Frozen Wiki talk:Manual of Style

Size Limit of Images
I wanted to ask, is there a specific reason why the height of an image is limited to 250px? I think that we could allow larger images if we raise the size limit a bit. Larger images would provide some more detail of the photo, so there is a benefit in increasing the limit. Also, can't images be "re-sized" on an article anyway? Adding the thumb to the article and changing the way it appears on the page by editing the pixels seems sufficient enough. Jjuser (talk) 03:50, May 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that having the images the way the are is perfectly acceptable; the precedent was established some time ago and there was quite a large discussion about it. The images are very clear, and having them at such a size only improves that. It's also to do with the size of images; the images are hundreds of KB, as instead of hundreds of MB+. It shows our efficiency and our conscious effort to limit what we put up, considering the functionality that the images pose. I don't get what you mean about re-sizing on an article, but the size of the images as they are is fine when re-sizing on an article; there's no distortion or anything like that. Humphry02 (talk) 12:16, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * It's primarily a file size issue; resizing the images means that we won't be taking up much space. It also means the images will not put a huge amount of strain on the servers when they are being loaded on articles. Additionally, having a set size for the images helps create a sense of uniformity, which helps give a more professional look. Finally, the Frozen Wiki is not an image repository, so having images that display a large amount of detail isn't the goal here. The goal is to have images that supplement our text, and though they are smaller, the current images are still capable of doing that. As it is, Frozen is shot in super-widescreen, so shortening the shortest size to 250px doesn't remove too much detail from our photos. Dragonboy6491 (talk) 16:02, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, I figured it had to do with the file space and all that. Thanks, I just wanted to know why images here needed to be resized, and if there was room for any improvement :) Jjuser (talk) 03:51, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Past or present tense for movie plots, and certain character role terms
I'm thinking of sometime rewriting the plot of Frozen, but because the wiki's information of Frozen Fever's plot is in present tense, I'm not sure if it shall be put in past or present tense.

Additionally, with the wiki saying on the Frozen that Olaf is the "secondary tritagonist", I remember on Disney Wiki last year when RRabbit42 replaced the term with "a major character" on a non-Frozen character, saying that defining things as the "less than a third-level protagonist" is a bit ridiculous. I think we shall have "a major character" rather than an incorrect term on the table showing the voice cast of Frozen. --Lightening McQueen (talk) 22:30, June 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd imagine plot is present tense since the events of the film occur as we watch them. As for the "secondary tritagonist" designation, I think that's unnecessary. We should leave it to readers to judge what characters are protagonist(s)/antagonist(s). Creating labels in the way the Disney Wiki does is completely overdoing it. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 20:36, June 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I agree. I don't think leaving the designated "main protagonist", "secondary tritagonist", roles are very useful to the page in the long-run. Instead, if people have their consent on this I would much rather drop the titles. What we know and what the Disney Wiki knows could probably be our own judgements and speculations. The page itself still needs maintenence, after all. ♥☁Iris, aka Mojo, is here to save the day! :D (talk) 04:28, June 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * I and Dragonboy agreed sometime ago that the page needs a complete overhaul due it not meeting standards, however we prioritised the other pages due to the size of the page and scale of the task. That is why I have ignored all of the fiddling that has been done recently to the page. Labeling the characters as has been done is frankly ridiculous and needs to go for the reasons already given, and looking at other things such as citing who plays which character is also unnecessary. I think that a talk page should be set up at some point to properly discuss the layout and refurbishment of the Frozen and Frozen Fever pages as they are not the Wiki's own work. By all means use the provided references, but add more and develop it into our own. Humphry02 (talk) 21:28, June 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering the work that's been done with the rewrites, now might indeed be an opportune time to finish off the largest pages on the wiki. Heimr Arnadalr (talk) 23:50, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that now is a good time. We should start planning how to go about the process and also consider what new pages and material we can put up. Humphry02 (talk) 00:05, June 28, 2015 (UTC)