This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frozen (2013 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Frozen (2013 film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||
|
Minor typo in the Plot section. "gives Olaf a furry small cloud to experience warmth" should probably be "gives Olaf a flurry small cloud to experience warmth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:A7F:D560:170:66A:AE52:4442 ( talk) 02:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
68.199.144.108 ( talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC) With A Third Film In Development
Fhthfhuhgr 24.47.2.151 ( talk) 07:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please fix the release date? It was released on November 27, 6 days after November 22 in 2013. Can you fix that? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:3CCB:32FF:2BF1:4FB0 ( talk) 10:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2600:1700:3890:A10:F548:6123:371B:72E9 ( talk) 02:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Frozen Was Released December 25, 2013!
Why don't we just put the "based on" attribute back to the article, as well as the Frozen II article? You may claim that "Inspired by" is not the same as "based on", but really, the film's "story inspired by" credit is no different from The Jungle Book's "Inspired by the Rupyard Kipling "Mowgli" stories" or Oliver & Company's "Inspired by Charles Dicken's "Oliver Twist" credits, if you've watched them. Brian K. Tyler ( talk) 04:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
In the "Legacy" section which has a "Cultural Impact" sub-section, could another sub-section titled "Social Impact" be included? This could include subjects like, for example, that when the film was first shown and distributed, there was a significant increase in the number of tourists visiting Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@
Wingwatchers: Since I don't understand most of what you wrote due to bad grammar and my talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this issue, I will write here. You wrote "Frozen captivated audiences worldwide, with children in the US and UK obsessing over the film and repeatedly singing its songs", which does not fit with the paragraph and which I think is redundant and generated by AI (
obsessing over). I did not "incorrectly states that its the box office success that led to the creation of the franchise."
, the box office success and popularity of the film DID led to it.
Rude of you to assume I "lack extensive background and contextual knowledge"
.
ภץאคгöร
20:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
---|
|
"completely neutral", you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. ภץאคгöร 07:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
"completely neutral", you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. It is not me who is obsessing, it is the children. I cannot grasp how this is interpreted as bias. Can you eloborate? Wingwatchers ( talk) 07:47, 6 November 2023 (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.
Promoted back in 2014. Recently nominated for WP:Featured article status. This brought to light severe deficiencies relating to—among other things—prose quality and neutrality. I reckon that it currently fails at least WP:Good article criteria 1a, 3b, and 4. For details, I refer to my fairly extensive (albeit non-exhaustive) comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1#Comments by TompaDompa. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
If I were you, I would start by tracking down the best sources on the topic (perhaps books or academic articles written about the film, preferably ones with as broad a scope and perspective on the film as possible), read those to get a sense of what the general consensus on the film is both in terms of the relative weight of different WP:ASPECTS and subjective opinions about the film, and only then rewrite the article basically from the ground up using those sources to build the foundation (while using other sources to supplement them where needed). If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is. For that reason, and because this will need changes so substantial as to effectively turn it into a different article altogether, I think it would be better to remove its current WP:Good article status and take it through that process all over again than to try to remedy the issues during this process—it would be a much better use of everyone's time. I would strongly advise against renominating this at WP:FAC without first taking it through WP:Peer review and soliciting the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The very first paragraph of the
WP:LEAD ends with Thematically, it explores
feminism and sisterly bonds over romance, breaking traditional gender norms and Disney fairytale conventions.
That's the version after you, in your view, corrected any poor editorial choices
and readjusted the article to make it as neutral as possible
. Does that mean that you think that this sentence is now free from problems or do you think that there are still problems that you have overlooked? I'll give you three more examples now: the third paragraph of the "Writing" section contains the sentence This change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart.
, the second sentence of the "Casting" section contains the sentence During their preparation for the table read, Bell proposed the idea of a table read to Menzel when she visited her home.
, and the first sentence of the "Box office" section is Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion.
. Do you think there are any problems with those sentences, and if so, what problems are those?
Where else is the information supposed to come from? Ideally: secondary, independent sources. If the information is important to the overall topic, it will presumably have been repeated by high-quality sources on the subject. If those WP:BESTSOURCES do not mention the information in question, that's an indication that it is not a WP:MAJORASPECT.
You must have misunderstood what I said about Deadline Hollywood—I suggested using it (rather than Box Office Mojo) to establish significance and provide interpretation of the box office data. TompaDompa ( talk) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion.
Frozen grossed $401 million in the US and $933.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.334 billion.—has no fewer than two major factual errors. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Frozen grossed $400,953,009 domestically and $933,338,562 internationally, for a worldwide total of $1,334,291,571.,
It broke record as Fandango's top advance ticket seller among animated films,
After its limited release at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, it grossed $243,390., and
Frozen topped box office in its sixth weekend of wide release. WP:GACR 1a stipulates that
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct, and the article plainly does not meet that requirement. That's not even going into the issues with factual errors that still abound in that section (in spite of your efforts to rectify them), or the issues with tone, due weight, and so on. This article is, I'm sorry to say, in a rather poor state at the moment. I know you're working on it, but I don't see it being on a trajectory towards meeting the WP:Good article criteria—let alone the WP:Featured article criteria—anytime soon. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand that you would prefer an itemized list of everything that needs fixing to bring the article up to snuff, but that would amount to me rewriting the article for you. The issues are quite extensive, and since spot-checking sources has revealed a massive number of serious issues, it would be necessary to double-check the entire article. I'll reiterate what I said two weeks ago: the best solution here would almost certainly be to delist the article so it can go through the WP:Good article nomination process afresh. If you want me to, I could at that point provide an in-depth review, or if you prefer I could leave it to someone else. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her extensive involvement in the project.failed verification. You have since changed it to
During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience., but this does not resolve the issue. Neither
promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structurenor
her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience.accurately reflects what the source actually says. Another example is that you don't seem to understand that the problem with Deadline and Bloomberg coming up with different figures is that you only report one of them. Yet another example is bringing up that the The Empire Strikes Back article cites Box Office Mojo—which doesn't address the issue that Box Office Mojo is simply and demonstrably wrong about this film. You are also apparently unaware of the existence of other box office sources such as The Numbers and Boxoffice Pro that can be used as alternatives when needed. A fourth example is that you just changed the geographic terminology from "North America"/"other countries" to "domestic"/"international", and previously had "in the US"/"outside the US"—none of those terminologies are correct.I'm not sticking to focusing on the "Box office" section because that's the only place there are significant problems, I'm doing it to limit the scope of this back-and-forth while I try to get you to understand just how poor a state this article is in. What you are doing is, if you'll excuse the crudity of the idiom, polishing a turd. The article needs to be rewritten, not tweaked. It's not a case where there is a limited number of discrete issues, it's a case where the article is poor throughout. Attempting to fix the article issue-by-issue would not be a good use of your time or mine; no amount of copyediting will solve sourcing issues (such as relying too heavily on non-ideal sources), for instance. You're basically asking me to conduct a full WP:GAN-style review on an article that plainly does not meet the WP:Good article criteria. That doesn't help anyone. Writing high-quality articles takes some skill, a fair amount of experience, and a lot of time. There is no getting around that, and trying to find shortcuts will be an exercise in futility that can only result in frustration. It may be the case that you simply need more practice when it comes to writing film articles. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
An interesting piece of information could be added to the Legacy section in relation to this film and the Dyatlov Pass incident investigation. E.g.:
The researchers unraveled the final piece of the puzzle—the hikers’ unexplained injuries—with the help of a surprising source: Disney’s 2013 film Frozen. According to National Geographic, Gaume was so impressed by the movie’s depiction of snow that he asked its creators to share their animation code with him.
136.54.106.120 ( talk) 15:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Just note that the fucked up Box office section above is not my fault but the editorial misconception and misinterpretation of others. I did the best I could to save the article from being cast down, however, this does not mean that the fate of this article is definitive. In the coming weeks, I will rework the Box office section using professional analyses, however, I will take full responsibility for the minor grammatical mistakes I made while transforming this article from essentially a quote farm. Look at it, it went from this to this which in my opinion definitely qualifies as a major improvement. While my ambitious attempt to bring it to FA may have also invited some undesired guests (not necessarily referring to them of course) I believe it is a necessary process to bring this article to FA. I am not as narrow-minded as our guests here not necessarily referring to them of course. It only took me 1k edits for me to this article to transform this article into its current state but I am willing to make 10k more edits to bring this article to FA and proudly display it on the main page. This GAR process reminds us to never give up in pursuing our dreams. More importantly, it teaches us that fate is not absolute, it teaches the fundamental theme of life, persistence against failure, and it teaches us to not let our enemies triumph over us. Cheers! Wingwatchers ( talk) 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I was celebrating the film's 10th Anniversary today (November 27, 2023). I checked the wikipedia to be sure that today was the day Frozen was released 10 years ago from today and when read the article, I saw that the film was released on November 22, 2013, not November 27, 2013. This is weird as previous edits said that the film was released on November 27, 2013 as well as Google and the Disney wiki on Fandom. I don't know who to believe now. Can someone help me out? When was Frozen released? JMATIUAS ( talk) 19:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frozen (2013 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Frozen (2013 film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||
|
Minor typo in the Plot section. "gives Olaf a furry small cloud to experience warmth" should probably be "gives Olaf a flurry small cloud to experience warmth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:A7F:D560:170:66A:AE52:4442 ( talk) 02:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
68.199.144.108 ( talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC) With A Third Film In Development
Fhthfhuhgr 24.47.2.151 ( talk) 07:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please fix the release date? It was released on November 27, 6 days after November 22 in 2013. Can you fix that? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:3CCB:32FF:2BF1:4FB0 ( talk) 10:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2600:1700:3890:A10:F548:6123:371B:72E9 ( talk) 02:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Frozen Was Released December 25, 2013!
Why don't we just put the "based on" attribute back to the article, as well as the Frozen II article? You may claim that "Inspired by" is not the same as "based on", but really, the film's "story inspired by" credit is no different from The Jungle Book's "Inspired by the Rupyard Kipling "Mowgli" stories" or Oliver & Company's "Inspired by Charles Dicken's "Oliver Twist" credits, if you've watched them. Brian K. Tyler ( talk) 04:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
In the "Legacy" section which has a "Cultural Impact" sub-section, could another sub-section titled "Social Impact" be included? This could include subjects like, for example, that when the film was first shown and distributed, there was a significant increase in the number of tourists visiting Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@
Wingwatchers: Since I don't understand most of what you wrote due to bad grammar and my talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this issue, I will write here. You wrote "Frozen captivated audiences worldwide, with children in the US and UK obsessing over the film and repeatedly singing its songs", which does not fit with the paragraph and which I think is redundant and generated by AI (
obsessing over). I did not "incorrectly states that its the box office success that led to the creation of the franchise."
, the box office success and popularity of the film DID led to it.
Rude of you to assume I "lack extensive background and contextual knowledge"
.
ภץאคгöร
20:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
---|
|
"completely neutral", you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. ภץאคгöร 07:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
"completely neutral", you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. It is not me who is obsessing, it is the children. I cannot grasp how this is interpreted as bias. Can you eloborate? Wingwatchers ( talk) 07:47, 6 November 2023 (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.
Promoted back in 2014. Recently nominated for WP:Featured article status. This brought to light severe deficiencies relating to—among other things—prose quality and neutrality. I reckon that it currently fails at least WP:Good article criteria 1a, 3b, and 4. For details, I refer to my fairly extensive (albeit non-exhaustive) comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1#Comments by TompaDompa. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
If I were you, I would start by tracking down the best sources on the topic (perhaps books or academic articles written about the film, preferably ones with as broad a scope and perspective on the film as possible), read those to get a sense of what the general consensus on the film is both in terms of the relative weight of different WP:ASPECTS and subjective opinions about the film, and only then rewrite the article basically from the ground up using those sources to build the foundation (while using other sources to supplement them where needed). If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is. For that reason, and because this will need changes so substantial as to effectively turn it into a different article altogether, I think it would be better to remove its current WP:Good article status and take it through that process all over again than to try to remedy the issues during this process—it would be a much better use of everyone's time. I would strongly advise against renominating this at WP:FAC without first taking it through WP:Peer review and soliciting the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The very first paragraph of the
WP:LEAD ends with Thematically, it explores
feminism and sisterly bonds over romance, breaking traditional gender norms and Disney fairytale conventions.
That's the version after you, in your view, corrected any poor editorial choices
and readjusted the article to make it as neutral as possible
. Does that mean that you think that this sentence is now free from problems or do you think that there are still problems that you have overlooked? I'll give you three more examples now: the third paragraph of the "Writing" section contains the sentence This change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart.
, the second sentence of the "Casting" section contains the sentence During their preparation for the table read, Bell proposed the idea of a table read to Menzel when she visited her home.
, and the first sentence of the "Box office" section is Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion.
. Do you think there are any problems with those sentences, and if so, what problems are those?
Where else is the information supposed to come from? Ideally: secondary, independent sources. If the information is important to the overall topic, it will presumably have been repeated by high-quality sources on the subject. If those WP:BESTSOURCES do not mention the information in question, that's an indication that it is not a WP:MAJORASPECT.
You must have misunderstood what I said about Deadline Hollywood—I suggested using it (rather than Box Office Mojo) to establish significance and provide interpretation of the box office data. TompaDompa ( talk) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion.
Frozen grossed $401 million in the US and $933.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.334 billion.—has no fewer than two major factual errors. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Frozen grossed $400,953,009 domestically and $933,338,562 internationally, for a worldwide total of $1,334,291,571.,
It broke record as Fandango's top advance ticket seller among animated films,
After its limited release at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, it grossed $243,390., and
Frozen topped box office in its sixth weekend of wide release. WP:GACR 1a stipulates that
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct, and the article plainly does not meet that requirement. That's not even going into the issues with factual errors that still abound in that section (in spite of your efforts to rectify them), or the issues with tone, due weight, and so on. This article is, I'm sorry to say, in a rather poor state at the moment. I know you're working on it, but I don't see it being on a trajectory towards meeting the WP:Good article criteria—let alone the WP:Featured article criteria—anytime soon. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand that you would prefer an itemized list of everything that needs fixing to bring the article up to snuff, but that would amount to me rewriting the article for you. The issues are quite extensive, and since spot-checking sources has revealed a massive number of serious issues, it would be necessary to double-check the entire article. I'll reiterate what I said two weeks ago: the best solution here would almost certainly be to delist the article so it can go through the WP:Good article nomination process afresh. If you want me to, I could at that point provide an in-depth review, or if you prefer I could leave it to someone else. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her extensive involvement in the project.failed verification. You have since changed it to
During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience., but this does not resolve the issue. Neither
promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structurenor
her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience.accurately reflects what the source actually says. Another example is that you don't seem to understand that the problem with Deadline and Bloomberg coming up with different figures is that you only report one of them. Yet another example is bringing up that the The Empire Strikes Back article cites Box Office Mojo—which doesn't address the issue that Box Office Mojo is simply and demonstrably wrong about this film. You are also apparently unaware of the existence of other box office sources such as The Numbers and Boxoffice Pro that can be used as alternatives when needed. A fourth example is that you just changed the geographic terminology from "North America"/"other countries" to "domestic"/"international", and previously had "in the US"/"outside the US"—none of those terminologies are correct.I'm not sticking to focusing on the "Box office" section because that's the only place there are significant problems, I'm doing it to limit the scope of this back-and-forth while I try to get you to understand just how poor a state this article is in. What you are doing is, if you'll excuse the crudity of the idiom, polishing a turd. The article needs to be rewritten, not tweaked. It's not a case where there is a limited number of discrete issues, it's a case where the article is poor throughout. Attempting to fix the article issue-by-issue would not be a good use of your time or mine; no amount of copyediting will solve sourcing issues (such as relying too heavily on non-ideal sources), for instance. You're basically asking me to conduct a full WP:GAN-style review on an article that plainly does not meet the WP:Good article criteria. That doesn't help anyone. Writing high-quality articles takes some skill, a fair amount of experience, and a lot of time. There is no getting around that, and trying to find shortcuts will be an exercise in futility that can only result in frustration. It may be the case that you simply need more practice when it comes to writing film articles. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
An interesting piece of information could be added to the Legacy section in relation to this film and the Dyatlov Pass incident investigation. E.g.:
The researchers unraveled the final piece of the puzzle—the hikers’ unexplained injuries—with the help of a surprising source: Disney’s 2013 film Frozen. According to National Geographic, Gaume was so impressed by the movie’s depiction of snow that he asked its creators to share their animation code with him.
136.54.106.120 ( talk) 15:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Just note that the fucked up Box office section above is not my fault but the editorial misconception and misinterpretation of others. I did the best I could to save the article from being cast down, however, this does not mean that the fate of this article is definitive. In the coming weeks, I will rework the Box office section using professional analyses, however, I will take full responsibility for the minor grammatical mistakes I made while transforming this article from essentially a quote farm. Look at it, it went from this to this which in my opinion definitely qualifies as a major improvement. While my ambitious attempt to bring it to FA may have also invited some undesired guests (not necessarily referring to them of course) I believe it is a necessary process to bring this article to FA. I am not as narrow-minded as our guests here not necessarily referring to them of course. It only took me 1k edits for me to this article to transform this article into its current state but I am willing to make 10k more edits to bring this article to FA and proudly display it on the main page. This GAR process reminds us to never give up in pursuing our dreams. More importantly, it teaches us that fate is not absolute, it teaches the fundamental theme of life, persistence against failure, and it teaches us to not let our enemies triumph over us. Cheers! Wingwatchers ( talk) 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I was celebrating the film's 10th Anniversary today (November 27, 2023). I checked the wikipedia to be sure that today was the day Frozen was released 10 years ago from today and when read the article, I saw that the film was released on November 22, 2013, not November 27, 2013. This is weird as previous edits said that the film was released on November 27, 2013 as well as Google and the Disney wiki on Fandom. I don't know who to believe now. Can someone help me out? When was Frozen released? JMATIUAS ( talk) 19:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)