Talk:Frozen: Stories from Arendelle

Deletion
I am proposing this page's deletion because it is nothing more than Phantoms of Arendelle and Olaf & Sven on Thin Ice put together in a single book. If the issue is about noting the existence of the 2-in-1 book, then that's easily covered by a simple mention in the trivia. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 01:22, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary to delete this page just because two different books are put together into this one. After all, this is a separate book. Right now I'm not really taking any sides; I'm open to any arguments the others will make, but hey, this can serve as an exploration to the other side of the argument :P Jjuser (talk) 01:50, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I had brought this up with Humphry02 when the page was created. When considering deletion, we must think about what page's content above all else. I do not think Stories from Arendelle has enough of its own information to warrant having its own page, if that makes sense. The stories are covered on their individual pages, which also include author and plot information. As such, the page boasts no new information to speak of, aside from the fact that it is a fusion of two separate stories. Dragonboy6491 (talk) 01:58, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that a trivia mention may be all that is necessary, but right now the book is what is being used for quite a lot of references, mainly because none of us have access to the page numbers for POA or OSTI. Until we have those, then the page must stay for reference purposes. That being said, the book is still a book in its own right; maybe if someone else saw it they would better understand what it means to have the page. It is still a release in its own right and there is more to it than simply the stories reprinted. Humphry02 (talk) 12:59, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * May I ask Dragonboy as to what was said at the page's initial creation? I'll have a look back to see if I can find out the initial reason for keeping the page. Humphry02 (talk) 12:34, May 24, 2015 (UTC)

There's more to it than Phantoms and Thin Ice? Care to elaborate on what that is? Also, the pages from the book being used as a reference is hardly a good reason to keep the page. If the page is deleted, it's not as if the book itself has been erased from existence. The reference stands perfectly fine without the link. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 12:52, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * When I first saw the book I had no idea what was in it; if someone saw the reference they may want to know what the book is. We are the Frozen Wiki, and I'd say that it is our obligation to inform them. You could argue what is the point in having the references linked to any of the respective pages. As for there being more to, there are in fact some character profiles; the cover is also quite unique. It's not just rehash of two stories. Though I shan't elaborate any further because anything I do say you will brush aside nonetheless. I'll wait now and see what others think. Humphry02 (talk) 20:36, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, simply mentioning that the book has character profiles will give only one sentence of its own content. And giving information relating to Frozen is not the same as making a page for every little thing. Currently, it does not sound as if the book has any content to stand on its own. The link in the reference is not a big deal because we can just as easily give an external link for that. Regarding the picture, using that as a reason to keep the page is not really valid because it's copy-protected. If we use the picture, it's because we have a page for the book, not the other way around. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 20:49, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * That's still content unique to the page. The book also has it's own ISBN; it's a book in it's own right. Why would we have an external link, and external link to where exactly? I haven't actually seen the book online. Why not just do that for every other book we reference? That would serve no more of a purpose than having a link to our own page, which would make more sense. I suggest we wait now to see what everyone else thinks. Humphry02 (talk) 21:01, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * The fundamental point here is that the page does not have enough of its own content. We have external links to the cast members' pages because not all of their information is relevant to Frozen. The same principle would be applied, but in this case, it's because the page would literally only have one sentence about containing character profiles as well as an ISBN. That is definitely not information that we need a whole page for. For every other book, e.g. Art of Frozen, we actually have substantial content, rendering that point moot. And no one is stopping others from weighing in; I just happen to be the one on-hand to respond to your points. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 21:06, May 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * The character profiles may be unique to the book, but it still isn't an adequate amount of content. The bulk of the book is still comprised of the two stories, of which we have pages for already. Having a link to the book for the sake of the reference doesn't justify the page's existence. References exist solely to show our information is sourced, not to provide readers with specific details about the source. If a link exists, it's a bonus, nothing more; having a link in the references isn't a necessity, so it's not a compelling reason to prevent the deletion of a page that has barely any content.


 * Think about the screenplay; we do not have a page on the Wiki for it, yet wherever it is referenced, the bare essentials of sourcing are covered: Name of the source, as well as a specific page number and author. If we were to create a link for the screenplay, sure it would be a bonus, but not having it does not affect the integrity of the reference.


 * I'd also like to add that if removing the links seems worrisome, the bot is capable of removing links. Dragonboy6491 (talk) 15:43, May 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest I've said all I can say: it is a book in its own right, it has character profiles, it's own ISBN, we use it for referencing. The only other thing is that I like it for what it is with it's nicely done cover and how there are protruding snowflakes; it gives the book character and makes it its own. It's a well-done book. I'm not sure what their motive was for releasing it but it's been very useful in adding up extra content and like I say, it's still a book related to Frozen. A lot of the other books are reprinted variants; only the cover and sizes changed for some of them. I found that out the hard way when I bought two that were different but when I opened them the content was exactly the same. We haven't thought of books like that, and for all we know the ones we have up could have the same content reprinted inside of them. As for little content, think about what Fruipit said a while back about Avatar Wiki and how little content there is on some of those pages. The screenplay, well maybe that should have a page of its own. We cite it so much, maybe we owe people an explanation as to what exactly it is. The same goes for Stories from Arendelle. Someone may not know what is and want to find out, and seeing as we have cited it regularly and the fact that we are here to provide a database for all things Frozen maybe we should consider what content is worth having.


 * Perhaps our minds are made. If it still stands we are equally split as to the book's future. Maybe Mojo or Fruipit could weigh in and tip the scales. Humphry02 (talk) 00:40, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Jjuser stated he hasn't explicitly stated his side yet, so as it stands, there are two people for deletion and one against. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 00:49, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Humphry on this. The book is still a book in its own right, and this is a database for all things Frozen after all. However, I do see why the book having little original content is problematic. Still, the book is an individual, existing book. I think it's worth noting its existence and explaining what the content is comprised of. Even if the book contains little original content, it has just enough to keep the article "alive". I for one disagree on the removal of this article, but I will listen to what the others have to say. Jjuser (talk) 00:57, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Again, noting the book's existence can be accomplished through the trivia section. Is there something inherently wrong with that that we have to keep the page? Since the book has so little of its own content, that can also be expanded upon in the trivia for Phantoms and Thin Ice. Your reasoning that the book is its own book is true, don't get me wrong, but the reasoning falls flat when it comes to keeping the page because what I've given is a viable alternative. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 01:01, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Avatar Wiki, they may have some small pages afloat, but based on their discussions, they aren't averse to merging content (as I have suggested), though the operations on another wiki hardly seem relevant here. http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki:Votes_for_deletion/Archive_13 Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 01:12, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good find there, Heimr. Perhaps we could merge and have all three in an article with redirects set up or something. That hinges on whether the present page stays, of course. But your merging suggestion was more about just trivia points, which I can't consider to be enough. Avatar Wiki is actually a very good Wiki to follow. I think that the major rewrite was based around some of Avatar Wiki's principles, namely the Manual of Style. There's no harm in looking to other Wikis for ways to go about our operation. I would consider it very useful to keep in mind. Humphry02 (talk) 01:27, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * May I also just say that the books as a whole need going over. What I said about same content is an issue widespread. Humphry02 (talk) 01:29, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * The important thing if we merge is if the content will still be there. Trivia would accomplish that, so I don't see why that's "not enough." The other alternative would be to merge all of Phantoms and Thin Ice onto this page, but I don't see why we need to delete two pages to shift their contents over when we can just delete one. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 01:35, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't go into it hugely now; let's just get an idea of who wants the page to stay. If it's deleted, then we can worry about merging, ect. Humphry02 (talk) 01:39, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Merging is its own discrete option. So we're deciding to flat-out delete, merge, or keep. That's how it's done on Avatar Wiki anyways. Where else is similar content an issue, by the way? Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 01:41, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean, so we'll decide that first. I don't know exactly. What I do know is that a lot of the books have the potential to be reprints just with different covers. It's mainly an issue with the retelling-of-the-film books. Even the Disney Collection book and the Padded Classic aren't dissimilar, the former having slightly more art in it, but everything in the padded book appears on the Disney Collection one. The other example is what I said earlier, though I do not think that those two are on the Wiki. And my point is that unless we see every book, we will never know. Humphry02 (talk) 01:51, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused now. I assumed from your earlier post that you were advocating determining whether to delete or keep first, then move on to discussing merging if deletion is pursued. I was suggesting, if we are to follow Avatar Wiki, that we immediately consider merging as a possibility alongside deletion and keeping. And similar is different from being exactly the same. Unless the Disney Collection book and Padded Classic are exactly the same, it's not exactly the same situation we're facing here. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 01:58, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant that this page was just to decide whether the page should be deleted, then we go on and decide the best way to merge if the page stays. Sorry for the confusion. In that regard SFA is similar; I see what you mean about that example, but acknowledge the other one I gave. That is pertinent to the discussion here. Humphry02 (talk) 02:06, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Merging isn't dependent on whether the page stays. It's a separate option because it can just as easily be said that the content shifts elsewhere if the page is deleted. So if anything, we should go by what Avatar Wiki has done, and decide merging, deleting, or keeping as three separate choices. From the beginning, I've had the merge mindset, so that is what I am shifting my choice to.

As for other example, if the content is exactly the same, there is no reason to have duplicate pages. We can have one page for one book, and all the copies can be mentioned in the trivia section. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 02:12, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Very well, if others see it fit to merge the content, then I will consider.


 * The issue comes in identifying the duplicates. It's something that has to be done, but it's not something that I can see as getting done easily. I for one am not going out and searching book shops for the copies, especially when considering how they are simplified versions of the film. I have a lot of stuff in that regard already and I need to be less liberal in my Frozen expenditure. That's not to say that I won't try, however. Humphry02 (talk) 02:22, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll rephrase: We'll add all copies that we know of to the trivia section. The goal of the wiki may be to have as much information pertaining to Frozen as possible, but it's something to work towards, not something that we can immediately accomplish. The story of Hans' past is in Jennifer Lee's mind, but I'm not going to track her down and pick her brain until I get every last detail. Whatever comes our way, we'll deal with it as it comes. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 02:25, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good way to think about it. But I think that this is the sort of thing that won't ever be a priority, just something that we may pick up on and fix as we go along. Hehe, remember that Jennifer Lee's brain isn't licensed, so I'd wait for some official material, else I would be doing the same for Elsa. I still need to know what she spent doing for most of that thirteen years, and also where she is going in the next thirty. Humphry02 (talk) 02:32, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of all these options given for these two pages, I say merging would be a good idea, and I agree with Heimr: posting copies (we know of) in the trivia section would be a good idea. Though I must say, deletion wouldn't be the best idea regardless if the pages are lacking information or anything like that. My input is either we keep it or just merge them together. ♥☁Iris, aka Mojo, is here to save the day! :D (talk) 22:15, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that Mojojojo13579 agrees with my merging proposal. So that makes 2 for merging and 2 for just keeping the page. Dragonboy hasn't commented for a bit, so for now, he's still going for deletion, I guess. However, I think I can tentatively say that the page will be deleted considering my merge proposal involves the deletion of the page and transference of the info to the Phantoms and Thin Ice pages, which essentially makes 3 people for deletion. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 01:47, May 30, 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I just make sure that Mojo understands that there are three pages involved? Thee are two separate books, and they are brought together in Stories from Arendelle. I am in favour of a merge, however before anyone does anything I have two options in how to go about doing this to discuss. Let us count the votes up and see what every one thinks. If everyone now votes officially.


 * I am in favour of merging the material, but I would like to discuss how about doing this because I don't know whether PAO and OSTI are going on one page and we have redirects or SFA gets a mention on each page. In which case I have another idea to propose. Humphry02 (talk) 02:06, May 30, 2015 (UTC)


 * Well to confirm, I'm in favor of merging by deleting Stories from Arendelle by mentioning it on both the Phantoms and Thin Ice pages. But I'd like to hear your other idea before going through officially. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 02:12, May 30, 2015 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of Heimr's merge proposal, though I'm open to hearing that alternative. Dragonboy6491 (talk) 21:53, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

So are we going to hear that other option or go forward with my proposal? This has been unresolved for a long time. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 11:27, June 20, 2015 (UTC)