Talk:Tangled/Archive 2

BoxOfficeMojo not Amazon.com
In Tangled, is used three times with publisher=Amazon.com when the URL is actually from Box Office Mojo. Please update the parameters for each of them so that they match the URL. Thanks. 67.100.125.74 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazon.com owns and publishes Box Office Mojo (well IMDb technically, but Amazon owns them). — Mike  Allen   10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is valid, but as seen in the in the external links section as well as in reference 28 (the first one in the Tangled section), the article isn't consistent in treating amazon.com as publisher.  Admittedly, using amazon.com as the publisher follows the preferred convention from  which favors using publisher for the "government service, educational institution, or company" and work for the website, but IMO this is a case where it would be confusing to following the documented convention.  In the case of Amazon Web Services, there are a lot of websites, including Wikileaks until recently, whose publisher would be amazon.com</tt>.
 * (I've reinstated the edit-request, but am rewording it so as to defer to the judgment of the editor how the problem is fixed)
 * Please make the Box Office Mojo references in Tangled consistent as to the identification of the website being cited. For example, use (actually reuse) <tt> </tt> to refer to the main Box Office Mojo URL, and use <tt></tt> with  <tt>work=Box Office Mojo</tt> and no <tt>publisher</tt> otherwise.  Thank you. 67.100.126.84 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the template/link under external links is not a citation, so it wouldn't make sense to treat it as one. I think we should follow the documentation. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But in a similar sense, does that mean that a citation from The Wall Street Journal should read it's from News Corporation instead, since they own the WSJ? Or a news story on NBC's Today would be from General Electric, or soon Comcast? I see the IP's point and agree with it; it should be Box Office Mojo, not Amazon. -- McDoob  AU  93  00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The work is Box Office Mojo. The publisher is Amazon. You don't have to put anything (a url in a reference is all that's required), but the correct and professional way according to the documentation is the work and publisher.  You can do what you want with this article, but the for GA and FA articles, most editors, including me, use the correct way.  —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "IMDb.com, Inc." is identified as the copyright holder on the pages in question. This indicates that the entity is an incorporated company, so it certainly would be appropriate for us to list it as the publisher.
 * I agree with 67.100.126.84 that it's confusing and illogical to list "Amazon.com." Yes, that's the parent company of IMDb.com, but as McDoobAU93 points out, we wouldn't list "News Corporation" as the publisher of a Wall Street Journal article or "General Electric" as the publisher of an NBC report.  —David Levy 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The sponsoring website or work, in this case Box Office Mojo, should be provided rather than just the publisher. In fact, few (if any) of our FA film articles include the publisher rather than the working website in the web citations. Examples in professional citation guides such as the MLA suggest the following information should be supplied if at all possible for a typical site: The sponsoring organization in the example is History Channel, not the corporate or copyright owner: A&E Television Networks. Because there are so many possibilities with web citations, many more examples are provided at here. Our own citeweb template guidelines may be confusing because they don't provide enough examples. In any case, using only Amazon.com in the references is deceptive -- it masks the actual website which has editorial control or the even the initial copyright holder. I have changed the refs to include the website per the IP's request. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Author (if known). "Title of the document." Title/Name of the Site. Date of version. Sponsoring Organization. Date of Access.
 * Their first example is, "This Day in Technology History: August 20." History Channel.com 2002. History channel. 12 May 2001<http://historychannnel.com/>.
 * Just to be clear. I was saying that the work and publisher should both be included, not just the publisher. So it's work=Box Office Mojo and publisher=Amazon.com.  —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the company most accurately described as the publisher is IMDb.com. Amazon.com happens to be IMDb.com's corporate parent, just as News Corporation is the Wall Street Journal's corporate parent and General Electric is NBC's corporate parent.  —David Levy 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do we bother including this information? Ultimately I don't want to see a tangle of parent companies obfuscating the truth that I'm reading an article that is backed up only by references from News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch owned publications, so it is funny you should mention WSJ. You can be accurate but entirely hit the wrong target. I almost always make the efffort to show who is the parent company. If a Sony film has a lot of sources that are also ultimately owned by Sony I want to increase the chance of other editors and readers noticing it too (see also DC Comics a divsion of Time Warner, Marvel comics a divsion of Disney). Frankly yes, it is the sprawling News Corporation I'm most worried about and they got me in the habit of adding this information everywhere and wondering about who ultimately is the real owner/publisher.

Adding to that the stigma surrounding IMDB I prefer to skip to the top and say Amazon is the publisher. It is not a corporate group where there are quite so many tangled layers but having made the habit of cutting through the layers with other groups, particularly News Corp. and for other groups there are so few layers it is hardly worth using publisher at all and I just use work but in my personal opinion I think it is best to write work = Box Office Mojo and publisher = Amazon.com. It might be more pedantically correctly to write "Amazon.com Inc." but I'd rather not link to what will redirect to the Amazon.com page anyway. (I definitely would not use boxofficemojo.com as I see in the article in a few cases. Also it is horribly trying to read markup with so little spacing or indentation so I'm personally going to stay away from this quagmire and let you sort it out between yourselves.)

The citation guidelines - or at least the various ones I've found and read - never made it all that clear what we were supposed to put in the work and publisher fields, but I think website/magazine/film is the work and the parent company is the publisher.

Either way I would discourage editors from adding their own italic and parenthesis as markup instead of accepting whatever the template provides. I reluctantly show some deference to the style of the editors before me but since the article is already inconsistent and already fails to include publisher in most instances (only see IMDB in two and even that isn't done consistently between those two) it seems unfair to not to let the editor working on improving the citations and making them consistent to be the one to decide on how best to do it, but as I said above I'd strongly encourage you to put Box Office Mojo in the work field and Amazon.com in the publisher field. If you can't come to any agreement perhaps you might refer it to WT:MOSFILM or elsewhere. (Wow that quick comment got long fast. Apolgies for the lack of brevity.) -- Horkana (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with using italics for websites (in the work parameter), even though the template currently formats it that way. Websites should not be italicized.  It's just silly.  I have made an effort to counter the automatic italicizing by adding italics.  However a bot always comes in and "cleans up", so I just gave up.  And requesting a change to the template page is pointless. I've tried on a different matter and they refused to accept my proposal to automatically hide the   parameters when the link doesn't need the archive link (but you add one anyways for backup).  They just said to comment it out.  Really? Is it that hard to change the template to something that simple. Lol —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I recall, this got started when citations appeared to be coming from Amazon.com, not Box Office Mojo. I just checked this on my sandbox page, and I see now how the website is italicized and the publisher appears separately (something I don't believe it did at the time). If this can indeed be applied consistently, then I would support adding Amazon as publisher. -- McDoob  AU  93  04:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In deference to this dicussion I did not include any publisher information. I encourage the regular editors of this article to come to a decision one way or another and add them consistently to all of the Box Office Mojo links. (If you do decide to use IMDB please be sure to aviod abbreviations use the full title Internet Movie Database.)
 * The article was inconsistent. Once I got past the headache inducing lack of any spacing or line breaks that only a masochist could love I tried to at least make it a bit more consistent. A little simplification was possible thanks to named references. I'm not sure we really need quite so many seperate links to Box Office Mojo instead of just linking to the summary page but I resisted the urge to delete any of the other links as there may be some nitpick details they verify. The titles used a lot of ugly allcaps (which can be changed) but in this case it was preferably and easier to grab the actual page (omitting the redundant suffix of "Box Office Mojo" included in most titles. I really wonder if the level of detail given to the box office takings is even relevant or notable enough for the English language Wikipedia to mention it at all, but again I resited the urge to delete any of it. I can't recommend strongly enough against crushing down citations removing all spaces and line breaks, the amount of hard to see mistakes and even just dumb repitition is amazing and editors aren't going to fix it when it is unreadable. (At least wait until an article is near finished at Featured Article or Good Article status before crushing things down, making it hard to check or add missing fields.)
 * I removed the a few incidents where IMDB was listed as publisher, they weren't even consistent with each other. I removed the Amazon ones too.

Nominated → Nom on Tangled
This message is in response to Horkana's Edit Summary ("Fix? I fail to see how using unclear abbreviations is a fix compared to clear complete words") for this edit. This user has a message on their talk page instructing any discussion should take place on the article's talk page so the message is copied here. The reason for the change is that does not actually exist. The proper template name is. The following is a quote from Redirect regarding Template Redirects: In other words: if, for some reason, the  template undergoes some change which requires all template calls to  to be modified in some way, only one search for the template needs to be done, versus researching multiple different templates, all of which redirect to  (such as,  and ). Solving template redirects (something most bots do anyway) simply removes the possibility for this to become a problem in the future.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Was Flynn "pardoned"?
Occasionally, a well-intentioned editor will add a phrase into the film's plot stating that Flynn/Eugene was pardoned by Rapunzel's parents. Unless somebody has something from the film's producers stating this, this would be speculation. It would be just as much speculation to state that there's no need to pardon Eugene FitzHerbert, because he didn't do anything, while Flynn Rider most certainly did, but he "died" (either metaphorically, when Eugene gave up Flynn's life/persona, or literally, after Gothel stabbed him but before Rapunzel's tear healed him), so we can't prosecute anyone. -- McDoob AU  93  03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC) tangled is ausom...... its cool wach it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.68.206 (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Yes check.svg Done. You did it quite correctly. I've removed the incorrect sentence. -- McDoob  AU  93  19:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Website for archiving
For archival purposes, I will place website component URLs here so web.archive.org picks them up: WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * http://adisney.go.com/disneypictures/tangled/site.swf

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


 * I agree ... if there is one, it's not a key component of the plot. But since there isn't one by any definition I can think of, I'm getting rid of it. So you're not being thick. :) -- McDoob  AU  93  00:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Please also note that, for most information, user-contributed sites (e.g. IMDB) are not considered reliable sources. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 22:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


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

Box-office performance detail
I've added a tag to this section because I've never seen this much detail about the worldwide box office numbers in a film article before. I don't see any justification for a blow-by-blow, weekly account of the box office in each market. This section should be severely condensed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a lot more comprehensive than what we normally get on the film articles. I actually like the continental break-down; gone are the days when two thirds of the business was done in the US, it's more the other way around now with films doing the majority of their business in the European and Asian markets, so perhaps a full worldwide breakdown is what we should be striving for i.e. if a film does two thirds of its business in international territories maybe the coverage should be representative of where the film does its business. That said, I think sub-dividing Europe is over-kill and probably gives too much weighting to that particular region, but personally I have no problem with the continental overview. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with making it less US-centric, but couldn't it just give a short summary for each market in one section? I mean, look at the detail in the North America subsection alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm against the faux-sectioning. To me, it actually looks very unappealing and doesn't make sense that I'm going to break down every country into its own fake-subsection, even if it's just for a single sentence. We're not likely to get real detailed information for how the film performed in Brazil, or Germany, but just some overall, estimated grosses. All box office info should be kept together with the "foreign" figures occupying their own paragraph with any details listed there.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the amount of detail?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Oddly enough, Wikipedia articles are not (yet) considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Put another way, the Disney Princess article can't be used as a reference for the Tangled article, and vice versa. In the strictest sense, your edits are not vandalism, as I believe you are trying to improve the article (this is assuming good faith); but, adding uncited information despite requests not to do so is considered disruptive, which is as much of a problem as pure vandalism. You can make this edit yourself, but please provide a reliable, third-party source for the information. Thank you. -- McDoob  AU  93  13:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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


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

How is this film referred to??
If this film's name is merely "Tangled" (2 syllables); why is it so popularly referred to as "Disney's 50th animated feature film Tangled" (14 syllables)?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it referred to that on a single place in the article. Where do you see that? - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First off; it's not necessarily that exact phrase; it has a number of variants that reference 50th. There was such a reference to this at Disney Princess before I edited it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I did a quick search for the phrase and found nothing, but after looking through it manually I saw a "The 50th Disney animated film", which I exchanged for "It". I can't see any more such phrases outside of quotes (in the reception section), but in general, they shouldn't be phrased like that. "Tangled", "it" or "the film" should be enough. I guess some editor was excited about the film being the big five-o. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Video.
Does any one have the full movie for tangled that doesn't need download? Like being able to watch straight at a website. I tried youtube but i couldn't find it, youtube disabled the movie for sg-ians. 113.10.107.151 (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Alicia
 * Please follow WP:FORUM. &mdash;Bruvtakesover (talk!) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Tangled Ever After be merged into this article. Almost everything in that article is covered in Tangled.--Babar Suhail (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The Tangled Ever After page provides almost no information that is not already present in the subsection on the short film on the Tangled page, as noted above. Adding the movie poster and any information that's on TEA's page to the Tangled page should suffice to cover the short. Frankly, the subsection has a better plot description than the short's page anyway. Metheglyn (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - A subsection for the short is far more appropriate. ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 03:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose this appears to be a completely different story. Why would this even be considered? JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  14:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think it is helpful for the short film to have its own article. A quick Google search turned up this by Los Angeles Times which is not yet used in that short film's article. There's probably more that could be found, and it seems ideal to expand on this topic in its own space. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The reasoning given does not seem valid to what is actually on the article. There is only two sentences in the section and more on the other article. Actually after looking at it I support the merge as it makes no sense for a 6 minute short to have an article when all that can be featured on the film's main page as the article would stay a stub forever. 50.104.108.167 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many, many short films that have their own article. Pixar has its own category here. Just because this short film is associated with the feature film does not mean merging is a solution. We don't merge elsewhere just because we can't expand a Wikipedia article on a distinct topic. I point again to the full article by the Los Angeles Times about this short film. That's likely not the only one out there, and the article would be more than a stub if it implemented that piece and more. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Short films are their own thing and deserve their own article, even if they are part of some feature film's continuity. There's precedent for this with Mike's New Car, Your Friend the Rat, Hawaiian Vacation, etc. I don't believe the fact that it doesn't yet have much information is a good reason to merge it, neither is the possible fact that it will never grow out of a stub status. That didn't stop Mickey's Choo-Choo. Pigby (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while other editors bring up significant issues with the short's article, those issues, in my opinion, are not a reason to merge with the article of a totally different film. The two articles should remain, and the issues in the short's article should be addressed.Onel5969 (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose separate films, with independent production. If continuity is a valid argument, should the Godfather triology be merged?  That said, "Tangled Ever After"'s sources aren't very strong.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tangled Ever After has a distinct plot, production and release (with another feature). By the way, there are IPs simply put on support and said nothing. I think they should be deleted, otherwise it will cause unfair headcount.Forbidden User (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Tangled Ever After is a separate story and work of art that is notable in its own right, and any issues with that article should be addressed though editing, not merging. Rlendog (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tangled → Tangled (2010 film) – Is this really the primary topic? This is not my last name (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, probably. What's your evidence that it isn't? --BDD (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the Disney film is the primary topic. I looked at the other articles listed in the DAB page and I don't see how they can be a contender for the primary topic spot. —seav (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems to be, unfortunately. Steel1943  (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing unfortunate here is that the relative success of The Princess and the Frog and Tangled means the end of Disney movies that look like Disney movies. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True, even more unfortunate. The Disney movies that looked like Disney movies had all of their characters represented in the original Kingdom Hearts video game. Any movies or characters after the ones that made the cut for that game ... Oh, makes me miss the old'en times of Disney lore. Steel1943  (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose since the film is the primary topic for this term. Unless there is growing precedent to ensure that dictionary terms get disambiguation pages, the current setup is fine. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support User talk:This is not my last name has made a reasonable RM proposal given other topics at Tangled (disambiguation) such as Tangled (2001 film) featuring 3 well known actors, the albums etc., and the snarly rudeness of the non-admin closer within 9 hours was uncalled for. Looking at Google Books I don't believe that the Disney film is more common than all other uses of Tangled combined. I would request User:BDD to wave his admin wand and let this RM go the full time. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No "admin wand" required. You've presented a concern that goes against a WP:SNOW-rationale closing consensus; seems good enough for me, a non-admin, to reopen this discussion without prejudice. Steel1943  (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may be reflecting my own limited perspective that I've seen the 2001 film and hadn't heard of the Rapunzel cartoon, but it's also the various albums and songs. In a case like this when different media have different audiences the passmark for having any article elevated to primary needs to be set higher than 51% of all usage, perhaps up to 70% of all usage - which the Disney film isn't getting. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the criteria you used in Google Books? A broad search makes it difficult to identify topics called "Tangled". When I searched for tangled disney film for the date range 1/1/2012 to 1/1/2015 (to seek out retrospective coverage), I saw that the film is (lightly) covered in a variety of books that have to do with gender and/or childhood. In Google Scholar, doing the same search shows some coverage in regard to the animation process as well as Disney princesses in general (though some results are just theses/dissertations). Obviously this kind of search focuses on one topic, but it does not seem like any of the others come close to prominence. It was a blockbuster hit, and as a Disney production, it seems like it is referenced more than a less corporate work. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to sort out non-Disney tangled Nick Heyward Tangled only 6, similar for other albums, 50 or so for the 2001 film... but then the Disney results are stuffed with merchandising, and therefore aren't independent. It's really an issue of whether independent long term significance is and must be Disney and only Disney. Also there's the increasing role of the infobox jpg in disambiguation. When we came to this RM the 2001 was "anonymous" because no one had uploaded a movie poster or DVD cover. On iPhone or Android it is usually the jpg that performs the function of disambiguator, and uploading an image which helps readers find articles as much as ambiguating/disambiguating titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I haven't seen either film, but I know this:
 * Tangled (2001 film) has been viewed 1998 times in 201403.
 * Tangled has been viewed 158117 times in 201403.
 * That means the article about the 2010 movie was viewed over 75 times more often than the article about 2001 movie last month. 75 times!  And it's not like everyone is getting to the wrong page here; they seem to stay put:
 * Tangled (disambiguation) has been viewed 365 times in 201403.
 * I too don't know what data PRIMARYTOPIC-hater has gleaned from Google Books, but regardless of those results, I'm sure it's biased in favor of the older film, just because it has been around 10 years longer and so can be mentioned in that many more books.  Recent page view counts are much more useful for determining which topic is more likely to be sought in a case like this.  I already closed this per WP:SNOW because continuing such a pointless discussion is a waste of time and resources.  But  was hoodwinked into reopening.  Oh well. Suit yourselves.  --B2C 17:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tangled (disambiguation) is for that purpose. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there is at least one other film with the name Tangled, as far as the English-language Wikipedia is concerned, this one is clearly the most known and therefore should not have to be disambiguated. Agree with close per WP:SNOW and WP:STICK. -- McDoob  AU93  15:22, 24 April 2014 (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.

When Will My Life Begin? AFD
Please weigh in at Articles for deletion/When Will My Life Begin?.--Coin945 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring removal of box office gains and restoration of unsourced gains
I just added a reliable source about the box office success of the film and its profits and it was summarily removed as not notable. I would like to know how so. Not only that but the wrong profit numbers were restored without the RS I supplied. I also need an explanation for that action. Dr.K. (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

After I supplied the RS, the lead was modified with edit-summary "Still unsourced and still not notable for the lead section" removing the important fact that the film was a box-office success although the source I supplied states explicitly so using quotes.

Why does the reverting edit-summary call this edit unsourced and "not important"? If no satisfactory reply emerges I will revert this edit in 24 hours. Dr.K. (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You've missed the point. The last part about the cameos is not notable, the box office success is just irrelevant since everyone can deduce from the grosses if the film was successful or not (which probably wasn't: io9).--Carniolus (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind your removal of the cameos. But if it is stated in the RS that the film was a BO success I think this should be explicitly included given that the definition of BO success is sometimes not clear. Dr.K. (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That is just a Variety's opinion based on the gross. They do not know if the film was actually profitable - considering that it was the most expensive animated film ever. And stating again something that anyone can see from the numbers is redundant. Anyway, I do not care about its "success" (in this case) - my first removal was because of "non-notable/unsourced appearances" and the second because you restored them again.--Carniolus (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I was concentrating on the BO success and I did not mean to restore the non-notable appearances. I fully agree with you on the removal of such trivia. As far as the BO success, Variety calls it "a huge BO success" but I can settle for just "success". Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Regarding the "success", there is an answer on Quora from a film critic, where he says that the film should earn $780 million to be profitable.--Carniolus (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The opinion of the critic at quora is valuable but there are many additional sources which call the film a "BO success" or even a "huge BO success" including US Magazine, and The Daily Mail. Disney calls it "among its all-time biggest successes". Dr.K. (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Box office success means in this articles that the film sold a lot of tickets and grossed a lot money - which the Tangled article accurately states, so there is no problem with that (although somebody could misinterpret that statement). Its profit is a different story, and nobody actually gives any estimates about that (except for that quora answer). Anyway, we are arguing now about something that wasn't actually the problem :)--Carniolus (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree on all your points. :) Thank you again. Dr.K. (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Contrary to the request made at RFPP, the reason I semi-protected the article is the repeated insertion of unsourced material, rather than the content dispute mentioned in the request. It was not obvious that a content dispute is the problem here. Regards, Samsara 20:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sequel is not impossible?
Someone's just removed my pieces of "impossible sequel", but i think that the fact of the cancellation of the sequel makes totally impossible that it could be made in the future, so, is impossible.

83.39.2.36 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All they need is a usable idea. They haven't had one yet, but that could change. Reach Out to the Truth 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In film, it's best not to deal in absolutes. Even if a sequel is canceled, that doesn't necessarily mean the project won't be revived in the future. clpo13(talk) 19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From where did you get those information? The producer not said anything about that they need a idea. 83.39.2.36 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Impossible" is an absolute statement and does not belong in the article. It is also completely unsourced so it fails WP:RS and WP:OR. Also please do not revert again because you have already broken the three-revert rule. Dr.   K.  19:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But it has been cancelled and they discarded it saying "It's Over!". I think that is impossible to 100%. Not will there be any sequel ever. . 83.39.2.36 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how the film biz works. I suggest reading some basic books on filmmaking at a public library as well as Don Hahn's popular book on how animated films are made (The Alchemy of Animation).
 * For example, Lasseter has said that after Toy Story 3, they thought they were done with the series, but then they came up with this new idea that he could not stop thinking about and he knew he had to direct it himself. That is, unless they have made an unequivocal statement that they are never, never, never going back to Tangled, the word "impossible" is not a correct interpretation of the quote "it's over."  It just means that they can't come up with a good idea right now.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if you had bothered to read up on any of the resources on the Web that shed some light on the inner workings of the Disney corporate empire (such as The Animation Guild's blog), you would realize immediately that Disney, like all major film studios, is risk-averse and bureaucratic. To minimize the embarrassment of officially announcing films that they have to pull the plug on later, they don't like to acknowledge that films are in development until that's been the case for quite some time and their high-level execs are certain that the film can find an audience and the production team can actually make the film they pitched.  That is, if you compare the dates between when their directors admit they pitched films internally to the dates when Disney officially acknowledged those films were being made, you'll notice they're almost always quite far apart by several years.  Which means that if the directors ever do change their mind and return to this franchise again, we won't know for a long time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tangled 2 has been confirmed but it will be direct-to-TV: On September 28, 2015, the composer Kevin Kliesch confirmed a feature sequel and that will be a television sequel movie that will debut on Disney Channel in 2017, serving as a introductory sequel movie for a new TV animated series. 81.38.17.202 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not confuse, that has nothing to do with Tangled 2, is a television introductory film for the Tangled TV series, Tangled 2 currently is cancelled but if ever is reconsidered it will reach theaters. 2.138.117.226 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even will be a full-length movie, but a 45-minute or 60-minute pilot episode from the tv series. 83.54.110.249 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015
Please, if anyone can eliminate unreliable content from the sequel section i would appreciate, the three are:

According to CartoonBrew on June 2015, an animated television show based on Tangled is currently in development, and also stated that a feature sequel (Tangled 2) stills being a possibility.

Also, on July 2015, Zachary Levi was talking on a video interview with GlobalNews about the actual state of the Tangled sequel, and about the possibilities.

And later, on September 2015, Levi talked again about the word from Disney about potentially continuing the Tangled storyline.

Also, change the title to the last version (Halted sequel), Thanks.

83.46.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015
An adaption of the film premiered as a stage show on the Disney Magic cruise ship on Nov 14, 2015, featuring 3 new songs by Alan Menken - "Flower of Gold", "Wanted Man" and "When She Returns".

2602:306:CCF6:90C0:D179:584A:3864:8CFA (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cannolis (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

removal of sourced and reliable info
Somebody is removing sourced and correct content:

on the summary page*:

Tangled premiered at the El Capitan Theatre on November 14, 2010, and went into general release on November 24. The film was well received by critics and audiences alike. The film was a box office success earning $591 million in worldwide box office revenue, $200 million of which was earned in the United States and Canada. In Germany the film earned 41.4 million, achieving two box office records in the country; the highest-grossing animated film of the year, and the second highest-grossing animated film of Walt Disney Animation Studios in the country, only behind Frozen. The film was released on Blu-ray and DVD on March 29, 2011, where it has earned over * THIS —> $ * 215 million in home media sales in the U.S. and Canada.

Flynn's Tangled Tales
Before its theatrical release, Disney created five small animated vignettes called Flynn's Tangled Tales to promote its film Tangled on the internet. In this collection of animated shorts, Flynn chronicles his former days as a thief in the Kingdom of Corona, revealing some of his adventures and misadventures with the law. The first three shorts are available to view on YouTube. The last two shorts are exclusively on the Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray 3D editions of the movie.
 * Flynn's Tangled Tales: Crashimus Maximus - In the first short, Flynn escapes the royal guards, though his real threat proves to be Maximus, revealing a history together even before the crown heist.
 * Flynn's Tangled Tales: Barrel Blast - In the second short, Flynn breaks into the castle dungeon as the Stabbington Brothers (who he betrayed yet again) are being sent to their cells, but only for the priceless peice of riches they still had. In the end, though, they escape, and Flynn manipulates them into believing he was still allies with them, rejoining forces with the duo.
 * Flynn's Tangled Tales: Jewel Heist - This third episode would demonstrate examples of Rider's exceptional skills as a thief, despite his failure to avoid trouble at all costs during his thefts.
 * The last two shorts are Flynn’s Tangled Tales: Arm Wrestling, and Flynn’s Tangled Tales: Rooftop Chase.

Possible sequel
On January 3, 2011, the film director, Nathan Greno said a sequel was possible, and that he and Byron Howard were interested, but according to Greno, under John Lasseter's rule, only they will do one if there's really a strong story. However, Greno added, "That said, one day I may sit down with the guys and we may come up with a great story about Rapunzel and this world that we created that we have to tell, and [Howard and I] will definitely do it". In January 15, 2012, days after of the release of the short sequel Tangled Ever After in theaters, discussing the likelihood a Tangled sequel, Howard explained to the Los Angeles Times "We don't want to do a sequel for the sake of sequels ... The story has to be worth telling." In May 17, 2012, Mandy Moore told Collider that a sequel was being considered, saying, "I have heard things from various people, but nobody has officially said anything to me."

Aborted attempt
On December 30, 2014, the film producer, Roy Conli, revealed that there was an aborted attempt to make a sequel saying that he recalls being "pushed heavily" to develop one, but when the production team pulled together the writers and directors, they told to the executives, "You know, she [sic] cut her hair. It’s over!" He also explained that at Walt Disney Animation Studios under John Lasseter, the decision on sequels always rests with the filmmaker (not the marketing or merchandising departments). In January 31, 2015, Conli reiterated the above about the aborted attempt, and this time he also revealed that the film's directors weren't really interested on doing the sequel, and that, in his case, the hair not grows back.

83.54.108.111 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC) thanks.


 * Firs off, I am the one who is removing this poorly sourced, speculative content, which is based largely on fan sites and You Tube. These are not reliable sources.  Please read WP:RS.
 * 1) Nobody removed the first paragraph you cited.
 * 2) The discussion of the sequel is includes the comment: "I have heard things from various people, but nobody has officially said anything to me." While it is a sourced comment, it is also an EMPTY comment. Somebody said they heard rumors. Similar content throughout. "Oh, I would do it, but if I did, it would have to be..." sort of nonsense.
 * 3) The "aborted attempt" talks about who would make a decision, that somebody felt pressure from somewhere, and an empty quote about Rapunzel having her hair cut.
 * 4.) The shorts aren't notable.
 * This is cruft, pure and simple. Devoid of any actual meaning, based on speculations and rumor, without any good solid sources.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Now I understand everything, but just to mention that you must add a dollar sign to 215 (in the summary page). 83.54.108.111 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

the musical?
was or not a musical? because on board the disney cruises is not the same that a full broadway musical. 2.138.112.253 (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sequel section
, you said here, "Discussed on talk." I do not see a discussion about sequel content on the talk page or the archives. Where is the discussion? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Found it and restored it. Concur with the removal of the section since I also find that the section adds no value. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring back to the last good version based on reliable sources---namely, they tried but they couldn't do it. That's all we know for certain for now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening weekend for Zootopia
Zootopia now has the highest opening weekend for Walt Disney Animation Studios with 75.1 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.132.190 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Zootopia gross
Zootopia has passed Tangled domestic and worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.133.132 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tangled. 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/20110929143420/http://www.starz.com/guides/1108STZ1.pdf to http://www.starz.com/guides/1108STZ1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054308/http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/531660/tangled-star-mandy-moore-i-d-like-to-think-i-look-like-rapunzel to http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/531660/tangled-star-mandy-moore-i-d-like-to-think-i-look-like-rapunzel
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125012936/https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/tangled-soundtrack-from-motion/id412754951 to https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/tangled-soundtrack-from-motion/id412754951
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605021612/http://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-bluray-sales-chart to http://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-bluray-sales-chart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reptiles and amphibians category
I recently created a category for animated films that feature reptiles and amphibians. The purpose of this category isn't to include films that are primarily about such characters, but rather, films that prominently feature such characters. Considering that Tangled features a reptile, Pascal, as one of its principle characters, I feel that it's appropriate to include this film in the "Reptiles and amphibians" category. While Pascal isn't the main character, he's significant enough to be included on the film's poster and even has his own GA article here on Wikipedia. I've been reverted twice while attempting to include Tangled in this category and have no desire to start an edit war (certainly not over something as trivial as this), so I won't include Tangled in the category if there's consensus against doing so. But again, I feel that it would be an appropriate category. Thoughts? --Jpcase (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tangled. 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/20141209125333/http://screenrant.com/disney-tangled-zach-levi-interview-chuck-rothc-88315/ to http://screenrant.com/disney-tangled-zach-levi-interview-chuck-rothc-88315/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

First animated CGI musical film
Tangled is the first animated CGI musical film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.223.244.9 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)