby and I went, like, 'Ohhhhhh! What are they doing!' John Lasseter was in heaven. He was like, 'Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel have to be in the movie!' From that moment on."
  • 33:50 - Bobby says about Fixer Upper, "They gave us the idea, although we should have come up with it in the beginning, of using a lot of people from New York for this number."
  • 34:08 - Bobby says that "the other people from that number were all from Book of Mormon, and Avenue Q, and Kinky Boots."
  • 34:12 - Kristen explains the Fixer Upper chrous is the girl chorus from Kinky Boots combined with the Africans and Mormons from Book of Mormon.
  • 37:05 - Kristen says they had another song called "Hot Hot Ice" which was replaced with "In Summer." It was like "Hot Hot Hot meets Simon and Garfunkel. It didn't work."
  • 37:55 - Bobby discusses how they kept writing songs for the scene in which Elsa strikes Anna in the heart which kept getting cut, like "Life's Too Short", and then they wrote "For the First Time In Forever" and it was Kristen who realized there should be a reprise because "the girls have never really said what's on their minds to each other."
  • 38:30 - Bobby says "It was really the right idea, made the film feel complete and made the score seem like a real score."
  • 39:30 - Kristen says, "It was actually the minute we realized it was a reprise, I think I wrote it in 20 minutes and I pitched it. Bobby was in LA fixing 'Do You Want To Build A Snowman?' And I pitched it to a whole room of our team. And it got in the movie. So that was good."
  • 42:00 - Kristen says that the reason Oaken got his name is that "Wandering Oaken" was Jennifer Lee's idea for an anagram on "Naked Norwegians," a reference to the family in the sauna.
  • 44:00 - Bobby says they started working on Frozen in January 2012, and then worked on it for about a year and a half.
  • 44:44 - Bobby and Kristen point out that a portion of "We Know Better" did end up in the movie, right before the bridge in "Let It Go" where Elsa starts singing about frozen fractals.
  • 45:40 - Kristen says Frozen is definitely going to be a musical, "Bob Iger said so."
  • 45:46 - Kristen mentions there was a retreat (apparently for that purpose) at John Lasseter's vineyard.
  • 45:55 - Bobby says there definitely will be a stage show "in a few years".

I am thinking about inserting some of these points into this article and/or related articles (i.e., the articles on specific songs). It looks like from the "Translations and transcriptions" section of WP:NOR that it should be okay to cite the video directly as a reference, as long as the quotes transcribed from it are accurate. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Make sure that everything you picked to add is not trivial. I've seen enough fan trivia in Pirates of the Carribean series articles. By the way you wanna push this to FA? It does look so.Forbidden User (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
E.g. All the quotes about how awful the original story was. A scrapped version is not that important, and we shouldn't add every bit we can find because it's verifiable.Forbidden User (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is becoming rather cumbersome at the moment. Chocka-block full of information which is fantastic, but starting to become a bit difficult to navigate through too. (Have you seen the contents template recently? o.O). I have already noted that a Frozen (franchise) article can easily be created - a type of article that is already common on Wikipedia (Snow White (franchise), Winnie the Pooh (franchise), The Lion King (franchise), The Emperor's New Groove (franchise) etc.), but is it worth having a discussion on splitting off other sections into articles, such as Developement of Frozen or Development of Disney's The Snow Queen (which could go into much more detail about Disney's attempted adaptions of The Snow Queen, or Music of Frozen (which would talk about the deleted songs, something I don't think the soundtrack article should do)? I can tell Coolcaesar has information busting out of his sides that they want to share with all of us here on Wikipedia, and I know the feeling of having to downsize and remove awesome tidbits. So this could be a good solution.--Coin945 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
As you often get articles deleted, I should be honest and tell you that we have WP:GNG and WP:IINFO which can knock those articles down (excluding the franchise). Deleted songs are deleted—they don't have much weight anywhere besides fan wikis. Our development section is really lonnng, but a separate article will not pass the GNG. See Barack Obama—you will find that Frozen is far from the longest articles.Forbidden User (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Forbidden User. The way this is drafted, nearly all the subsequent sections will no longer make sense if the Development and Music sections are absent. I also agree that those sections aren't notable enough to stand on their own as articles. Also, as Forbidden User has guessed, I am thinking about pushing this to FA in the fall (after severing the franchise section into a new article and properly summarizing it here).
Coin945, here is some advice in the form of a paraphrase of the most famous line from McCulloch v. Maryland: We must never forget that it is an encyclopedia that we are expounding.
The main issues I was trying to figure out was how to finish the development story because the directors and producer have carefully avoided publicly discussing certain key issues: what was wrong with the original plot, whether there was an earlier script, and what actually caused the hold-up at the very end which forced major rewrites from February to June 2013. It looks like from the Lopezes' talk that it was probably "Life's Too Short" which wasn't working and they finally calibrated the relationship between the sisters just right with "For The First Time In Forever."
Also, you'll notice that I've only inserted those details from their talk into this article that drive forward the narrative of how the movie was made. For example, the joke about becoming "birthday party clowns" neatly encapsulates the Lopezes' fear (and presumably that of the filmmakers as well) that the film could have flopped. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Pieces about deleted songs should be thrown into Frozen (soundtrack). List of songs that have their own articles should also be included, provided that you have pointed a link to its main topic using {{Main}} ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Elsa & Anna's Boutique in Downtown Disney Anaheim[edit]

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

Please be bold and add them. You should also find sources from third-party news outlets like Wall Street Journal or similar sites to support Disney's self-published blogs. Also, please add this bit to the corresponding articles about Anna and Elsa, OK? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I did it, Thanks! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
In case you haven't done so, I will archive it for you.Forbidden User (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll find another source if possible, for laughingplace not exactly being an RS.Forbidden User (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Widespread acclaim"?[edit]

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

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

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

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

AndrewOne, the review aggregators are not always all that we should go on for summarizing critical reception to a film; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response. When it comes to the word acclaimed, for example, per past WP:Film discussions, most recently the Summary statement for "Reception" section discussion, the word acclaimed should be explicitly sourced or not used at all; we should not decide what is or is not acclaimed ourselves, whether we are basing the critical reception on Rotten Tomatoes or on Metacritic. But getting a score as high as 80% on Rotten Tomatoes is no easy feat, and, in my experience, means that the film is acclaimed or at least widely thought of positively (among American critics at least). As for the The Tree of Life (film) article, though it currently begins by addressing early reviews, it eventually gets around to addressing how well-liked/acclaimed the film is. A film can be polarizing and have acclaim; another example is 2001: A Space Odyssey, which the Critical reception section of the The Tree of Life (film) article mentions.
As for who reverted you after you made this and this edit, it was Quenhitran (ALittleQuenhi) who reverted you. You've clearly brought this matter to the talk page, but you also reverted before doing so; I think you should have brought the matter to the talk page first, per WP:BRD, and let others weigh in before attempting another go at the lead-in summary. I don't like the wording "strongly positive reviews" and prefer "generally positive reviews" if we are going to simply get across the point that the film is generally liked among critics. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Andrew's concern is legitimate even if the phrasing is slightly cumbersome. The source being used doesn't back up the claim that the film received "widespread acclaim". What it does state is that the film received early rave reviews. The aggregators also show that the film had a predominantly positive reception, although a 7.7 rating on RT and a MC score of 74 indicate that a significant number of critics were obviously reserved in their praise. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

_____

@DrNegative: I praise your inclusion of other sources for the film's reception, but one or two of them I'm questioning the reliability of. Frozen, really, is a film whose reception could be said to border on positive to acclaim; regarding the IGN one, the editor may be rather impartial to it and choose the one she favors. "Acclaim" is one thing, but to in turn call it "near-universal" is wrong. Out of the 43 critics included on Metacritic, 37 of them liked it and six were mixed. Also, there were six 100 and 90's, and it seemed a majority were either 75 or 70.[1] In addition, out of the 188 included on RT, 21 of them were rotten.[2]

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

But remember, is it not up to us (the editors) to decide whether a reviewer is being impartial or not...as long as it is a reliable source and verifiable. Sure, maybe that argument could be made for a Disney press-release, but a second-party source? IGN is a widely published online source with full editorial control. Since you disagree with the writer based on your own findings in analyzing the aggregate scores, what criteria do we use to call the film acclaimed? My cut-off point would be 98%, other editors may be 90%, others still may be ok with 80%, how about all reviews are at least a 70 or above from MC? My point really is the whole thing is subjective and the only real way to solve it is to either not mention "acclaim" or "positive" or "very positive" at all, while letting the reader come to that conclusion...or find sources like I provided that explicitly mention that it is critically acclaimed to back up the statement, both options as Flyer mentioned above. Assuming we went with the latter, there may be editors who disagree with what the sources are saying, but that is irrelevant. DrNegative (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I can understand objecting to "acclaimed" if it's one reviewer stating that the film is acclaimed (I brought up a similar point when discussing with Erik reviewers who summarize a film's reception as positive, mixed or negative), but, in the case of Frozen, there are various WP:Reliable sources calling the film acclaimed. As for "near-universal acclaim," we clearly don't have to use that wording; there is no need for it, especially if only one reviewer has stated that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a long dispute. Well, "widespread critical acclaim" is not overstating, unless you hate the film, as there are enough RS saying so.Forbidden User (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A long dispute? The above discussion isn't long, at least to me. Flyer22 (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The wording has been changed to "strongly positive reviews" a few times before, all getting reverted at the end. The earliest I reckon was before the article became GA. Honestly, "widespread critical acclaim" is really long standing, and the GA reviewer did't say it is POV.Forbidden User (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Planned tasks:

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

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

I don't think it will be sent to AfD if you proceed as said. It's a very good split overall.Forbidden User (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh by the way, be careful with the references. It's one of the most difficult thing to deal with.Forbidden User (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't get it. Why is transferring references difficult? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The references may be defined elsewhere in the article meaning you will get a load of citation errors. It is easy to get around though: simply copy and paste the whole article and save it to the new page, and then just delete all the sections you don't want. You will still get a lot of citation errors but a bot will come along and retrieve the sources from the previous save within a few hours. It will save a lot of work. Betty Logan (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Aka if only the citation shortcut instead of the entire citation is used in the bit that is being copied over, the reference won't work correctly. And vice versa.--Coin945 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)