Jump to content

Talk:Tangled

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.58.24.163 (talk) at 15:14, 24 April 2014 (→Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

'Nearly universal critical acclaim'

Why is this written, as far as i'm concerned 89% is not nearly universal; the Toy Story series of films, which recieved 100%, 100% and 99% for 1, 2 and 3 films is universal. Someone please change this.

Repeated unexplained deletion

For some reason not made clear on edit comments, the following (or similar) has been removed repeatedly from the introduction:

The story is largely based on the classic German fairy tale Rapunzel by the Brothers Grimm; according to Edwin Catmull, the president of Walt Disney Animation Studios, Tangled is the last fairy tale-based Disney film for the foreseeable future, putting on hold for the first time a tradition of "princess movies" that dates back to 1937's Snow White.

Reference cited: Chmielewski, Dawn C.; Eller, Claudia (November 21, 2010). "Disney Animation is closing the book on fairy tales". Los Angeles Times.

Seems hard to question its notability, coming from the LA Times and said by the guy who authorized the film's production. I'm mentioning it here on the assumption that it will get removed again; if that happens, I think the topic ought to be discussed here. Thanks. 67.101.5.232 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was common knowledge that Disney denied that LA Times article. They are planning on doing more musicals and fairy-tales. The Times was apparently, "misinformed". This was confirmed on Disney's Official Twitter and Facebook pages. 66.19.119.77 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ed Catmull specifically has denied the LA Times' interpretation of his quotation. Powers T 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gross revenue

$11,600,000 is not Tangled's Gross Revenue. That's how much it made in the US. Gross Revenue means how much it made internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disney09 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a gross revenue on this article, when the film hasn't been released worldwide yet? 66.19.119.71 (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the United States and Canada still counts as a gross. —Mike Allen 10:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

Please stop changing the budget unless you can find a reliable source that contradicts the Los Angeles Times article, "According to the Los Angeles Times, after factoring in six years of development costs Tangled cost more than $260 million to produce." [1]. Thank you. Mike Allen 22:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly the budget is not mentioned until page 3 of the LA Times article.
They might change it without explanation but Box Office Mojo also lists the budget as $260 million
and so too does The Numbers say budget $260 million but they are honest about where they get their figures from which is almost always the LA Times (occasionally Variety or elsewhere).
$260 milllion is clearly the best available figure, at this time. -- Horkana (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction narrated by a dead person?

I know this probably doesn't stand a chance, but I'd point out that the article may very well qualify for Category:Fiction narrated by a dead person. Flynn even says in the opening that he dies and the fact that he's brought back to life afterward seems incidental.

...I'm just sayin'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.192 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're trying to say that Flynn Rider is basically like Mary Alice Young on Desperate Housewives, I don't think that's accurate. Flynn is very much alive at the start and the conclusion of the film, although it could be argued that the Flynn persona "died" when he felt there was no need to maintain it around Rapunzel. Barring something definitive from the producers of the film, or a published analysis of the film, this would be speculation. --McDoobAU93 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoxOfficeMojo not Amazon.com

{{edit semi-protected}}

In Tangled#Box-office performance, {{cite web}} is used three times with publisher=Amazon.com when the URL is actually from Box Office Mojo. Please update the parameters for each of them so that they match the URL. Thanks. 67.100.125.74 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com owns and publishes Box Office Mojo (well IMDb technically, but Amazon owns them). —Mike Allen 10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is valid, but as seen in the {{Mojo title}} in the external links section as well as in reference 28 (the first one in the Tangled#Box-office performance section), the article isn't consistent in treating amazon.com as publisher. Admittedly, using amazon.com as the publisher follows the preferred convention from {{Cite web/doc}} which favors using publisher for the "government service, educational institution, or company" and work for the website, but IMO this is a case where it would be confusing to following the documented convention. In the case of Amazon Web Services, there are a lot of websites, including Wikileaks until recently, whose publisher would be amazon.com.
(I've reinstated the edit-request, but am rewording it so as to defer to the judgment of the editor how the problem is fixed)
Please make the Box Office Mojo references in Tangled#Box-office performance consistent as to the identification of the website being cited. For example, use (actually reuse) <ref name="bomo">{{t1|Mojo title}}</ref> to refer to the main Box Office Mojo URL, and use {{Cite web}} with work=Box Office Mojo and no publisher otherwise. Thank you. 67.100.126.84 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the template/link under external links is not a citation, so it wouldn't make sense to treat it as one. I think we should follow the documentation. —Mike Allen 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in a similar sense, does that mean that a citation from The Wall Street Journal should read it's from News Corporation instead, since they own the WSJ? Or a news story on NBC's Today would be from General Electric, or soon Comcast? I see the IP's point and agree with it; it should be Box Office Mojo, not Amazon. --McDoobAU93 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The work is Box Office Mojo. The publisher is Amazon. You don't have to put anything (a url in a reference is all that's required), but the correct and professional way according to the documentation is the work and publisher. You can do what you want with this article, but the for GA and FA articles, most editors, including me, use the correct way. —Mike Allen 02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"IMDb.com, Inc." is identified as the copyright holder on the pages in question. This indicates that the entity is an incorporated company, so it certainly would be appropriate for us to list it as the publisher.
I agree with 67.100.126.84 that it's confusing and illogical to list "Amazon.com." Yes, that's the parent company of IMDb.com, but as McDoobAU93 points out, we wouldn't list "News Corporation" as the publisher of a Wall Street Journal article or "General Electric" as the publisher of an NBC report. —David Levy 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The sponsoring website or work, in this case Box Office Mojo, should be provided rather than just the publisher. In fact, few (if any) of our FA film articles include the publisher rather than the working website in the web citations. Examples in professional citation guides such as the MLA suggest the following information should be supplied if at all possible for a typical site:

  • Author (if known). "Title of the document." Title/Name of the Site. Date of version. Sponsoring Organization. Date of Access <url>.
    • Their first example is, "This Day in Technology History: August 20." History Channel.com 2002. History channel. 12 May 2001<http://historychannnel.com/>.

The sponsoring organization in the example is History Channel , not the corporate or copyright owner: A&E Television Networks. Because there are so many possibilities with web citations, many more examples are provided at here. Our own citeweb template guidelines may be confusing because they don't provide enough examples. In any case, using only Amazon.com in the references is deceptive -- it masks the actual website which has editorial control or the even the initial copyright holder. I have changed the refs to include the website per the IP's request. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. I was saying that the work and publisher should both be included, not just the publisher. So it's work=Box Office Mojo and publisher=Amazon.com. —Mike Allen 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the company most accurately described as the publisher is IMDb.com. Amazon.com happens to be IMDb.com's corporate parent, just as News Corporation is the Wall Street Journal's corporate parent and General Electric is NBC's corporate parent. —David Levy 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why do we bother including this information? Ultimately I don't want to see a tangle of parent companies obfuscating the truth that I'm reading an article that is backed up only by references from News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch owned publications, so it is funny you should mention WSJ. You can be accurate but entirely hit the wrong target. I almost always make the efffort to show who is the parent company. If a Sony film has a lot of sources that are also ultimately owned by Sony I want to increase the chance of other editors and readers noticing it too (see also DC Comics a divsion of Time Warner, Marvel comics a divsion of Disney). Frankly yes, it is the sprawling News Corporation I'm most worried about and they got me in the habit of adding this information everywhere and wondering about who ultimately is the real owner/publisher.
Adding to that the stigma surrounding IMDB I prefer to skip to the top and say Amazon is the publisher. It is not a corporate group where there are quite so many tangled layers but having made the habit of cutting through the layers with other groups, particularly News Corp. and for other groups there are so few layers it is hardly worth using publisher at all and I just use work but in my personal opinion I think it is best to write work = Box Office Mojo and publisher = Amazon.com. It might be more pedantically correctly to write "Amazon.com Inc." but I'd rather not link to what will redirect to the Amazon.com page anyway. (I definitely would not use boxofficemojo.com as I see in the article in a few cases. Also it is horribly trying to read markup with so little spacing or indentation so I'm personally going to stay away from this quagmire and let you sort it out between yourselves.)
The citation guidelines - or at least the various ones I've found and read - never made it all that clear what we were supposed to put in the work and publisher fields, but I think website/magazine/film is the work and the parent company is the publisher.
Either way I would discourage editors from adding their own italic and parenthesis as markup instead of accepting whatever the template provides. I reluctantly show some deference to the style of the editors before me but since the article is already inconsistent and already fails to include publisher in most instances (only see IMDB in two and even that isn't done consistently between those two) it seems unfair to not to let the editor working on improving the citations and making them consistent to be the one to decide on how best to do it, but as I said above I'd strongly encourage you to put Box Office Mojo in the work field and Amazon.com in the publisher field. If you can't come to any agreement perhaps you might refer it to WT:MOSFILM or elsewhere. (Wow that quick comment got long fast. Apolgies for the lack of brevity.) -- Horkana (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with using italics for websites (in the work parameter), even though the template currently formats it that way. Websites should not be italicized. It's just silly. I have made an effort to counter the automatic italicizing by adding italics. However a bot always comes in and "cleans up", so I just gave up. And requesting a change to the template page is pointless. I've tried on a different matter and they refused to accept my proposal to automatically hide the archiveurl= archivedate= parameters when the link doesn't need the archive link (but you add one anyways for backup). They just said to comment it out. Really? Is it that hard to change the template to something that simple. Lol —Mike Allen 03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, this got started when citations appeared to be coming from Amazon.com, not Box Office Mojo. I just checked this on my sandbox page, and I see now how the website is italicized and the publisher appears separately (something I don't believe it did at the time). If this can indeed be applied consistently, then I would support adding Amazon as publisher. --McDoobAU93 04:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was inconsistent. Once I got past the headache inducing lack of any spacing or line breaks that only a masochist could love I tried to at least make it a bit more consistent. A little simplification was possible thanks to named references. I'm not sure we really need quite so many seperate links to Box Office Mojo instead of just linking to the summary page but I resisted the urge to delete any of the other links as there may be some nitpick details they verify. The titles used a lot of ugly allcaps (which can be changed) but in this case it was preferably and easier to grab the actual page <title> (omitting the redundant suffix of "Box Office Mojo" included in most titles. I really wonder if the level of detail given to the box office takings is even relevant or notable enough for the English language Wikipedia to mention it at all, but again I resited the urge to delete any of it. I can't recommend strongly enough against crushing down citations removing all spaces and line breaks, the amount of hard to see mistakes and even just dumb repitition is amazing and editors aren't going to fix it when it is unreadable. (At least wait until an article is near finished at Featured Article or Good Article status before crushing things down, making it hard to check or add missing fields.)
I removed the a few incidents where IMDB was listed as publisher, they weren't even consistent with each other. I removed the Amazon ones too.
In deference to this dicussion I did not include any publisher information. I encourage the regular editors of this article to come to a decision one way or another and add them consistently to all of the Box Office Mojo links. (If you do decide to use IMDB please be sure to aviod abbreviations use the full title Internet Movie Database.)

Title in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

The Title in these three countries isn't Rapunzel - A Tangled Tale. It's Rapunzel - neu verföhnt which has a similiar meaning to Rapunzel - new blow-dried. That's becaue the German word for to blow-dry (föhnen) is similar to the German word etw. verfilmen which means to make sth. into a film.

Though, the word-by-word translation of the german title Rapunzel - neu verföhnt is nearly Rapunzel - new blow-dried wrong, because the german prefix ver- carries a negative connotation, so verföhnen means something like to destroy sb.'s hairstyle with blow-drying. But as a native you barely recognize this negative connotation, so it's just a wordplay with the german words for to blow-dry and to make into a movie.

Without the wordplay the german title would be Rapunzel - neu verfilmt, which could be translated to Rapunzel - remade into a movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gartenzaun (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context: in the section of the article labelled "Title change" there is a claim that the English back translation of the international title for various countries including the German speaking countries mentioned above is "Rapunzel - A Tangled Tale"
This claim is not actually mentioned anywhere in the Variety article that comes after it as a reference. The sentence appears to be original research inserted before a citation for other comments. (So I removed it [2], international titles are not usually included without sources.) -- Horkana (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was researching that and was about to change it when I saw you already had. Very correct, simply because the cited source didn't say it. --McDoobAU93 02:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nominated}} → {{Nom}} on Tangled

This message is in response to Horkana's Edit Summary ("Fix? I fail to see how using unclear abbreviations is a fix compared to clear complete words") for this edit. This user has a message on their talk page instructing any discussion should take place on the article's talk page so the message is copied here. The reason for the change is that {{Nominated}} does not actually exist. The proper template name is {{Nom}}. The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Redirect regarding Template Redirects:

Redirects for templates can cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated. For example, if calls to T1 are to be changed to some new template TN1, articles must be searched for {{T1}} and a separate search must be made for each of its aliases (including T2 in this example). Moreover changes to syntax, corrections, scans and other processes (for example tag dating) must take into account all redirects.

In other words: if, for some reason, the {{Nom}} template undergoes some change which requires all template calls to {{Nom}} to be modified in some way, only one search for the template needs to be done, versus researching multiple different templates, all of which redirect to {{Nom}} (such as {{Award-nom}}, {{Award-Nom}} and {{Nominated}}). Solving template redirects (something most bots do anyway) simply removes the possibility for this to become a problem in the future. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. So be it. I still think it is very poor design and planning to use a 3 letter abbreviation as the original and the short version as a redirect. -- Horkana (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Flynn "pardoned"?

Occasionally, a well-intentioned editor will add a phrase into the film's plot stating that Flynn/Eugene was pardoned by Rapunzel's parents. Unless somebody has something from the film's producers stating this, this would be speculation. It would be just as much speculation to state that there's no need to pardon Eugene FitzHerbert, because he didn't do anything, while Flynn Rider most certainly did, but he "died" (either metaphorically, when Eugene gave up Flynn's life/persona, or literally, after Gothel stabbed him but before Rapunzel's tear healed him), so we can't prosecute anyone. --McDoobAU93 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC) tangled is ausom...... its cool wach it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.68.206 (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive?

I won't deny that this film uses a lot of their budget for production, but...wasn't the Thief and the Cobbler a slightly more expensive movie? Especially counting all the financial history from the Shahs, Disney, and Warner Bros. 173.26.85.195 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home media

Hey, I improved the home media section by adding additional informational about the release, including details about the combo pack. I also added some information about it being the first 3D Blu-ray release. All information has been properly cited. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simulataneous Blu-ray 3D Animated Film

Sorry if this is not done correctly, but I believe that the statement that Tangled is the first animated film on Blu-ray 3D, Blu-ray and DVD on the same day is incorrect, regardless of the reference. Despicable Me was released on all three formats December 14th 2010. You can check retailers like DVDEmpire for reference 38.99.32.254 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You did it quite correctly. I've removed the incorrect sentence. --McDoobAU93 19:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Website for archiving

For archival purposes, I will place website component URLs here so web.archive.org picks them up:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional secret agents and spies

I might just be being thick, hence I didn't remove it, but why is this article in the "Fictional secret agents and spies" category? Who in Tangled is a secret agent or spy? -- Cati (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ... if there is one, it's not a key component of the plot. But since there isn't one by any definition I can think of, I'm getting rid of it. So you're not being thick. :) --McDoobAU93 00:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include original research!

I removed the unsourced claims from the lede (most expensive movie ever, etc.). While these statements may well be true, they are not sourced, so they can't be included. If someone wants to include such statements, they should locate a reliable source for the assertions and properly cite the additions.

Please also note that, for most information, user-contributed sites (e.g. IMDB) are not considered reliable sources. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On another somewhat related note, the sentence "Tangled has been met with universal acclaim since its release." as the opening in Critical response is not accurate, hyperbolic, and unnecessary. The facts (Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) can speak for themselves without adding this kind of topical sentence. I will revert the latest reversion by an IP on this issue. Please do not revert again without first contributing here on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box-office performance detail

I've added a tag to this section because I've never seen this much detail about the worldwide box office numbers in a film article before. I don't see any justification for a blow-by-blow, weekly account of the box office in each market. This section should be severely condensed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a lot more comprehensive than what we normally get on the film articles. I actually like the continental break-down; gone are the days when two thirds of the business was done in the US, it's more the other way around now with films doing the majority of their business in the European and Asian markets, so perhaps a full worldwide breakdown is what we should be striving for i.e. if a film does two thirds of its business in international territories maybe the coverage should be representative of where the film does its business. That said, I think sub-dividing Europe is over-kill and probably gives too much weighting to that particular region, but personally I have no problem with the continental overview. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with making it less US-centric, but couldn't it just give a short summary for each market in one section? I mean, look at the detail in the North America subsection alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the faux-sectioning. To me, it actually looks very unappealing and doesn't make sense that I'm going to break down every country into its own fake-subsection, even if it's just for a single sentence. We're not likely to get real detailed information for how the film performed in Brazil, or Germany, but just some overall, estimated grosses. All box office info should be kept together with the "foreign" figures occupying their own paragraph with any details listed there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about the amount of detail?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in the Merchandising section

Hi. I recently edited the Tangled Merchandising section because I found a mistake but I didn't realise my editing would be seen as vandalism. If someone could rectify the mistake, I would be really grateful because this mistake is really bugging me! In the Merchandising section it states that Rapunzel is not yet an official Disney Princess. However, on the Official Disney Princess Wikipedia page, Rapunzel is on the list as an official Disney Princess. I'm sorry that I tried editing the page without reading up on how to, but clearly the information on the Tangled Wikipedia page contradicts that of the Official Disney Princess page. Therefore, if someone knows how to edit Wikipedia pages properly, I would be most grateful if they could correct this information! Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.125.52 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, Wikipedia articles are not (yet) considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Put another way, the Disney Princess article can't be used as a reference for the Tangled article, and vice versa. In the strictest sense, your edits are not vandalism, as I believe you are trying to improve the article (this is assuming good faith); but, adding uncited information despite requests not to do so is considered disruptive, which is as much of a problem as pure vandalism. You can make this edit yourself, but please provide a reliable, third-party source for the information. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 13:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked and I can't find any external links that prove that Rapunzel is now an official Disney Princess. I tried to include a link to the disney wiki page but they disallowed it again. :S

The Disney Parks Blog announced that Rapunzel will officially become a Disney Princess on October 2, 2011. http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2011/06/worldwide-celebration-to-honor-rapunzel-10th-member-of-the-disney-princess-royal-court/ Vpw (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this film referred to??

If this film's name is merely "Tangled" (2 syllables); why is it so popularly referred to as "Disney's 50th animated feature film Tangled" (14 syllables)?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it referred to that on a single place in the article. Where do you see that? - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off; it's not necessarily that exact phrase; it has a number of variants that reference 50th. There was such a reference to this at Disney Princess before I edited it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I did a quick search for the phrase and found nothing, but after looking through it manually I saw a "The 50th Disney animated film", which I exchanged for "It". [3] I can't see any more such phrases outside of quotes (in the reception section), but in general, they shouldn't be phrased like that. "Tangled", "it" or "the film" should be enough. I guess some editor was excited about the film being the big five-o. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say i found this film brilliant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.140.3 (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malta

Is not a part of Northern Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.246.172 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video.

Does any one have the full movie for tangled that doesn't need download? Like being able to watch straight at a website. I tried youtube but i couldn't find it, youtube disabled the movie for sg-ians. 113.10.107.151 (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Alicia[reply]

Please follow WP:FORUM. —Bruvtakesover (talk!) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characters/cast

I would like to have read something about what the voice cast thought of their characters, particularly Mandy Moore. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeing porpursal

I propose that Tangled Ever After be merged into this article. Almost everything in that article is covered in Tangled#Tangled Ever After.--Babar Suhail (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Tangled Ever After page provides almost no information that is not already present in the subsection on the short film on the Tangled page, as noted above. Adding the movie poster and any information that's on TEA's page to the Tangled page should suffice to cover the short. Frankly, the subsection has a better plot description than the short's page anyway. Metheglyn (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A subsection for the short is far more appropriate. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Tangled → Tangled (2010 film) – Is this really the primary topic? This is not my last name (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing unfortunate here is that the relative success of The Princess and the Frog and Tangled means the end of Disney movies that look like Disney movies. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, even more unfortunate. The Disney movies that looked like Disney movies had all of their characters represented in the original Kingdom Hearts video game. Any movies or characters after the ones that made the cut for that game ... Oh, makes me miss the old'en times of Disney lore. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the film is the primary topic for this term. Unless there is growing precedent to ensure that dictionary terms get disambiguation pages, the current setup is fine. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User talk:This is not my last name has made a reasonable RM proposal given other topics at Tangled (disambiguation) such as Tangled (2001 film) featuring 3 well known actors, the albums etc., and the snarly rudeness of the non-admin closer within 9 hours was uncalled for. Looking at Google Books I don't believe that the Disney film is more common than all other uses of Tangled combined. I would request User:BDD to wave his admin wand and let this RM go the full time. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @In ictu oculi: No "admin wand" required. You've presented a concern that goes against a WP:SNOW-rationale closing consensus; seems good enough for me, a non-admin, to reopen this discussion without prejudice. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I may be reflecting my own limited perspective that I've seen the 2001 film and hadn't heard of the Rapunzel cartoon, but it's also the various albums and songs. In a case like this when different media have different audiences the passmark for having any article elevated to primary needs to be set higher than 51% of all usage, perhaps up to 70% of all usage - which the Disney film isn't getting. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain the criteria you used in Google Books? A broad search makes it difficult to identify topics called "Tangled". When I searched for tangled disney film for the date range 1/1/2012 to 1/1/2015 (to seek out retrospective coverage), I saw that the film is (lightly) covered in a variety of books that have to do with gender and/or childhood. In Google Scholar, doing the same search shows some coverage in regard to the animation process as well as Disney princesses in general (though some results are just theses/dissertations). Obviously this kind of search focuses on one topic, but it does not seem like any of the others come close to prominence. It was a blockbuster hit, and as a Disney production, it seems like it is referenced more than a less corporate work. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to sort out non-Disney tangled Nick Heyward Tangled only 6, similar for other albums, 50 or so for the 2001 film... but then the Disney results are stuffed with merchandising, and therefore aren't independent. It's really an issue of whether independent long term significance is and must be Disney and only Disney. Also there's the increasing role of the infobox jpg in disambiguation. When we came to this RM the 2001 was "anonymous" because no one had uploaded a movie poster or DVD cover. On iPhone or Android it is usually the jpg that performs the function of disambiguator, and uploading an image which helps readers find articles as much as ambiguating/disambiguating titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I haven't seen either film, but I know this:
  • Tangled (2001 film) has been viewed 1998 times in 201403. [4]
  • Tangled has been viewed 158117 times in 201403. [5]
That means the article about the 2010 movie was viewed over 75 times more often than the article about 2001 movie last month. 75 times!

And it's not like everyone is getting to the wrong page here; they seem to stay put:

  • Tangled (disambiguation) has been viewed 365 times in 201403. [6]
I too don't know what data PRIMARYTOPIC-hater In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) has gleaned from Google Books, but regardless of those results, I'm sure it's biased in favor of the older film, just because it has been around 10 years longer and so can be mentioned in that many more books. Recent page view counts are much more useful for determining which topic is more likely to be sought in a case like this. I already closed this per WP:SNOW because continuing such a pointless discussion is a waste of time and resources. But Steel1943 (talk · contribs) was hoodwinked into reopening. Oh well. Suit yourselves. --B2C 17:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tangled&oldid=605616433"