Talk:Frozen (2013 film)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

68.199.144.108 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC) With A Third Film In Development

 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. Terasail^[✉️] 18:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

London west 178554

Fhthfhuhgr 24.47.2.151 (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

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)

Assuming you mean in the infobox, Not done: Looks like the 22nd was the start of its first release and we just use one of them per WP:FILMRELEASE Cannolis (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2023

2600:1700:3890:A10:F548:6123:371B:72E9 (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Frozen Was Released December 25, 2013!

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on/inspired by

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)

The main reason I can see for using "inspired by" is that the resulting film contains no elements from the fairy tale that inspired it. If we used "based on", one can then ask, "what elements the film are based on the fairy tale"? If we say "inspired by", we don't have to answer that question. Sterlingjones (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Addition of another sub-section

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)

Not needed. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Resolved

@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)

@Nyxaros I merely summarized the most important part of the Cultural impact section, and the fact that its the cultural popularity that inspired the franchise is correct per body. You provided no context for that so therefore the reader will assume that its the box office success that inspired the franchiase. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I would like to note that I have attempted to approach you on your talk page to discuss this issue. I admit I might have been harsh in my approach but I do not wish to initiate another series of personal attacks because I already have enough already. Due to fast typing, I might have missed a word in my statement, so allow me to correct the minor missed words which you exaggerated as so-called bad grammar and incomprehensible: "I am afraid I have to revert your edit on Frozen because your edit does not reflect the profound cultural impact described in that section; to make it worse you straight off delete that sentence from that article. The fact that it captivated audiences worldwide which you claimed violates (WP: NPOV), see MOS: FILMLEAD and WP: WBA) is neutral and violates no manual of styles because it reflects the significant cultural impact in the body. I supposed you misunderstood/misinterpreted this as editorial bias, i.e. I intentionally phrased it this way due to your mention of (WP:NPOV). But by doing so, you incorrectly state that it's the box office success that led to the creation of the franchise. As you lack extensive background and contextual knowledge, please refrain from rewriting the lead again"

Your revision, which reads: "The immense success, partly due to popularity among child viewers, inspired the creation of a franchise, which included an animated short in 2015, an animated featurette in 2017, and a feature-length sequel, Frozen II, in 2019." is less engaging let's just say and randomly interested children into the sentence out of nowhere when we were boasting about the box office success. My sentence acts as a transition from that and clarifies that it is in fact the cultural impact that caused the creation of a franchise, as opposed to the box office. Your revision also undermines the significant cultural impact of the film, and in a later revision, you straight off deleted that sentence from the lead. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition I want to acknowledge that you act in good faith and it is indeed silly of me to phrase it in such a disputed way. I also want to apologize for assuming WP:Ownership but keep in mind that we both wanted to maintain this article to the highest standard. You said that you "shortened this part and paraphrased your verbose addition (which also did not follow WP:NPOV), see MOS:FILMLEAD and WP:WBA" but I want to argue that the part you trimmed is in fact necessary for context and transition purposes as described above. I wrote "Frozen captivated audiences worldwide, with children in the US and UK obsessing over the film and repeatedly singing its songs" because I want to empathize its significant cultural impact, and how it captivated children to an extraordinary extent. Your revision, "The immense success, partly due to popularity among child viewers, inspired the creation of a franchise, which included an animated short in 2015, an animated featurette in 2017, and a feature-length sequel, Frozen II, in 2019." fails to address this emphasis and awkwardly transition from the earlier box office commentary-"It also became the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time and the highest-grossing film of 2013.

"Obsessing over" is completely natural as I was trying to summarize "This phenomenon was noted by various journalists and even prominent figures like former UK prime minister David Cameron[272] and actors Amy Adams,[273] Ben Affleck,[274] Kevin Costner,[274] and Vince Vaughn, who found themselves dealing with their children's Frozen obsession.[275]". Again, I want to apologize for hurting your feelings and my initial failure to explore it in-depth with you. I hope you accept my apologies. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros I am deeply sorry for my behavior but at the same time I face the dilemma of maintaining and improving this article to the highest quality. Is there anything else you want me to clarify? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic

How about the screenplay and story credits on the introduction of each this article and the Frozen II article? You may want to look at the WGA screenwriting credit system article as well the Princess and the Frog, Wreck-It Ralph, and Zootopia articles so you might have a better understanding. Please note that I'm not asking you to change the three aforementioned movie articles. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) @Brian K. Tyler Hmm I am not sure. Mentioning both the story and screenplay is challenging because it required continued use of the word "The" in the beginning of both sentences which is deemed monotonous by other editors, but under rare circumstances exclusion can certainly be made. I have implemented your suggestions accordingly, and thank you for the suggestions. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC) I managed to rephrased it in a way that mentions both the screenplay and story while avoiding the continued use of the word "The". Cheers. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, it is not possible that your message "hurt my feelings" because I don't care at all, I just pointed out your behaviour, which I believe would be considered "rude" by many people.

The paragraph, starting with "In early 2014, many children in the US and the UK", should not be summarized in the lead like what you wrote. Especially when "Frozen's immense success was attributed to its ability to capture the spirit of classic Disney animations, offering strong female characters, catchy songs, and a unique subversion of the traditional villain role. The absence of a typical villain, relatable sibling relationships, and themes of self-acceptance and sacrifice also resonated with audiences globally."

There is no mention of surpassing Toy Story 3 OR being surpassed by The Lion King (2019 film) in the article. Therefore, in addition to being redundant, it is unsourced. The film was, of course, a significant success during its theatrical run.

Lastly, "obsessing" or any related word included in the article is not "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)

@Nyxaros Hmm. If you can make your revision flow and engaging while also addressing the film's significant cultural impact. Go for it Wingwatchers (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But I respectfully disagree. I think my revision is find at it is and does not violate any MOS. Wingwatchers (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"he paragraph, starting with "In early 2014, many children in the US and the UK", should not be summarized in the lead like what you wrote. Especially when "Frozen's immense success was attributed to its ability to capture the spirit of classic Disney animations, offering strong female characters, catchy songs, and a unique subversion of the traditional villain role. The absence of a typical villain, relatable sibling relationships, and themes of self-acceptance and sacrifice also resonated with audiences globally." How do you propose we summarize it without oversimplifying it to an extent that it basically lost its intended meaning

"Lastly, "obsessing" or any related word included in the article is not "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)

While reviewing your edit I am afraid I am far from please of the changes you made. You yet again is trying to undermine cultural impact of the film by removing very very essential aspects about the film's cultural influence. Wingwatchers (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Also I dont understand why keep doing this because the article now feels incomplete and lost its intended meanings. I think you might have misinterpreted certain words such as captivated as uninformed, non-encyclopedic tone. But by doing so you devoid of the cultural impact section of the film's cultural significance. It reads weird and fails to capture the essence of "Frozen-mania". Wingwatchers (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to remind you that encyclopedic does not equates to an unengaging and weird tone. The overall cultural impact section now reads very dull. The leads again feels so weird that it doesn't reflect the gigantic box office section. While I appreciate your efforts, I in good conscience cannot accept these changes as constructive so therefore I will request external intervention from other more experienced editors/admin to oversee this. A part of me is leaning to classify this as vandalism, but I just want to say the delivery is let's just say... slightly... off. Of Course all editors are encouraged and I trust you act in good faith but I failed to see the picture here. You attributed your reasonings as "you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts." but I in fact did not because I was merely reporting its significant impact; and nothing of this article is near being considered opinions. The revision you presented failed to address the film's overwhelming cultural impact and conveys a limited meaning, and you misinterpreted the film's overwhelming influence as something that I exaggerated. Your current revision is neither accurate, comprehensive, and engaging, undermining a substantial portion of the context. This begs the questions of neutrality because I simply cannot understand why you are trying to censor the film's cultural and commercial influence by removing essential information about the respective subjects, in both the lead and the body. For now, I suggest we both should lay low and await external thoughts. Wingwatchers (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion: Frozen (2013 film) (revision 1183750626) to current revision Wingwatchers (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Frozen (2013 film)

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

I understand you concerns. I am re-reading it and referencing your comments to rework it. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that I do not acknowledge your concerns regarding neutrality and prose quality, but I wish to establish a peaceful and collaborative resolution to improve this article such as giving the nominator whoever that might be adequate time to readjust the article's quality, similar to the higher FAR process. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Status update I believe that I have addressed all the relevant issues raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1#Comments by TompaDompa, especially those related to prose quality and neutrality.Wingwatchers (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will just firmly state that I have fixed all the issues in Wikipedia: Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1#Comments by TompaDompa and @TompaDompa should probably reassess it. The failure of the FAC and the rushed GAR to capitalize on some unsophisticated aspects (which can probably resolved in a more peaceful and timely manner, such as consulting and checking with the nominator for improvement before resorting to this approach; and putting it on GAR will not help with the process and instead is a systematic approach to exert anxiety and emotional pressure under uses who by chance is already under substantial struggles). I have no interest in renominating anything for FAC because apparently, it is a place where editors heartlessly and harshly criticize and attack others' hard work not necessarily referring to you. I want to refrain from editing Wikipedia altogether because I am already under unbearable mental pressures IRL and the only thing I found joy in is Frozen. Yet I felt the purpose and existence of this GAR, in combination with someone's "amend" edit summary as if it is concerned with a legal document or legislative bill in its talk page made it seem that I was participating in a lawsuit with serious charges directed toward me. I found it difficult to fulfill my final wish to leave this horrible place and pursue my dreams and career because of the existence of this GAF and the so-called "severe deficiencies", which are already-fixed minor adjustments to part of the articles' tone and the inaccuracies of box office data reported by others that cannot be more rushed to be capitalized upon for criticism, suggest to me that I was responsible for this article's ill fate to be demoted from GA. I, who still retain some sanity, bear this guilt and strive to fix the issues with everything that I have left because I don't want to make the impression to the thousands of editors of this article that I vandalized their fairly good article. I deeply wish this GAR to end with it retaining GA status as soon as quickly so I could exit from these feelings of immense burden and guilt and move on to the more important aspects of life. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Hey @Wingwatchers: Your edits are appreciated. Like everyone else, you may make mistakes, but it is important to learn from them and move on. As Wikipedians, we should remain calm in an editing dispute and not use excuses. Remember, Wikipedia is not about winning, you are here to enjoy yourself. Wikipedia:Department of Fun is a great place to take a break and have some fun. ภץאคгöร 11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

After much consideration in the morning and afternoon I found myself unable to refrain from editing because I have already gone to deep into the rabbit hole to pull myself back from its gravitational field, so I will withdraw the part where I potentially stop editing as I managed to see some light in this chaotic world. Put everything aside I think I will be resolving any further critical objections and comments by the civil TompaDompa if they are willing to present it in a specific and realistic way. I will renominate it for FAC in spite of every obstacles rain in my way.Wingwatchers (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP. In the past I have on occasion spent a lot of time working with nominators to improve articles (that were perhaps not ready to be nominated when they were) to GA or FA standards to such an extent that I basically became a co-author, and while that is possible for subjects where I am already very familiar with the main sources on the topic, it would not be a good use of my time here. Instead, I will provide a few general observations relating to some of the most serious and pervasive issues with this article:

• The article reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. This comes down to a fairly large number of (often individually comparatively subtle) editorial choices (some but not all listed in my FAC review) that in aggregate result in an article that is to my eye pretty far from neutral. I don't believe this to be intentional—I expect that all of these choices were made in good faith and likely by several different editors independently—but it permeates the article nonetheless.
• The article needs to distinguish between fact and opinion much more carefully.
• The article relies heavily on non-ideal sources. Ideal sources are, among other things, independent and secondary (or tertiary, in some cases). For instance: A fair amount comes from interviews with people involved in the making in the film. The Art of Frozen is cited heavily, but not even name-checked in-text. There are a lot of news sources and similar. The "Box office" section should ideally use Box Office Mojo basically only to verify figures, with the interpretation and significance of those figures coming from other types of sources (e.g. Deadline Hollywood, which is cited for some of the content).

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)

I do not agree with what the above user said:

"The article reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. This comes down to a fairly large number of (often individually comparatively subtle) editorial choices (some but not all listed in my FAC review) that in aggregate result in an article that is to my eye pretty far from neutral. I don't believe this to be intentional—I expect that all of these choices were made in good faith and likely by several different editors independently—but it permeates the article nonetheless."I have addressed all of your neutrality issues in your fairly extensive FAC review; I have re-read it several times and corrected any poor editorial choices. TompaDompa clearly have not re-review the latest revision and is restating his inital comments which have already been addressed. Both the "Instead, I will provide a few general observations relating to some of the most serious and pervasive issues with this article" and "as if it were written by a fan of the film." statement is very vague and does not add any real, specific and realistic contextual basis on the problematic aspects of the problems in question.

"The article needs to distinguish between fact and opinion much more carefully." Same with this statement. This article no longer boast a laudatory tone. I have addressed every single example this user proposed in his fairly extensive review, and they did not cite any specific examples in the body.

"The article relies heavily on non-ideal sources. Ideal sources are, among other things, independent and secondary (or tertiary, in some cases). For instance: A fair amount comes from interviews with people involved in the making in the film. The Art of Frozen is cited heavily, but not even name-checked in-text. There are a lot of news sources and similar. The "Box office" section should ideally use Box Office Mojo basically only to verify figures, with the interpretation and significance of those figures coming from other types of sources (e.g. Deadline Hollywood, which is cited for some of the content)." What else is the information going to come from??? This is Disney's animated film so it makes sense that most of the content is going to come from the book they published. Same with interview. How is anyone supposed to acquire production information without consulting from the production team themselves. Deadline Hollywood is a very reliable source, but for some reason you interpreted it as unideal. You clearly don't have any background context and is now exaggerating vague, unrealistic and imaginary problems based on cognitive bias. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:11, 12 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." I have readjusted the article to make it as neutral as possible. You falsely claims that it need "changes so substantial as to effectively turn it into a different article altogether" but I strong believe I have addressed all the neutrality issues and you are now trying to suggesting me to rework it from the ground up. You exaggerated that it have significant issues so dire that I have to rework the fundamental structure without really citing any real examples. Your vague, unrealistic statements about that it have so-called fundamental problems does not justify the removal of GA status because you are trying to exaggerate problems that no longer exists, which is indicated by your refusal to provide specific examples. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You better not 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." because you started this whole mess and is now finding excuses to demote the article of its status, exaggerating minor issues which you apparently no longer time have time to examine critically. If you do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP, well you have already gone to deep into the rabbit hole. All facts are reported as facts in their purest forms, not as opinions with editorial endorsements. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa While I acknowledge your extensive review, some of your interpretations might be flawed and its best for us to go over here if you have any further concerns that are specific and realistic. Preferably, you specified the paragraphs or sections where these issues are prevalent. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"I do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP. In the past I have on occasion spent a lot of time working with nominators to improve articles (that were perhaps not ready to be nominated when they were) to GA or FA standards to such an extent that I basically became a co-author, and while that is possible for subjects where I am already very familiar with the main sources on the topic, it would not be a good use of my time here" Wikipedia is not going anywhere so don't find excuse in getting stuck in a fix loop whatever that is coined some insignificant individual. WP:Fix Loop excuse is not a sanctuary to resort whenever you feel narrow-minded. You initiated this GAR and you will be solely responsible for explaining specific issues so it can be fixed to your likings. By initing this process, you automatically assume the responsibility of participating in this ongoing collaborative and constructive process. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That's very lengthy. I'll try to be somewhat briefer.

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)

"Thematically, it explores feminism and sisterly bonds over romance, breaking traditional gender norms and Disney fairytale conventions" -> "The film explores the themes of feminism and sisterly bonds over romance."

"This change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart" -> "The production team said this change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart."

"During their preparation for the table read, Bell proposed the idea of a table read to Menzel when she visited her home." removed

" Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion.

-> grossed Wingwatchers (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Do you think those sentences are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)? TompaDompa (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a whole book about its production process, an inside-look on the animation process which is not covered by an major press. This is expected because if I was the press I would not read an entire book on a subject just for the sake of reporting it, especially if I am getting paid minimum wages for doing so. But yet these information are crucial to provide the readers a glimpse into its animation process beyond what the press covered. It is a thick book with high content densities and I managed to translate only the most important aspects into the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the last statement is a result of edit conflict. Regarding "Alright. Do you think those sentences are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)?":

The film explores the themes of feminism and sisterly bonds over romance. Hmm it suggesting that it explores both feminism and sisterly bonds over romance. I have removed romance for clarification

"The production team said this change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart." Upon further inspection I think the world selfless is subjective here Wingwatchers (talk) 05:38, 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." I have changed the word "earned" to "grossed". It is also mathematically correct with it being rounded up to 1.285 billion from 1284.5 but I will change it to the latter. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, do you think the four sentences I mentioned are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)? TompaDompa (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"sisterly bonds" was also changed to its singular form. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

hmm think it flows in its plural form. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "Okay, do you think the four sentences I mentioned are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)? "

The film explores the themes of feminism and sisterly bonds. This plainly addresses the overall themes without suggesting any underlying tones.

The production team said this change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart. I have attributed this as the production team's opinions and their approach to make the storyline more relatable and emotional. I have also replaced the word said with believed.

During their preparation for the table read, Bell proposed the idea of a table read to Menzel when she visited her home." I have removed this self-conflicting statement that is also somewhat unnecessary

Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion. I am verifying every single sources in User:Wingwatchers/Frozenref but I have not yet reached the later part of the article and implement my revision. If that's what you are hinting, I think I will probably be done with it in the next 2 days. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

In User:Wingwatchers/Frozenref, I am reading every single source to ensure verifiability and made revisions accordingly. I am referencing every single in-line statement with quotes from their sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I am starting to grasp the point you are trying to make and understand your wisdom. I now understand that examples like words like "selfless" are subjective and paints Anna in a specific way and that I should be more careful on stating the production team's opinions as facts. I apologize for the troubles. I will rework the article from the ground up and remove any further poor editorial choices and ensure verifiability over the course of three days, so be sure to check back then. Thank you and have a great rest of your weekend! Wingwatchers (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I managed to make the article neutral and ensured text verifiability. As for WP primary source, I would argue that the ART book is not necessarily a primary source because it is written by the Charles Solomon who have authored a dozen Art Of books on various films outside Disney's. The book itself is written by an independent author and is published by Chronicle Books instead of "Disney Press". Solomon is also a journalist who writes for Animation Magazine. The Art book, in this case, can be compared to a news magazine article where a journalist investigates/documents the behind-the-scenes production of a film. For these reasons I hope we can classify The Art of Book as an ideal source since a lot of other sources offer scant information on the subject and instead point me back to the book. Nevertheless, I am not denying the fact that this article might have an over-reliance on the book, so I will strive to increase the diversity of these sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A cursory look at just the "Box office" section reveals that this article still has massive unresolved issues. The first sentence alone—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)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2294629/ indeeds says the data is correct. I rounded them so it might have been a mathematical error. I will use the full number. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I am also occupied with converting other section to secondary sources, but I will do another thorough check on the Box office section and other sections over the course of tomorrow or a few days. I did not account for that first sentence might contain mathematical errors, but I am certain that the majority of this article is now free from factual errors. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I have thoroughly reviewed the article to ensure that it is now neutral and verifiable, but I am not necessarily suggesting that my examination is flawless as I am subjected to human errors. As such, I would like to invite you to do an exhaustive review yourself before we can all agree to close this GAR as keep and I can proceed renominating it for FA. Wingwatchers (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you quite appreciate the full extent of the deficiencies here. Even just sticking to the "Box office" section, we have things like 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 think all these problems are due to my lack of deep understanding of the box office section. I have reverted that section back to its primal 2021state, and that should fix all the problems. @TompaDompa Let me know if there any more problems. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I am not sure this solves the problem. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not, no. TompaDompa (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I suppose it is now more sophisticated in terms of the prose. I will go back and reexamine the sources and add complementary quotes on each citation to show that is verifiable. Then I would considered the issues addressed and we can move on. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think most of the factual inaccuracies stem from the fact that a lot of sources are outdated so I will redirect them to their respective archived page in the correct time periods. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I have double-checked all the sources in the Box office section to ensure they no longer contain prose and source deficiencies. I have also removed some unintentional due emphasis on various parts of the article. Assessing the box office section based on my limited experience with film's box office subject, I believe that it no longer contains such deficiencies. However, I would appreciate it if you could further enlighten me on occasional instances that I might overlook. Thank you in advance... Wingwatchers (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you identified any specific instances of these issues, please list them in bullet points below. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I finally realized that most of the factual errors are due to the outdated Box office source which only reflect the most recent data instead of the data in 2013. I have marked them dead and redirected them to their archived page, Wingwatchers (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I spent all day and night analyzing and archiving sources in the Box office section in User:Wingwatchers/Frozen box office. This should consolidate that it contains no factual errors.Wingwatchers (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there are still factual errors there (as well as a whole host of other issues, some but not all of which were already noted in my original FAC review). Part of the problem is replicating errors made by the source(s) – garbage in, garbage out. Another part is not properly understanding what exactly it is the sources say. TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I beg your pardon. I am not supposed to replicate the sources and instead fabricate my own content? Pardon me for my inexperience in the box office industry but can you give more insights on the concept of garbage in and garbage out? I made sure all the data was correct and tried my best to interpret the material from my perspective. What are these a "whole host of other issues"? If there are indeed such occasional instances in the Box office, do you mind help fixing them or listing specific sentences in bullet points below and justifying why they are incorrect? Even if you are correct that there are still a "whole host of other issues", the best way to resolve them is by spitting them out for them to be corrected rather than having them lingering around. I myself dislike using the phrase "a whole host of other issues" without giving my audience extensive background context because it will not help resolve the "whole host of other issues" that are still lingering here. I believe that is in our best interest that both you and I, if find any prose/source issues and disclose them to correct them rather than having them lingering around and decaying, hence the purpose of this encyclopedia it's to establish collaborative efforts. To my best understanding I believe we have technology so advanced that copying and pasting every single problematic sentence of a section and listing them here in bullet points takes only mere seconds, as well as an act of kindness to which I will extend my deepest gratitude. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry. All I was trying to say is that I want to inquire about which sentences are incorrect/misinterpreted. Perhaps it is the highest 2013 grossing film? the amount it grossed in its opening weekend? or are there any others? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I am going to re-read the FAC review and resolve the problems there. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Pardon me for not seeing these silly errors. @TompaDompa Do you mind giving it another look? Wingwatchers (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you engage in WP:Original research, but there are other options such as omitting the incorrect information altogether and locating other sources that do not make these errors. Box Office Mojo has a blatant double-counting error for this film; Betty Logan, our expert on box office matters, could probably explain this in greater detail than I can. Other issues include the improper geographic terminology, the obvious apples-to-oranges comparisons between various markets' opening weekends, and the conspicuous omission of Deadline Hollywood's cost estimates that differ significantly from the ones reported by Bloomberg Business.

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)

I am not sure how delisting it and having it go through GA would help with the process. I have already double-checked every single section and rewrote most of the Production section, They are of no concern, but the only issues we have here are editorial misconception and misinterpretation of the Box office section. From my point of view, it is not the Box Office Mojo's fault but rather editorial misconception and misinterpretation, such as reporting outdated Box Office data. A lot of FA, including The Empire Strikes Back are all cited heavily in Box Office Mojo. It is not my nor the film's fault that box office data are conflicted. Deadline and Bloomberg are both notable and reliable sources for Box office analysis, but they have different analysts that estimate different results.

"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." That won't be unnecessary, you just have to list sentences that you felt are flawed, but you cannot say that the entire article has massive serious issues without re-reviewing the entire article first because all of these issues (in my perspective) have already been addressed, from primary sources to due weight to neutrality to failed verification to whatnots. But the sad thing is that you repeatedly keep emphasizing that this article still has massive unresolved issues, undermining my efforts to fix them. You just failed to see the light on the other side of the tunnel, persisting in your beliefs that this article is hopeless and beyond revitalization, to the extent that it needs to be cast down just because some analyst had fucked up the Box office data a decade ago. How can you still say that it has massive unresolved issues when I spent all Thanksgiving, day and night, fixing them, especially extending it to the article as a whole instead of issues in the Box office section? All this time I spent fixing this stupid Box office section and you can just drive by and say it still has massive unresolved issues. How hard is it to compile a list of issues in bullet points? If you would only re-evaluate the Box office section you will discover that everything makes sense now once I fix the improper geographic terminology. I cannot just locate

other sources that do not make these errors" because they are lost to time, and if there are indeed still extensive issues beyond the Box office, why are you still reserving them? Wingwatchers (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

See talk. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I shall, it seems, have to be blunt. You do not appear to fully understand the issues that plague this article, and as a result your ability to address them is limited. As a concrete example: I pointed out in my FAC review that the sentence 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 structure nor 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)

(edit conflict)Wingwatchers, as you have now realised mistakes on three separate occasions after insisting that the article was up to snuff, I do sympathise with TompaDompa's reluctance to spend many hours in a WP:FIXLOOP, especially as your attitude borders on the combative. For myself, a quick look at the article shows clearly that it is far below FAC standards (examples range from the large—a weirdly organised, non-chronological but also non-thematic writing section—to the small—an odd spelling of "Lopezs"). Whether it is even GA standard is a different matter, but as I can see basic errors of grammar (see tenses in the international box office section), meaning of prose ("subjected to" does not mean what you think it does), or punctuation ("They said that the themes of Elsa's being different from others") without trying very hard means I do believe TompaDompa more than you in their assessment of NPOV/sourcing issues. For these reasons, I am inclined to close this as a delist and with a recommendation to ask for a WP:GOCE run through. Put it this way: if I was reviewing this article for GA status, I would not pass it, based on the prose alone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structure nor her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience" it indeed reflects what the source says. Quote Deadline: "“Frozen” producer Peter Del Vecho says the match-up is perfect. “Jenn has a real connection to the film and creates dynamic and relatable characters. Her sense of comedy, adventure and story structure paired with Chris Buck’s vast experience and incredible instincts create an ideal situation for this film.” Ok whatever you win. I am going to close this as delist and work on in peace. @TompaDompa @AirshipJungleman29 Get lost! Wingwatchers (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2023 (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.

Dyatlov Pass incident

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.

• Solly, Meilan (January 29, 2021). "Have Scientists Finally Unraveled the 60-Year Mystery Surrounding Nine Russian Hikers' Deaths?". Smithsonian Magazine.

136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

We already have Frozen-mania and in my opinion, this will not fit very well into the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Editorial Note

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)

Anyway after a night of sleep I became very energized, both mentally and spiritually. I have began re-organizing the Writing section and fixing the silly grammatical mistakes, and I will began working on the Box Office shortly. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been following this closely for a while because I've been too busy. I just caught up on the discussions in the preceding sections on this talk page and the withdrawn FAR nomination.

I fully concur with User:TompaDompa, User:AirshipJungleman29, and User:Nyxaros's cogent, detailed, and accurate criticism.

I concur with User:TompaDompa's nomination of this article for GA reassessment. The closure was clearly premature. I will support any new nomination.

I concur with User:AirshipJungleman29's tactful highlighting of civility issues in the GA reassessment discussion. Please review Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The above post on 26 November 2023 at 04:26 UTC is an example of such issues: it uses an obscene word in the first sentence and appends a variety of negative characterizations to "others" and "guests". (And to be crystal clear, this post complies with all three policies by focusing on the content, not the contributor.) The FAR nomination and GA reassessment pages reveal that all editors providing criticism of the article were acting in good faith, raised valid constructive criticism, and were only trying to help. It was also inappropriate in prematurely closing the GA reassessment to tell other editors to "get lost".

It will probably be necessary at some point to develop community consensus in favor of a revert back to a last good version in 2021 or 2022. I am far too busy to deal with that. I will support any editor who does. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar Ok I will revert it back to 2021. I also concur with you. I will also delete this account once for all. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok it has been reverted. Cheers.@Coolcaesar Frozen (2013 film) (Diff ~1187014984) I have never touched this article. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

When was Frozen released?

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)

The movie was released on 27 November 2013. But it had a limited release on 22 November 2013. But on 27th, the movie was released widely. So the official date goes to 27 November, not 22nd. Dipro Biswas (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: "not moved" for Frozen (2013 film), "moved" "no consensus" for the disambiguation page. There's a strong consensus that there isn't a clear primary topic, and the film lacks long-term significance compared with Freezing, making it unsuitable to be moved to the primary title. There's also strong support for making Frozen a redirect to Freezing per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and moving the disambiguation page to Frozen (disambiguation) in order to make way for the redirect. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Update: Upon reviewing the discussion again, I found that there wasn't a consensus to move Frozen to Frozen (disambiguation). I've reverted the move and updated the result of this discussion to 'no consensus' for the second request. A new RM discussion may be initiated at any time by any user, to determine whether the disambiguation page should remain where it is or if Frozen should redirect to Freezing or another page. Frost 07:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Frozen (2013 film) → Frozen
• Frozen → Frozen (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per pageviews. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Freezing is an equivalent primary topic. Having a disambiguation page here is a decent compromise, but this is just a primary topic grab for something without any longterm significance to speak of. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Long-term significance applies here. This term is just past participle tense (V3) for Freezing. which is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of Frozen. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Very very strong oppose I'm agree with Zxcvbnm that the 2013 film named Frozen is not the primary topic for the name "Frozen". In fact, "Frozen" is past participle tenses of Freezing and the word "Frozen" should be moved there as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for "Freezing". 103.144.14.16 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Notwithstanding the significance of "Freezing", page views are convincing. WikiNav also shows that traffic from the disambiguation page is dominated by "Frozen (2013 film)". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - not well known to people of all ages whereas freezing is commonly known to people who live in freezing conditions part of the year. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Frozen (2013 film) is the most popular topic but not by an overwhelming amount. Total for all the rest is about half. Making the 2013 film the primary topic adds another click and search action to the others to find what they want while people looking for into on the 2013 film find the topic faster, they also don't see the other related 2013 film topics such as the franchise article which might actually be a better place to get info for them. The article names and arrangement have been this way for about 9 years now and hasn't been an issue or impediment to people finding what they want. No need to change things based on a technicality that won't significantly improve readers ability to find what they want quickly. Also Frozen is a single word with a dictionary meaning. I generally oppose usurping common single words for film article titles particularly when people like to link common words in articles without checking where they go. Better to land on a disambiguating page with the word defined at the beginning than on a film article page by surprise when all they wanted is more info on the meaning of a word. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  At present, piped links that use "Frozen" or "frozen" as the displayed text are much more likely to target "Frozen (2013 film)" [1], than "Freezing"[2], which suggests that somebody naively linking "frozen" is much more likely to intend the Disney film than the cold physical state. "Freezing" and "frozen" in their simple, literal senses are the kind of everyday words that, per WP:OL, shouldn't be linked. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes per OVERLINKING it shouldn't be linked without a pipe to a better destination. If it is linked by itself it gets tagged as an ambiguous term now and generally gets fixed either by removing the link or adding the proper pipe. The point is it does get tagged only if it is an ambiguous term. If the film article is the destination it would not get tagged and will remain a link with a surprise destination for people who like to ignore OL, and there are a lot of them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is a bit orthogonal here either way, navigation should not be organized based on editor linking habits (esp. not naive ones), but by what matters for readers. (WP:RF) --Joy (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose no clear primary topic per views[[3]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, open to it being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for Freezing, it is a common term itself, not exclusively used for the film. DankJae 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is a strong policy argument for Frozen being a redirect to Freezing with a hatnote there pointing to Frozen (disambiguation). I am happy with the current article setup but would support a proposal to follow PRIMARYREDIRECT in this situation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm onboard with PRIMARYREDIRECT too. Seems like a no-brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  The practical disadvantage is that, to judge by WikiNav results for the current disambiguation page, that would take nearly 99% of readers to a page they're not looking for. Is "frozen" really a likely search term for anyone looking for "Freezing"? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't surprise me that a recent pop-culture phenomenon dominates search results, but I suspect the state of being "frozen" has more enduring long-term notability than the Disney film. I have never been a fan of the page views argument, because that can be addressed via sensible placement of hatnotes. The primary topic should be the more encyclopedic topic. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• oppose per WP:PT2—blindlynx 22:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support per balance of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC factors. The 2013 Disney movie is clearly the primarytopic by pageviews. By itself, the movie article gets 20 times the pageviews as the physical property article. If you add in the other Frozen franchise articles, that goes up to almost 30 times the reader traffic. Our readers clearly want to read the movie article more than the property article. As to long-term significance, both articles have it. "Freezing" as a concept is obviously older than the movie, but its article is relatively short and low-cited (11 references) and not rated by Wikipedia. And "being older than" is not a criterion for significance. Meantime, the movie is still garnering much more interest than the property article more than a decade after its release, which is strong evidence of its lasting encyclopedic significance. Having the movie article as primarytopic is more user-friendly to our readers and our editors. Why make things more difficult for our constituents than they need to be? Dohn joe (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sadly, we regularly do this with larger ratios elsewhere. For example, in WT:D#including the most notable set index topics on human name disambiguation pages I found an case where we have a biography that requires two clicks to get to it from the surname lookup, and the difference in monthly readership between it and other topics is 100 : 1. Before a recent move, it actually used to be 3 clicks. Compared to that, the Frozen problem of requiring a list scroll and 1 click seems much smaller. Indeed, if we just applied MOS:DABCOMMON differently here, we could get rid of any scrolling. --Joy (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Frozen to Frozen (disambiguation), but Oppose others The 2013 Disney film cannot be claim as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the word "Frozen" due to it is just a past participle tense of "Freeze" (the main word) and is also a general word that regularly appeared at dictionary. So, instead of making the 2013 film a primary topic, "Frozen" should be a Primary redirect for the past participle word. You could easily see that word at Wiktionary. 2404:8000:1037:469:5C6C:79BB:CD23:9F3A (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Leave Frozen as the disambig page. No primary topic per long-term significance. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the need to rename the article. Freezing is a primary topic in its own right. Waqar💬 18:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per those above. Both the physical and psychological states predominate over film that happens to be named for one of them. BD2412 T 16:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very much not the primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2024 (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.