Jump to content

Talk:Frozen 2/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This article should have stayed as a draft

User:Czar made a major error by moving this draft into the English Wikipedia article mainspace. None of the reliable sources on the entertainment industry (THR, TheWrap, Variety, Deadline, etc.) or the animation industry (CartoonBrew, Animation World Network, Animation Network) has reported that Frozen 2 has moved into actual production. Based on the most recent reports from reliable sources, it is still in development. As anyone familiar with the development of animated films is well aware, often what happens is that a major star (in this case, Kristen Bell) is sometimes attached to the project very early (as actually occurred with her on Frozen) and agrees to record his or her voice track relatively early, at the same time other unknown actors (or even crew members from around the studio) are recording scratch voices for the animatic/Leica reel based on early drafts of the screenplay. That says nothing about whether the film will ever be greenlighted by the studio's senior management for actual production. The way to determine whether the film has escaped development hell and entered actual production is when the studio officially commits to a release date and begins to announce the identities of cast members (that is, A-list or B-list actors who are working on replacing the scratch voices in the animatic), and the studio's personnel begin to release photos and posts on social media hinting about the film they are currently working on. For example, that's what happened with Moana, and several Disney animators have already disclosed on social media that they are busy because the film is in production. In contrast, Gigantic has a release date but it's slipped from March to November 2018, and the studio has been conspicuously silent about the cast. Once they fix whatever issue caused the release date to slip, then they will start casting stars and loudly announcing them to build buzz around the film. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comments on my talk page. The move was a reasonable fulfillment of a technical request. If you want to contest what counts as production, that's a content dispute for you to take up with the editors. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar: It's not that always THR, TheWrap, Variety, or Deadline reports about the start of filming, even they usually doesn't. Studios also don't announce the start of filming sometimes, and I've seen it announced by the film's cast. There are more than two sites confirming that they are working on the film, so it could be a rumor or true but I've not seen an official announcement in the last three years for a single animated film. Sometimes we know about them (animated films) when their production has been completed, sometimes they are in the middle, blah blah.... So, don't worry about it, it's an animated film, and they usually don't announce their production start date. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 11:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I do worry because you have no respect for Wikipedia's core policies like WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, as well as the guideline WP:RS. Conform your edits immediately, or you will be banned permanently and all your edits will be reverted on sight. Every editor who has attempted to launch a direct challenge to WP core policies has been banned very quickly. In particular, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it does not republish rumors published by unreliable sources.
The only thing that has been reported by reliable sources (I've watched Bell's interview video which was posted online back in March) is that Kristen Bell has admitted that (1) she was about to start recording her lines and (2) the filmmakers finally got the story to a point where it begins to make sense. All that implies is that Bell and a bunch of scratch actors have recorded a bunch of voice tracks and those tracks have probably been synced to storyboard frames to form an animatic stored on one of Disney's four secure server farms somewhere in California. But that says nothing about whether the film is in production.
The sites you refer to are all obviously unreliable sources under WP:RS. It appears that you are utterly incapable of distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources.
Also, you just confirmed that you are completely ignorant of how animated films are made when you said "they usually don't announce their production start date." It's usually when they announce their release date that they have or are about to move from development into production. It's also clear that you don't actually follow social media posted by any major film studio or anyone who works in the film industry, or you would have realized that people actively working on production of a film that has already been announced for a release date love to brag about that fact (and the studios tolerate those disclosures as long as no major plot details are revealed since it helps get the studios' fan base excited about the film). --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have reviewed my comments above from July with fresh eyes, as well as User:Czar's contention that those comments were not civil. Again, it appears to me that User:Czar is taking the position that because of WP:CIVILITY, User:Captain Assassin! is not bound by WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Notability because it is not civil to point out any violations of those policies or guidelines. Notably, neither User:Czar nor User:Captain Assassin! has articulated a coherent defense on the merits (in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy and guidelines) of any of the violations that I pointed out.
If User:Czar's interpretation is the correct one, then that necessarily implies that WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V WP:RS and Wikipedia:Notability are a dead letter and should be abolished immediately as irrelevant and not reflecting the consensus of the Wikipedia community.
Under User:Czar's interpretation, that would imply that Wikipedia users should be deemed authorized to post any speculation, rumors, and fiction they wish, such as, in this case, an article about a film which is clearly in development, but not yet in actual production. For example, I suspect that "Story of My Life (One Direction song)" (released in October 2013) deliberately refers to Frozen in its lyrics in order to capitalize on the buzz surrounding the film which was about to be released a month later (the song would be good enough even without the word "frozen" dropped in the middle of its bridge). I have refrained from posting that assertion to Wikipedia because that would be speculation on my part. But if I were to post that, it would be uncivil, following User:Czar's logic, to point out that such an assertion may violate WP:NOR, WP:V or WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
CC, my only contention was the tone with which you responded to other editors (either blatantly aggressive or passive-aggressive), as documented by many others on your talk page. I see little has changed. Good luck and please do not ping me about this again. czar 03:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fourth animated CGI musical film

Frozen 2 is the fourth animated CGI musical film and a sequel of Frozen (2013).

2 or II?

I don't want to move it yet until I get a consensus. Because the poster and trailer clearly say "II", but the title of teaser trailer is "2". Should we just wait and see? - Jasonbres (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait and see which one becomes the most common usage. Both pronounced as "Frozen Two" anyway. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Touché. - Jasonbres (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Should be: Frozen II (marketed as Disney's Frozen 2). Go by the official poster and official logo for now as opposed to the social networking team at Disney, for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Disney's press site lists it as Frozen 2. --Babar Suhail (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Both are used in reliable sources, most use Frozen 2 including IMDb for now. Disney isn't even being internally consistent and might change their minds again before release. No hurry, redirects exist for alternatives. See what settles out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and requested an edit for IMDb, so we'll see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Side Comment: @Scott Sullivan 1997 The film is not marketed as "Disney's Frozen 2", the Disney logo commonly appears as part of the logos of many of their films, it doesn't automatically change the film's name unless specified by the studio. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 07:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
IMDb now displays it as Roman numerals. Eh, who cares? I'm sure we'll get a more official announcement later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The trailer uses "Frozen 2" as the title and it's the same on the official Twitter hence the article should remain Frozen 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babar Suhail (talk • contribs) 10:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, The Walt Disney Media site uses "Frozen 2" rather than using "II", like they do for Maleficent II. [1] - Brojam (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I say the page name should be Frozen II. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 19:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a big 'much-a-do-about-nothing' situation here. The film is clearly titled Frozen II, and can simply state that it was sometimes referred to/marketed as "Frozen 2" (which in all actuality is the exact same thing as the Roman numeral formatting). This is a discussion that shouldn't be a big enough issue to have to reach a consensus. Marketing and official titles are two separate things.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously it matters else we wouldn't be discussing it here. Also see existing discussion and move discussion below. If serious about changing this, start another move discussion WP:RM and make your case why things have changed. WP:COMMONNAME still seems to be Frozen 2 with Frozen II used as a stylization. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The onscreen title is "Frozen II." IMDb uses that title, INDUCKS uses that title, the Disney website uses both, the BBC uses the shorthand "2" in its headline but "II' in the article itself, as does The New York Times. Those last two outlets are among the most authoritative. It seems like "2" is used in casual mentions and "II" in reportorial articles and databases. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree II, because the official title is Frozen II. Is there any reason we have to make it 2 for title? 웬디러비 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The issue we're having is "2" is, from what it seems, the common title. Reviewers are mixed on calling it II or 2 (I think its a pretty even split), and when Disney released the songs on their official channel they title them "Frozen 2". There is a RM below if you wanna take a look at it. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

almost all official posters in the cinemas that are in English are put as Frozen II plus is listed in box office Mojo also as Frozen II, same thing in IMDB and IMDB pro, we also have the official toys and Lego sets listed as Frozen II; so I think it should be listed as Frozen II and than put "also listed in some places as Frozen 2" ........................ and I apologize for not using my log in, I had my hard drive kaput for about 3 months before able to get a new hard drive and I am not sure what is my exact name and hate being forced to create a new name 2605:E000:A4C8:EB00:D3A:170B:BED2:C04B (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I nominate Frozen II. Most sources, including the onscreen title in the movie itself, is Frozen II. It is a rarer exception to see it called Frozen 2 for nonces who don't know II means 2. 205.175.118.112 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no prejudice against another RM when more info regarding common name is available. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


Frozen 2 → Frozen II – Because that is how the title is stylized on the movie poster. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Music credit in infobox

I am well-aware that the infobox instructions say score composer only but this doesn't make sense in a musical where the major source of music is the songs not the score. I think WP:IAR applies in this case. See other examples of filmed musicals such as My Fair Lady (film), The Sound of Music (film) or Oklahoma! (1955 film) where practice is to list the songwriters.

Also looking at the talk page archives for the infobox it appears that there is some support for treating musicals differently from non-musical films in that the song composers in musicals have a major credit at least equal and sometimes higher to the score composer whereas in non-musicals the credit for songs is usually a minor credit. See also Template talk:Infobox film § RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?. The current instructions are not taking into consideration the unique role songs play in a musical but reflect the minor role songs play normally in most films. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Stylization of title

The discussion above about how to title the article discusses the II vs 2 in the title. Poster art and some sources use II, Disney fairly consistently says "Frozen 2" in text descriptions about the film and "FROZEN II" in the poster art for the film. How to represent the stylization in the intro is contentious. Disney does not stylize the title as "Frozen II". If we wish to represent how Disney shows the stylization we should accurately describe it and not misrepresent it. The small caps are significant to how they stylize it just as the II represents 2 in the text titles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If it were like that, every other article on films would have a "stylized as" parenthesis next to its title. Back to the Future, Schindler's List, the first Frozen to name a few. None of these clarify the all-caps stylization. Having the title in a poster be in all caps is even more common than having it with just the first letters in uppercase. The only notable stylization is the 'II' instead of the '2', but I'm not even sure it's worth noting. El Millo (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It matters in this instance because of how contentious the actual article title is right now. In most cases we ignore and don't bother displaying stylization and just display titles per MOS:CT, ignoring other publication's title styles, including the author of the work. The title of this work is spoken as "Frozen Two" no matter what fonts are used and how to represent the "two" which is also a style choice along with how capitalized. Showing the two forms as distinct makes it clear that the poster art is a stylization and not just an alternate title. Removing the stylization reopens the issue of why we are not using the poster art as the article title. If the article is moved if and when "Frozen II" is shown to be the WP:COMMONNAME, we can drop the stylization as it will cease to matter at that point. Until then I think it useful to keep it faithfully representing the poster art. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: I'm struggling to find the words to express how strongly I disagree with the small caps stylization. Facu-el Millo nailed it, in that nearly every film with the slightly varying capitalization on the poster would mandate this change. I have no objection to including that the II is stylization (for now, at least), but I am genuinely flabbergasted that the small caps do not seem excessive to you. Sock (tock talk) 06:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the article's history, I now see that you've been reverting this repeatedly when any editor tries to challenge this stylization presentation that has quite literally never been used on another film article. Even this edit (which you also reverted) points out the fruitlessness of the capitalization. I've posted a link to this discussion on WT:FILM, but frankly, I think you are overly attached to a distracting formatting that provides no useful information to the reader. Sock (tock talk) 07:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
"Frozen II" isn't a stylization, it is an alternative name for the film which is used in some major sources but so far has not been shown to be the WP:COMMONNAME. The stylization includes the small caps, an alternative title must not as it needs to follow MOS:CT. I changed the intro to tag "Frozen II" as an alternative title which should make this stylization issue moot. Redirect at Frozen II is already tagged as an alternative title redirect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
We're literally just stating the same thing twice. There is literally no difference between Frozen 2 and Frozen II. An alternative title would be like Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge, which was another title for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales or Snoopy and Charlie Brown: A Peanuts Movie, which was an alternative title for The Peanuts Movie in several countries. There is literally no difference between 2 and II. QueerFilmNerdtalk 08:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Per above I changed the tag at Frozen II to reflect it as an alternative spelling as opposed to an alternative title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The proper solution here is that somebody need to open another WP:RM discussion to move this article to "Frozen II". Six months later it's now clear that "Frozen II" is the correct title for the film, and we just need to move it. So, somebody please just open another RM on this!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: What's stopping you? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't care enough to start one (which is going to require gathering some evidence), but I would !vote in one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2019

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: Move. We have clear consensus that this is the most WP:COMMONNAME. Cúchullain t/c 19:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


Frozen 2 → Frozen II – The argument regarding Frozen II vs Frozen 2 has been going on too long. A lot of reviews, websites (the official Disney one says 2 in the tab title). On the other hand, the poster, RT, metacritic and movie theatre websites (such as cineplex), as well as the other half of reviews are saying II. The movie comes out in like, 3-4 days, can we please finally settle this. Someone said to open an RM, so here we go.

EDIT: Just a side note that the on-screen title is FROZEN II. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point – the film's release Friday should answer this once and for all: if the title card does say "Frozen II", that combined will all the WP:RSs referring to the film as "Frozen II" should be more than enough to justify moving the article. So I will wait until Friday's release before voting... So, on that basis, this RM is actually well-timed, as it will coincide with the film's release. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm actually seeing the film tomorrow (I, an adult am going to Frozen 2 opening night haha), so I'll post what the title card says and wait for someone else to corroborate with their viewing. QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: My only strong opinion was on the small caps in the lead, which has since been resolved. However, I do think it's worth including the official copyright registration for the film, which uses the numerals. Just pulling this from how The Texas Chain Saw Massacre's title was settled, but perhaps it'll help others reach a conclusion. Sock (tock talk) 05:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The press kit which is also an authoritative source uses both forms. The first part replicates the film credits and consistently uses FROZEN II which does match the copyright registration. All mentions in running text in the press kit use "Frozen 2". Per WP:COMMONNAME we use accurate names even when inaccurate ones are more common but both spellings are accurate per Disney themselves. One thing of note is Disney never uses "Frozen II", it is either "Frozen 2" in running text or "FROZEN II" as a stand-alone label (trade mark) for the film. Disney really isn't helping here so we are left with what is the most common in reliable sources. The film has not had wide release yet and after release will be covered in significantly more sources than now. We should wait a bit and see what is the most common in sources after release. I expect it will be "Frozen II" based on more recent mentions in Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDb even though most older references in the article use "Frozen 2". Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and make "Frozen II" a redirect to this article: I stand Geraldo Perez's point. But I guess in my honest opinion, its better to retain the "Frozen 2" name, since its more readable and clearer. Jhenny38 (Starters talk, My contributions) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
There will still be a redirect at Frozen 2 regardless, so that is not a concern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
OFFICIAL is appropriate to this discussion as in we are not obligated to use it if is not how the subject is most commonly known. Since Disney uses both forms in their documentation both spellings are "official". We are left with the WP:COMMONNAME test as to what to title the article. Whether we represent the spoken "two" with Roman or Arabic numerals is a matter for what is most common. I expect with more reviews and discussion about the film the Roman numeral form for the spoken two will become most common. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Which brings me to my comment/question:
Why do you think this movie should be treated differently? Nevermore27 (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
As I stated above WP:COMMONNAME explains why. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" What other film articles have determined to use as their names does not inform this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Considering it would be difficult to find of-the-time sources referring to the films above, I'd be curious to see how they referred to it at the time. Anyway, I hardly think having the title as "Frozen II" with a "Frozen 2" redirect is any degree more difficult than the reverse, and it also has the benefit of being the official name. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like you haven't actually looked closely at any of the merch. Go take a look at https://www.shopdisney.com/new/as-seen-on-screen/frozen-2/. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: There hasn’t been a single legitimate graphic that wasn’t a joke logo (ie Ralph Breaks the Internet’s crude approximation) that has used “Frozen 2”. Plain text? Sure, but not official graphic--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move It is less confusing when the article title looks as similar as possible to the movie poster.Muffin of the English (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Concur with the above analysis of the press kit. Disney is consistently referring to the film as Frozen 2 in body text. Also, if you look at the official Frozen web site and shopDisney, those sites are very consistent about referring to the film as Frozen 2 in text. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, the Walt Disney Studios is being consistent in the marketing of this film as Frozen 2 on social media. Look at https://twitter.com/DisneyStudios. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: per Tim Week, IJBall, and others above. = paul2520 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: The fact that this needs discussion is bizarre to me... the official name of the film as it appears on-screen, on posters and the like is what the article should be titled. A redirect for a potential reader's search of 'Frozen 2' to the official article named Frozen II is how this should be resolved. Marketing purposes for children as 'Frozen 2' should be listed in the release/marketing section of the article. Additionally, the argument that Frozen II is "too hard to read" is unfounded. This shouldn't even be a necessary conversation.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
For children? It sounds like you haven't read the Frozen 2 press kit (already linked in the article) or press kits for films in general. Anyone who had the ability to read at that level at age 5 would already know that most 5-year-olds can't parse such a document. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
To quote one of Anthony Hopkins' recent TV roles (Dr. Robert Ford, Westworld): Um, no. Have you actually looked at any of the merchandise? The official shopDisney page for the film is at https://www.shopdisney.com/new/as-seen-on-screen/frozen-2/. Not Frozen II. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I have purchased quite a few things for a friend's daughter for Christmas and all the packaging on all of the merchandise uses II. So yes, I have seen the actual merchandise, not online descriptions, thank you very much. --SpencerCS (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe so. It's onscreen as "II" but Disney hasn't been marketing it consistently, nor have RS's been reliable either. So it's OFFICIAL vs COMMONNAME. I'm (weirdly enough) neutral even though I started it. I just wanted us to grab a consensus so we can stop arguing. QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Be careful with that – I noticed more than one WP:RS using "Frozen 2" in the article title/header, but then consistently using "Frozen II" in the article prose. This is similar to how many news websites will use "US" in article titles/headers, but then use "U.S." in the article prose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disney uses the title Frozen 2 on its own website continuously (https://movies.disney.com/frozen-2) and I think that's clear enough. Frozen II is just a stylistic choice for promotional materials. TheKingLives (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It even says 'Frozen II' on the theatrical release poster. KyleJoantalk 12:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as the official variation of the title. I think WP:OFFICIAL supercedes WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Also sources are using Frozen II more since the film's release. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's absolutely Frozen II onscreen and in the wide majority of journalistic prose accounts (excluding headlines, which often use shorthand for space). --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The amount of films that use II for a sequel (MIB, Ghostbusters, etc.) and the fact that Frozen does too (including posters for international versions: La Reine des Neiges II, Die Eiskönigin II, etc.) shows to me that Frozen II is the preferred title. As to why Disney is using Frozen 2 for its website, I believe it's due to SEO. People are more likely to type Frozen 2 on a keyboard than Frozen II, yet the website uses Frozen II for the logo, trailer thumbnails, activity packet and more. We should use Frozen II, unless we are going to rename the article for MIB, Ghostbusters, etc. --LABcrabs (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, since others have mentioned merchandise above: the merch itself will either say "Frozen" or "Frozen II" at Cineplex, but in the latter case, the Cineplex price tag says Frozen 2. I believe this is for better clarity with inventory and receipts. --LABcrabs (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to Frozen II strongly. From what I understand, the film was originally called Frozen 2 by Disney and they later changed it. Yes, manhy sources do still choose to render the title as "Frozen 2," but this film's name is Frozen II. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary. The title is "Frozen 2." Chuckwick 2020 (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some have been turning to our WP:COMMONNAME policy, but I believe it cannot be applied to justify this article's current title. It is not a different name. It is read the same as the WP:OFFICIALNAME, so this film essentially does not have multiple or other names. Yes it is more natural for us to write "Frozen 2" especially in informal situations because of convenience, but "Frozen II" is consistent with the article titles of the other "II" sequels we have on the encyclopedia. A check for everything on WP:CRITERIA, which also suggests to redirect other spellings of a name, which is basically what this article's current title is, so I strongly support this RM. Polo (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

is there any indication within the movies ( Frozen I and/or Frozen II ) of how much time has passed since the coronation of Elsa?

as I notice that some people fight over saying 3 ( indicating they read the official plots? ) or 6 ( I guess going by Frozen I being a 2013 film and Frozen II a 2019 film? ) years since Elsa's coronation

They mention their parents' ship went down six years ago. Elsa's coronation was three years after that, so Frozen II is three years after the original. --SpencerCS (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Since it is established that the events in Frozen 2 occur three years after Frozen, where then within those three years do the events in Frozen Fever and Olaf's Frozen Adventure fall in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Frozen Fever takes place during during Anna's first birthday after the events in Frozen 1, and since we know that her birthday is on summer solstice, it must takes place around June 21-22 of the following year, so almost one year later (we know that Frozen 1 takes place in July). Olaf's Frozen Adventure, om the other hand, takes place on the first Christmas after Frozen 1, hence only a few months later. Ninahi8 (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Star City riots

@Bartallen2: I removed that section for now pending consensus to include it. I'm notifying you here in case anyone else has thoughts on it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't belong at all in this article. Nothing to do with the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The attack doesn't have to do with the film, doesn't belong here. If the attack happened IN the theatre where Frozen 2 was playing it would be related to the movie, but it's completely unrelated. QueerFilmNerdtalk 06:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

But, the attack did happen IN the Vue theatre where Frozen 2 playing - thus, it's related to the film, as many outlets have reported -; Vue took action, due to outside where the attack had occurred. As it should be stated, as some had reported too, that the violence had occurred during a screening of Frozen 2 - irrespective, it occurred at the theatre. Also, several outlets such as BBC, Variety, The Independent, The Telegraph, Business Insider, and Metro had stated that the attack occurred during a Frozen 2 viewing on opening-night, as well as several eyewitness reports whom stated it occurred within the Frozen 2 screening - inside. With several reports, including from The Scotsman, that it had occurred inside the Frozen 2 screening, as it was reported several individuals ran into the screenings - so you can't simply shut it down by stating "doesn't belong here".--Bartallen2 (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly concur with MJL et al. that the incident is not notable. I worked briefly for a certain movie theater chain before law school. One of the first things one learns about crowd control is that violence is fairly common with large crowds. It just rarely makes the news. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Not notable? It has been covered by a variety of outputs, most recently today by Deadline.com - unless you're suggesting a riot with machete's and gang affiliation is fairy common at theatres? --Bartallen2 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The riots didn't occur with Frozen 2; they happened during a screening of Blue Story. That's why Blue Story got banned by VUE. The fact that the same cinema showed Frozen 2 is irrelevant. The riots just so happened to affect people watching Frozen 2, and presumably, a lot of other films. If we had to include info on the riots here, we'd have to include them on other films that happened to be in the same cineplex, like Ford v Ferrari.Crboyer (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect, several sources and eye-witness stated that the gang fight happened during a screening or outside a screening of Frozen 2, hence why you can isolate that - and very few have stated that was the reason why Blue Story was banned and officially there's been no connection to the film, as stated by West Midlands Police; hence the uproar. --Bartallen2 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Complete double standards, if this happened during a showing of Joker it would be mentioned in the article's opening paragraph.

That’s not what double standards are. You can’t call something a double standard when the other standard is a hypothetical. We’re using logic here--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a coincidental event that happened at one instance that Frozen 2 was shown. Totally unrelated to Frozen 2 itself, just the venue. If this were some coordinated thing that happened at a significant number of Frozen 2 showings to protest film content, there might be a case that it involved the film. This event is not even close to that sort of link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Let’s apply the logic elsewhere: Two people are walking home from a movie, and come across someone. A fight between them breaks out outside a bar they pass. Does the fight happen because of the bar? Did the bar provoke it?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the riot didn't happen at at screening of Blue Story, it just got banned because it was a gang film (but was reinstated a couple days later). If anything the attacks have more to do with Blue Story rather than Frozen 2. If the attacks just happened to also to occur where people were lining up for Joker, I'd say it doesn't belong there either. Unrelated to Frozen. QueerFilmNerdtalk 23:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've pointed out that the riot didn't happen at a screening of Blue Story, as many of the teenagers had come out of the Frozen 2 screening, which a variety of Wiki-users failed to establish. The attacks have nothing to do with Blue Story - as much as Frozen 2 -, as the police have stated, there was no connection, ergo, why Vue have been lambasted for the decision to cancel screenings. The Birmingham disorder had arguably more - publication and factual statements-wise presently, at the very least, to do with Frozen 2 than Blue Story, although no cause has been established - just questionable statistics from Vue, which have no merit; hence the investigation. Showcase, as you pointed out, reinstated the film due to criticism and the fact they found no correlation between the violence and Blue Story at all. Several publications have stated that the attackers went into the Frozen 2 screening (inside the actual screening as The Independent have stated), or that it was during the queuing process. --Bartallen2 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

At some point the citations to the press kit should be updated to cite the official Art of Frozen 2 book

Tonight, I got a chance to glance through the new Art of Frozen 2 book at one of Chronicle Books' retail locations in San Francisco.

My initial impression is that the press kit PDF shares a number of paragraphs with the Art of Frozen 2 book, especially the quotes from various Disney artists. At some point, it would be preferable to take citations that currently point to the press kit and replace them with citations to the book whenever possible. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism focused

Can we change "criticism focused" in the third paragraph of the introduction to "criticism was focused?" The sentence does not mention criticism at all prior to this phrase, saying that the film received mostly positive reviews, which makes it odd to say "criticism focused" as there was no criticism mentioned, only implied through the phrase "mostly positive reviews." If there were "mixed reviews" then "criticism focused" would make more sense as the fact that there was criticism at all would be more present in the reader's mind, but because reviews were mostly positive changing it to "criticism was focused" seems better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenry97 (talk • contribs)

@Mhenry97: I think you need to have a look at our article on Criticism. The article looks fine as it is :) Don't forget to sign your posts by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Concur with ChrisWar666. The sentence as currently phrased looks fine to me. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced nonsense added by User:Jedi1970 about the film's budget

First, I want to thank User:TropicAces for vigorously reverting those edits. Second, the reason why User:Jedi1970's edits are incorrect is that they violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. You need a reliable source in compliance with WP:RS for such information. You cannot publish original research on Wikipedia. If you want to publish original research on the Internet, go start a blog.

Disney is being very tight-lipped about the film's budget---probably because it took them five years to make the thing. Peter Del Vecho has already publicly admitted in interviews that it was using all the studio's resources at the end, so the budget must be huge. We just don't know how huge. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, User:TropicAces just added a citation to a source that is not reliable for that assertion. As that story is currently written, the author is clearly giving a estimate by himself alone and not an actual leak from a Disney insider or even an estimate from a respected market research firm like comScore. Journalists who have an inside lead usually mention they talked to "an insider who requested anonymity" or "an insider speaking on background." Nothing like that here.
It looks like some profoundly ignorant editors are claiming in edit summaries that film budgets are not disclosed. Unlike you, I have been following the industry closely for well over 20 years, to the point I could probably write an essay on the differences between Variety, THR, Deadline, TheWrap, and the other trade publications. If you can't immediately say in one sentence the obvious difference between the first two I listed and the others, you are way out of your depth on this issue.
The truth is that film budgets are frequently disclosed to the public, either voluntarily or through leaks to the news media. So claiming they are not disclosed is no excuse for publishing pure speculation on Wikipedia. Go refresh your memory on WP:V and WP:NOR.
If I don't see a better source very soon, I'm pulling out that budget number. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

To be Considered

  • 1. Continue updating the box office takings whilst the film is being run at cinemas.
The article already addresses your second question. Focus on the second paragraph in the Release section. That information was all over the news eight months ago. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 3. Should a 'threequel' (third sequel) be planned, it could be based around Anna's royal wedding.
  • 4. How about including a Trivia section which could contain information like:-
         * The theory that water has memory is known in Homeopathic Medicine;
         * Unlike the movie Frozen, Frozen 2 makes no references to either chocolates or sandwiches;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • None of that is within the scope of Wikipedia. Go read up on Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That kind of information is more appropriate for the Disney or Frozen wikis over at Fandom. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 6. Could details in the the production section of the article be more 'elaborated upon'? For example, in the scene where Mattias and Yelana appear after the mist has lifted, they mention "34 years, 5 months and 23 days" (the length of time the mist lasted). Was this length of time chosen at random or did it represent something specific in real life? Also, during the end credits, there is one end credit which is titled 'Production Babies'. What are those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Production babies are babies born to cast/crew members during production. Studios just honour them here, nothing special to mention, it's not exclusive to this movie. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 7. For the Plot section:
    • (a) Before Agnarr tells his story, Anna whispers to Elsa "Let's build a big snowman later" implying that this is the same night that Elsa accidentally strikes Anna with her magic.
    • (b) In the Ahtohallan ice cave when Elsa discovers that "the voice" calling was actually her mother (or her mother's spirit). Although Iduna does not have any magic, her ability to at least summon the air spirit to help her save Agnarr shows that even as a young girl, Iduna may have been a shaman amongst the Northuldra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • (c) A question of terminology:
      • (i) The ice object that Elsa creates for the little girl; is it a theodolite or a sextant?
      • (ii) The item of clothing that Iduna, Elsa and Anna wear in different parts of the film is stated to be a scarf. However, from its shape and the way that it was worn in the movie, could it also be described as a shawl?

Add Fact to the Music Column

Frozen 2 soundtrack debuted at #1 on Billboard 200. Frozen's soundtrack debuted at #1 on Billboard 200 in 2014. There I think this fact should be mentioned in the relevant column. Tillu Talla (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"also known as Frozen 2"

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

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

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

Semi protected needs to extend time

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

Isn't Anna the Queen of Arendelle?

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

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

Frozen 3?

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

Infobox and lead

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

Plot and cast

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

Production and marketing

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

Release

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

Reception

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

References

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

Did you know nomination

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

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

(
)

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

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

Copyedit request

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

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

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

Critical response rewrite

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

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

Proposing to revert heavy vandalism to article

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

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

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

I'm not heavily involved in the article but my understanding is Wing is trying to get it up to FAC status, so if you have an issue with the prose, try to improve it. Taking it back 4 months isn't the answer. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
How come, and which sections? I haven't touched any of the plot or development sections ever since the copyedit. I agreed that "The Los Angeles Times concluded that the re-procedure within the initial declinal were observably due to the unprecedented success from the first film." indeed doesnt makes any common senses. minus Removed It would be helpful if you can be more specific . Wingwatchers (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Note that I have already requested a copyedit on the GOCE page. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't be more specific because the errors are so ubiquitous. As in nearly every. Single. Sentence.
For example, the correct English idiom is "speaking engagements" (the original wording when I wrote that sentence and as it appeared on 8 July 2021), not "speech engagements." As Google Ngram Viewer shows, this is a no-brainer. And in the paragraph before that, I used the term "hoped" to refer to Iger's thoughts about the future of Frozen. Someone who clearly doesn't understand the well-known difference between the connotations of "wish" and "hope" changed that to "wished," which carries an inappropriate connotation of informality in that context. We're talking about a rational business decision by the then-chairman and CEO of one of the largest entertainment companies in the world (an adult is more likely to "hope" for something), not the random whims of a five-year-old (a child is more likely to "wish" for something).
This is not rocket science. We're talking about critical errors that native English speakers learn to instinctively recognize as incorrect from about five to twelve years of age.
It would take me about six hours to type out all the really obvious errors and as a busy attorney, I don't have that kind of time. The article has been that badly vandalized. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, Wing is making a concerted effort to improve the article. I don't know if they are a native English speaker and maybe that is where the issue lies BUT as they said, they've asked for a copy edit. I would suggest patience in this. Taking it back 4 months for instance would remove the Themes section, and I helped write that so I know it isn't completely full of errors. Wait for the copy edit and then see if the issues remain. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Um, no, vandalizing the article and turning large parts of it into an incoherent train wreck is not an improvement. As the son and grandson of immigrants to the United States from a non-English-speaking country, I was raised with the utmost sympathy for ESL speakers. But I was also raised with the self-awareness to be wary of what I don't know I don't know. There are many other online venues for ESL speakers to practice writing English, such as the Simple English Wikipedia.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the new "Thematic analysis" section is by far the worst of the newer portions of the article. And I took English and comp lit undergraduate courses at a university that is routinely ranked among the top five in both English literature and literary criticism in the United States (and also among the top five worldwide in English literature). I got a perfect score on the verbal portion of the SAT (when it was much harder than today) and my first two college English assignments still came back covered in red marks and I knew I had to level up my game. So I know full well the difference between good critical jargon and bad critical jargon. What we have in this article definitely falls into the latter category.
If I don't see any significant improvement in a month, I'm going to go ahead and revert this train wreck. Saying wait for a copyeditor often turns out to be a delaying tactic that turns into waiting months and then years. Then five years go by and no one wants to clean up the mess. That's why so many articles on WP are in such terrible shape. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
It is now October, wait a couple of weeks. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests Wingwatchers (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Coolcaesar that the article should be reverted. Entire sections, particularly Critical response and Thematic analysis, are virtually incomprehensible. Hobbesy3 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Look, I don't know what article you were looking at before but it wasn't a masterpiece beforehand and an editor has made efforts to expand and add information to it. It's second in line for a copy edit and they can fix any comprehensibility issues, what they can't fix is wholesale removal of content, and I wrote a few paragraphs of the themes section so I know that complete removal is not acceptable when a copy edit is due anytime. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

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

 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. Pamzeis (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frozen_2/Archive_1&oldid=1244804414"