Jump to content

Talk:Frozen II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.47.183.71 (talk) at 01:18, 5 November 2021 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateFrozen II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleFrozen II 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2016Articles for deletionRedirected
July 16, 2021Good article nomineeListed
July 28, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 10, 2021Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 4, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 17, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson called out Disney for an inaccurate Frozen II poster?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

"also known as Frozen 2"

Is that necessary? I mean, the number II can always be written as 2. Unless the digit-2 form has been used in promotions and marketing etc. this does not seem worth noting. 2A00:23C5:FE0B:700:4D77:5E0D:AC8E:F0C1 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The digit 2 has been used in promotions and marketing and is generally how Disney writes the name in running text. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion I have is changing the wording to "stylized as..." /or possy doing a footnote similar to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. QueerFilmNerdtalk 18:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The stylization, if there it one, is the "II" not the normally used "2" used to represent numbers. Both should appear bolded in the intro because "Frozen II" is the article title, and the alternative spelling redirect at Frozen 2 needs to be displayed in bold per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they must have used Roman Numerals for the title of the movie. RaniaKamilia2512 (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Table of contents is formatted incorrectly. 128.3.32.224 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem, what exactly are you referring to ? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected needs to extend time

Hello, I think it is necessary for Frozen II because this semi-protected expires on February 25, any IP users can edited any of these articles. But because the film is highly popular and still running in box office and awaiting for release in Disney+ as well as DVD/Blu-ray, the semi-protected edits needs to extend time, or at least requesting pending changes protection for this article, same as 2013 Frozen film in order to ensure that quality of this article. Any thoughts about my suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.66 (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Anna the Queen of Arendelle?

I remember in the final scenes of the movie, Anna is the Queen of Arendelle. The article still states that Anna is the Princess of Arendelle and Elsa is the Queen, neither of which is true. Moreover, Kristoff is the King of Arendelle. Shouldn't the be altered? Jake The Great! | 📞 talk 14:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna is princess for most of the film and she became queen at the end of the film so she is both princess and queen in the film, both are true for the article. Articles cover the whole film, not just the last scene. Kristoff was never shown as king, just engaged to Anna. If they follow historical convention of the time, Kristoff would, at best, become prince consort on marriage, never king. Either way didn't happen in the film, so ended as just engaged to Anna. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anna is officially referred to as Queen Anna in current Disney literature, however for the majority of the film she does remain "Princess Anna". Additionally, Geraldo is correct, Kristoff and Anna end the film engaged, but not married. Dontmindthegap (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen 3?

If Disney has any plans to produce a third sequel, could that be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If covered by sources, yes.--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely better at Frozen (franchise) article though. Again if well sourced only and sources reference people involved in likely making it happen, not just random speculation and wishes by fans. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fan speculation is usually trash, agree, only good sources.--Chuka Chief (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Frozen II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 00:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments? @Some Dude From North Carolina:. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: He'll likely add them later. Just keep an eye out . Pamzeis (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

  • Add alt text to the poster and the image in #Animation.
  •  Done
  • In the infobox, does "screenplay by" need a source?
  • ... no, it's credited. Should I remove it?
Yes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed
  • "in in-universe" - bit repetitive
  •  Fixed
  • "in-universe perspective chronological timeline" - kinda wordy
  •  Fixed
  • "fan's aspiration" - should be plural, right?
  •  Fixed
  • "The film is notably darker tone and heavier in computer effects" → "The film contains a notably darker tone and is heavier in computer effects"
  •  Done

Plot and cast

  • "Afterwards" → "Afterward" (American English)
  •  Done
  • That's it. No issues with #Cast.

Production and marketing

  • Did some copy-editing here and removed some long quotes.

Release

  • As seen in this GA-article, add a subsection titled #Theatrical.
 Done Chompy Ace 00:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "46 languages ... four more than the first film, which was ... 42" - bit repetitive
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following upon the success" → "Following the success"
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "digital HD" should be written as "Digital HD"
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blu-Ray" → "Blu-ray"
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included" → "include" (still available)
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add hyphens between "behind the scenes".
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put quotation marks around "Multi-Language Reel".
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "songs performance" - reword
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as multiple deleted songs: "Home" and "I Wanna Get This Right", and "Intro"; and removed footages: "Prologue", "Secret Room", "Had Nokks" and "A Place of Our Own" → as well as deleted music and footage (the "quoted" scenes don't really mean much to readers)
 Done Chompy Ace 00:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was initially" → "The film was initially"
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to released" → "to be released"
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

 Done Chompy Ace 00:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$42.2 million" → "$42.4 million"
  •  Done
  • "$130.3 million" → "$130.7 million"
  •  Done
  • Add a comma after the first use of "second weekend".
  •  Done
  • "$85.6 million" → "$85.2 million"
  •  Done
  • Add a hyphen between "highest grossing".
  •  Done
  • What source does "India ($3.1 million)" come from?
  • The PostTrak score needs a source.
It is already cited with the Deadline Hollywood source, Postrack is not a website. Some with a featured article, Atlantis: The Lost Empire.  Already done Wingwatchers (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: I know that. The PostTrak score is not featured in that article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: minus Replaced. Pamzeis (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recipients in #Accolades should be sorted by last name using this template.
  •  Fixed

References

 Done Chompy Ace 00:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IBTIMES finds International Business Times "generally unreliable".
  •  Fixed
  • Sort categories in alphabetical order.
  •  Done
@Pamzeis:, can you leave some tasks for me? Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: I have added all my notes. Article is on hold. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Do you mean you want me to not complete some of the notes so you can do them? Pamzeis (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Hopefully, all  Done. Pamzeis (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis, Chompy Ace, and Wingwatchers: Great teamwork! Thumbs up icon Passing the article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Wingwatchers (talk), Chompy Ace (talk), and Pamzeis (talk). Nominated by Pamzeis (talk) at 01:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I have planned to do a FAC for Frozen II after the GAN. I am not sure if it will affect DYK. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAC only says you can't have peer reviews or GANs at the same time... so I'm not sure either. Pamzeis (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the article become a GA, and hasn't featured on the front page previously (which this article hasn't), it's eligible for DYK. Being a FAC doesn't preclude it from being DYK-eligible as a GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing a full review:
  • checkY Article is a GA, nominated in time (became GA on 16 July, nominated same day), and article is within policy
  • checkY Hook is short enough, interesting, in the article and well sourced (AGF on non-English source, but there are other English sources available online that verify this)
  • checkY QPQ done
  • Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request

  • [...] and that he figured that they would be involved on another project related to Frozen, though he had no idea whether it might be. Emphasis in original, strong emphasis added. Is this supposed to be what? If "whether" is the intended word, it's an incomplete thought and the sentence would need to be finished. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also special dubbings released for the movie Moana, which gathered in the space of two years from its release a Tahitian, a Māori, and a Hawaiian version, a special Northern Sami dubbing was released for Frozen 2 titled Jikŋon 2. Edited by requester, emphasis in original. Aside from the grammatical error at the beginning, splitting the sentence now makes mentioning Moana extraneous. The sentence before might have to be re-edited so that this one is relevant. Was the success of localised versions the reason why there was a Northern Sami dub released? Please do not edit this yourself while we try and figure out what is trying to be said here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The local crew filmed the Lopezes in their New York City apartment, and footage of their meetings with other production crews was captured from one or both sides of the conversation or from the teleconferencing technology directly. Already edited, edited by requester. Why is it important to know that footage was captured from all these different sources? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers: Looking forward to your response. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu:. I have answered all the above questions.
@Wingwatchers: I'll be giving it another look later. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: I believe that's everything on my end, with the copyedit complete. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Can you notify its done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Frozen II for future references. Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a themes section as requested from its previous FAC, Can you copyedit that too? Thank you. @Tenryuu: Wingwatchers (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please be careful not to put quoted content outside of quotes to make it look like it's in Wikipedia's voice in the future. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response rewrite

@Wingwatchers: The critical response section needs the most work. I suggest following the "guidelines" listed at WP:RECEPTION. To start, avoid the use of quotes. Rotten Tomatoes says that there are about 330 approved reviews to choose from. This section only made room for 10. One main thing I would advise following is the first rule: "Organize the section by thematic element." Split each paragraph into a certain topic (praise for its animation, soundtrack, score, and voice performance, and criticism for its story and music). Remove all those quotes and add more reviews. Examples may include here on Baby Driver, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Old, and Inside Out. Chompy Ace 22:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed @Chompy Ace Wingwatchers (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: I've added {{cn}} tags to a few unsourced sentences and a {{clarify}} tag. Pamzeis (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis Wingwatchers (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to revert heavy vandalism to article

As of this edit on 8 July 2021, the article had some very minor issues but was well-written and mostly made sense.

Three months later, I noticed that it no longer makes sense. Virtually every single prose sentence after the lead paragraphs has at least one error (usually in word choice, verb tense, punctuation, or capitalization), most sentences have two to five errors (of which at least one is critical), and several sentences are incomprehensible word salad. The worst example of the last category is this line: "The Los Angeles Times concluded that the re-procedure within the initial declinal were observably due to the unprecedented success from the first film."

Any objections before I revert back to the last good version from four months ago? --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not heavily involved in the article but my understanding is Wing is trying to get it up to FAC status, so if you have an issue with the prose, try to improve it. Taking it back 4 months isn't the answer. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How come, and which sections? I haven't touched any of the plot or development sections ever since the copyedit. I agreed that "The Los Angeles Times concluded that the re-procedure within the initial declinal were observably due to the unprecedented success from the first film." indeed doesnt makes any common senses. minus Removed It would be helpful if you can be more specific . Wingwatchers (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have already requested a copyedit on the GOCE page. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be more specific because the errors are so ubiquitous. As in nearly every. Single. Sentence.
For example, the correct English idiom is "speaking engagements" (the original wording when I wrote that sentence and as it appeared on 8 July 2021), not "speech engagements." As Google Ngram Viewer shows, this is a no-brainer. And in the paragraph before that, I used the term "hoped" to refer to Iger's thoughts about the future of Frozen. Someone who clearly doesn't understand the well-known difference between the connotations of "wish" and "hope" changed that to "wished," which carries an inappropriate connotation of informality in that context. We're talking about a rational business decision by the then-chairman and CEO of one of the largest entertainment companies in the world (an adult is more likely to "hope" for something), not the random whims of a five-year-old (a child is more likely to "wish" for something).
This is not rocket science. We're talking about critical errors that native English speakers learn to instinctively recognize as incorrect from about five to twelve years of age.
It would take me about six hours to type out all the really obvious errors and as a busy attorney, I don't have that kind of time. The article has been that badly vandalized. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vandalism, Wing is making a concerted effort to improve the article. I don't know if they are a native English speaker and maybe that is where the issue lies BUT as they said, they've asked for a copy edit. I would suggest patience in this. Taking it back 4 months for instance would remove the Themes section, and I helped write that so I know it isn't completely full of errors. Wait for the copy edit and then see if the issues remain. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, vandalizing the article and turning large parts of it into an incoherent train wreck is not an improvement. As the son and grandson of immigrants to the United States from a non-English-speaking country, I was raised with the utmost sympathy for ESL speakers. But I was also raised with the self-awareness to be wary of what I don't know I don't know. There are many other online venues for ESL speakers to practice writing English, such as the Simple English Wikipedia.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the new "Thematic analysis" section is by far the worst of the newer portions of the article. And I took English and comp lit undergraduate courses at a university that is routinely ranked among the top five in both English literature and literary criticism in the United States (and also among the top five worldwide in English literature). I got a perfect score on the verbal portion of the SAT (when it was much harder than today) and my first two college English assignments still came back covered in red marks and I knew I had to level up my game. So I know full well the difference between good critical jargon and bad critical jargon. What we have in this article definitely falls into the latter category.
If I don't see any significant improvement in a month, I'm going to go ahead and revert this train wreck. Saying wait for a copyeditor often turns out to be a delaying tactic that turns into waiting months and then years. Then five years go by and no one wants to clean up the mess. That's why so many articles on WP are in such terrible shape. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is now October, wait a couple of weeks. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests Wingwatchers (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

The Themes and Analysis section is poorly written. Can we have someone with a literary background give it a shot? The language is muddled and unfocused. I am having trouble following the train of thought. There are several sentences that are unsourced. This movie was thematically layered and full of symbolism. Certainly the writer is correct that there is a conversation about social justice and that should be the focus, but also there are themes about mythology, symbolism, mono myth, emotional growth and family dynamics. 99.47.183.71 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frozen_II&oldid=1053627435"