# Talk:Frozen Fever

We are having issues with an editor unable to understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
The only major exception Wikipedia allows for self-published sources is for statements about what those sources said about themselves (because they're like a party admission and hence more likely to be reliable).  Otherwise, Wikipedia does not allow citations to self-published sources because they are not subject to a larger organization's full editorial control.  
The problem with Forbes Contributors' sites is that they are essentially self-published blogs under the Forbes domain but are not run through the magazine's own editorial process before publication.  See, e.g., this article about it. 
Unfortunately, it looks like the editor at issue has been inserting citations to Forbes Contributors' personal blogs all over Wikipedia for months and no one caught those.  At some point any available admin who sees this may need to jump in and summarily countermand all those edits.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Listen I don't have any problem if you revert my edits if it didnt comply to wikipedia rules. And I'm totally ok if u remove my contributions. But it's not fair that I get picked only by these kind of "vandalism". The page Avengers: Age of Ultron has lots and lots of reviews of Scott Mendelson from trailers to posters and NO ONE is paying attention to that. I'm sure no one is oblivious to that fact. The page has 100% times more contents and editors than Frozen Fever's mild dozen contributors and if those tons of people accept those reviews by Mendelson, why do u have to point at me? It's not fair, I told u remove if my contribution it's ok, but those editors adding reviews by Mendelson are freely adding content when mine is being removed. If like u said is not "legal" to add in wikipedia why is Scott's review not removed there? This is discrimination. I won't revert my edits because I said so its wrong and if it's so wrong WHY IS SCOTT MENDELSON'S REVIEW BEING WRITTEN IN Avengers: Age of Ultron article?. -- User:Josephlalrinhlua786 06:40, 19 March 2015

Yes, I know I have made a mistake. A mistake which not only I have committed, but others too. Look at the article Avengers: Age of Ultron, there's tons of people adding contents and editing contends. You think none of the are oblivious to the fact that a Forbes contributor's review is being added? Yet, no one objects. All I'm saying is if u remove my content of I'm being guilty of this action then tell the person or people who added those contents from Forbes too. I shouldn't be the only one. If it's a "rule" or "law" of Wikipedia and if I'm being the only being pin pointed at than that's discrimination. I admit my mistake and apologize for it and vow not to commit such silly and stupid mistake again. But remember the other people who has committed the same mistake as well. I should also bring out here that though their reviews might not always meet wikipedia'a rules yet to be precise Scott Mendelson is a very professional box office analysts and I will further add his box office info because it's 100% accurate unlike his reviews. As a box office contributor and editor for the past year I know this. Unlike Ray Subers of Box Office Mojo or Nancy Tartaglione/Anthony D'Alessandro of Deadline.com, he surveys and gives a very detailed analysis of box office grosses (of the US and Canada).

So what. Just because no one is bothering to revert it there doesn't justify your violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability here.  As an editor with ten years of experience, I can assure you that every editor who has challenged the longstanding consensus on that policy has been permanently blocked.
I am going to revert your edit again. If you revert back, you may leave me no choice but report you for edit warring.  As you were recently reported by another editor on March 16 and you have not learned your lesson, you may then risk a temporary block for uncivil behavior. Please conform your conduct to the civility guidelines.  Thanks for understanding. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is not whether or not we can use blogs as reliable sources, we can in some cases - see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS, the question is if Scott Mendelson is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Is Robert Ebert a useable source of reviews because of who he is or because he was published in the Chicago Sun-Times and subject to their editorial control? There is no question that the review was written by Scott Mendelson, we can trust Forbes at least to that level. The issue is whether or not he is a well-established expert for this type of content. I think in this case for this particular reviewer his review here is valid and relevant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So, I don't want to change this myself, because it would require erasing a citation and replacing it, which seems like a big edit to make without an account, but I'd like to point out that I'm pretty sure bukkehorn is still more accurate than bugle horn. Although the final horn is indeed not a bukkehorn, it isn't a bugle horn either, so it really comes down to what the original line is. Every source I've seen on this other than that Disney Playlist link and this article which cites it, including the official lyrics video cited in the same reference and the short's subtitles, contradicts this "bugle horn" thing, and no offense to Disney Playlist, but I haven't known Disney blogs to be very reliable sources of canon information despite the fact that they really should be. Take for example, a few articles on it about the original movie which have claimed (and continued to claim with essentially no back up, just condescension, after being corrected) that the act of true love that thawed Anna's heart was Elsa's, even though it is pretty clear from watching the movie that it's Anna's own act of true love, Elsa: "you sacrificed yourself for me?" Anna: "I love you" Olaf: "gasp! An act of true love will thaw a frozen heart!" You get the gist, Disney Blog, righteous, but not reliable. As for the discrepancy between the lines and the final shot, I'm pretty much certain that the original script called for a bukkehorn, but that when they decided to change it to an alphorn, they couldn't get Idina Menzel back in to rerecord, if I recall she barely had time to record her lines as it was because she was so busy. I don't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia editing to get the citations for all this stuff, but it's just something you might want to look into.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.81.152 (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 

The finished product, part of Short Films Collection released August 18, 2015, is the authoritative reference for its own contents. Everything else is interesting production details. Spoken audio and subtitles say "bugle horn". Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I have that collection, the subtitles on mine say bukkehorn.I'd link to a screen cap, but I don't know how. I see no reason not to believe that yours say something different, but it suggests to me that there is nothing authoritative, or even by necessity consistent about these subtitles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.80.95 (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I just downloaded a copy from iTunes and I can confirm that the subtitles say "bukkehorn". I think my other early release copy had "corrected" subtitles. The subtitles are part of the released product and I trust the copy from iTunes is authoritatively correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So you agree that the wording should be changed?
I put both there as it looks like different versions say different things. I am sure I hear "bugle horn" listening to the audio but the subtitles disagree with the audio, not a rare occurrence with subtitles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I think that the two are pronounced similarly, and I can see how you could hear it either way.

Just thought I'd mention this. The short has recently been released on DVD exclusively at Tesco in the UK. Visokor (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frozen Fever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402165510/http://www.ngkids.co.uk/whats-up/frozen_fever_behind_the_magic to http://www.ngkids.co.uk/whats-up/frozen_fever_behind_the_magic
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we please mention the banner that Olaf "fixed"? It was supposed to say " Happy Birthday Anna" but when the Snowgies destroyed it, Olaf assembled it to say something ridiculous. I don't remember exactly what it said, but I feel like it will make our audience laugh.
Thanks, Rosefeather of WindClan (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)