Talk:Moana (2016 film)

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

Tattoos on Maui[edit]

There is an article that specifically says that the tattoos on the character Maui (played by Dwayne Johnson) will be done using hand-drawn animation. Doesn't this make it a hand-drawn/CGI hybrid?— Preceding unsigned comment added by WakeFan91 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because for it to be a hybrid, a significant amount would have to be hand drawn, but so far only the tattoos are hand drawn. I'm sure there are many traditional animation films that use cgi and computer animated films that use some hand drawn animation for small details, but we don't call them hybrids because the usage is too minor. I did add that Maui's tattoos will be hand drawn in the production section however. Sro23 (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

This slow motion edit war is getting ridiculous. Has there been confirmation Don Hall and Chris Williams will direct? Sro23 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Auli'i Cravalho[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although the majority here was open to redirect or merge the article about Auli'i Cravalho, the AFD outcome resulted in keep her biography separately. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 10:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Known for her role in a yet to be released film. All of the provided sources are about her casting and role in the film. Its better to merge this biography to the film article. Of course, we can have a standalone article once the subject meets WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge, but open to redirect I do not like the idea of merging a biography into a film article. It would be off topic. I would be okay with just redirecting her to here without a merge, but I question if a redirect would even be needed. JDDJS (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Article meets WP:BASIC for a stand-alone article. I'd prefer to see this discussion at AfD for wider participation. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR but a general bio article can be supported with sufficient independent secondary reliable sources which that article has. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge I am not sure if the person passes notability standards yet as they are only known for one thing and it has yet to be released.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, but open to delete. If the movie has a strong opening, Cravalho will become notable and the article on her can be recreated at that point. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as it seems people are more comfortable discussing this issue on AFD, I have created one for Auli'i Cravalho. Feel free to share your thoughts here. Sro23 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How Far I'll Go[edit]

Can you make a page for the song "How Far I'll Go"? The song is gaining more and more popularity! For example, this song even charted on the Billboard Hot 100, and as of my writing, it is at #52! So, would you consider this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70Jack90 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, you might wanna take this request to Articles for creation! Mihirpmehta (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 three consecutive times[edit]

Moana is the number one movie three weeks in a row, joining Deadpool, Zootopia, The Jungle Book, Finding Dory, and Suicide Squad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re recent revisions[edit]

I recently made a number of revisions to the article. First, I again marked the budget with "(estimated)" because if you actually review the press coverage of this film, it becomes clear very quickly that all the sources talking directly to Disney have either not mentioned a number for the production budget or have noted that Disney is not releasing that number. In general, presenting a specific number as accurate without warning that it is an outside estimate and not the actual official number (in a context where an actual undisclosed official number almost certainly exists) is itself a false statement of fact. In turn, false statements of fact are violations of Wikipedia's nonnegotiable core policies on verifiability and no original research.

Second, I also fixed a number of bizarre recent Engrish edits, such as the unnecessary insertion of the word "a" before the phrase "traditional animation."

Third, I pulled out citations to Forbes Contributors. There has been a consensus on Wikipedia for several years that the Forbes Contributors program is not in compliance with WP:RS because that program lacks adequate editorial controls before stories go live. Either find a source that is in compliance with WP:RS (such as one credited to Forbes staff which is marked as having being published in the print magazine) or don't insert the assertion at all.

Fourth, I commented out several grossly incomplete citations (mostly bare URLs) and marked the adjacent sentences with the citation needed tag. If the responsible editors really want those citations in the article, they can come back and fix the mess they created, because no one else has the time or energy to fix those citations for them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An important observation for which to search for sources[edit]

While reviewing the article on Do You Want to Build a Snowman?, I realized that Moana is unusual for a Disney animated musical in that it contains two reprises in the third act: the reprise of "An Innocent Warrior" at the climax and the reprise of "We Know The Way" at the ending. Most Disney animated musicals do not contain songs in the third act and the climax is usually acted or spoken (over a background score), not sung through. I can't insert that point in the article right now, as that's original research in violation of WP:NOR, but that point must have come up in one of the press interviews for the film. Or it may come up between now and next year when the film goes into awards season. Anyway, if the filmmakers do discuss this issue publicly, we should add this point to the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The budget issue[edit]

The sources cited unequivocally state that Disney has not disclosed a budget. Under Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV), we say exactly what the sources say. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers lists a $150 million budget, though Box Office Mojo simply lists it as "N/A". I won't change it, just thought I'd at least mention it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reputable industry publications (THR, TheWrap, Variety, Deadline, etc.) has published any articles in which any journalist states unequivocally under their byline that "the production budget for Moana is $X." When studios really want to leak or disclose a budget, they are fully capable of doing so, as occurred with Avatar, where Fox openly discussed its budget. Similarly, Variety ran a story in 2014 stating that the budget for Big Hero 6 was $165 million. For now, we go with Disney's official position for Moana as reported by reputable publications, which is that they are refusing to disclose it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about this source from MarketWatch? It says "The film, stamped with a 99% Rotten Tomatoes rating and a reported $150 million production budget, brought in $2.6 million in early Tuesday night showings, and comScore forecasts the film will garner a debut in the $75 million to $80 million range." -Worwicstudent2 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The qualifier "reported" is a hedge (and proof surrogate) that implies the figure is unreliable. That is, the reporter has been unable to obtain direct verification, for whatever reason, and is instead simply repeating whatever he found on another Web site (most likely the $150 million estimate based on extrapolation from other Disney films). Good entertainment reporters invest a lot of time and money into cultivating a network of trusted inside sources. Those reporters never use a qualifier like "reported" when they have direct access and are absolutely certain their sources are accurate. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaiana[edit]

I just saw the movie in the Netherlands in English and both the title and the name of the main character was Vaiana throughout, meaning this change is not exclusive to foreign-language dubs like the article currently implies. This seems similar to the change from Zootopia to Zootropolis in the European English release of that movie. However this is a bit more complex because the main character has two official names. What would be the best way to get this across in the article? Mijzelffan (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too, in Sweden. English dub, Swedish sub. I'm not sure if the actors told their corresponding lines twice, or if they just said the name, and it was digitally spliced or something... Also, not sure if this was done primarily for the UK market, or for the niche market of adult animation fans who'd prefer the original dub. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links error![edit]

Link external: Moana on Google+ is error! Kidshin007 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link as I couldn't find an official Moana G+ page. Thanks! MidnightObservation (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of disruptive editing by User:Disneyisatale[edit]

Despite repeated warnings and reminders to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, User:Disneyisatale has repeatedly added links to self-published sources of questionable reliability, including The Numbers and Forbes Contributors (which are essentially self-published blogs hosted on the Forbes site). Notably, more reliable sources like Box Office Mojo and most traditional publications covering the entertainment industry have been careful to go with the official Disney position that they are simply not disclosing the production budget. Any objections before I pull that questionable estimate of $150 million out of the infobox? Also, it looks like User:Disneyisatale may need a topic ban as to this article and possibly other film articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with removal, following discussion above in 'The budget issue'. MidnightObservation (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just took out another attempt to reinsert the estimated budget number which was inserted by a user whose first edit was on 8 March 2017. It looks like User:Disneyisatale may be using sockpuppets, which is grounds for an immediate block. I'll have to initiate a case for CheckUser when I have the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

should Moana be a Musical Film?[edit]

I've noticed that in the article for Frozen (2013 film), it is described as a musical film. In the article for Moana, however, it is simply described as "a 2016 American computer-animated family film" as opposed to Frozen's "2013 American 3D computer-animated musical fantasy". Should "musical" be added onto the description? The Verified Cactus 100% 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Why "no indication of what they have in common or why they're being suggested"? Lanari Mauro. 82.84.38.235 (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason they're suggested is seemingly because they were mentioned in movie reviews for Moana. I don't see why they should still be there, so I'll go ahead and remove them. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third animated CGI musical film[edit]

Moana is the third animated CGI musical film. alongside with Tangled (2010) and Frozen (2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.223.244.9 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

Some users keep deleting it for some reason. Is that right? I mean, Pocahontas (1995 film) briefly talks about the cultural issues in that movie. What's the best way to approach the subject here?Crboyer (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of omissions of goddesses and of merchandising strikes me as being both fair and given due weight within the article, but the idea that merely depicting in a work of fiction a type of traditional sailing vessel represents "cultural appropriation" strikes me as... well, lunacy, idiocy and fringe (yes, I know about the larger controversy of intellectual property and cultural appropriation—that doesn't make this less fringe). It should be given no weight unless multiple notable, reliable sources weigh in with the same criticism. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more - the line "Through the film, the corporation has been claimed to perpetuate settler colonialist practices of exploitation and erasure by utilizing the knowledge and narratives of native peoples to spur a profitable capitalist enterprise of music, celebrities and merchandise.[112]" is not supported by the referenced link. The link contains some quotes by a journalist/filmmaker, and a professor who hadn't seen the movie. Unless more detailed, primary sources reference others with more background in these issues, I think all lines using this reference should be deleted.Jbmcb (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with the Italian actress? I think not. But...[edit]

I don't think the confusion with Moana Pozzi is the reason (or the only reason) why Moana was renamed Vaiana in most of Continental Europe, so I read the Il Post report which this article cites, and found this.

Tra circa un anno, nel dicembre del 2016, uscirà in Italia un film d’animazione Disney intitolato Oceania. Lo ha comunicato Disney Italia durante Giornate Professionali di Cinema, un evento per addetti ai lavori che si è svolto a Sorrento. Del film si sa ancora pochissimo ma se ne sta già parlando: ad attirare l’attenzione è stato il suo titolo originale – Moana – e il fatto che in Italia sia stato cambiato in Oceania. Molti siti di cinema e siti d’informazione hanno scritto che Disney Italia ha deciso di cambiare il titolo perché in Italia il nome Moana è associato a quello di Moana Pozzi, attrice di film porno e showgirl italiana famosissima tra la fine degli anni Ottanta e l’inizio degli anni Novanta, morta nel 1994 a 33 anni.

I concluded that the Moana Pozzi thing came from speculations made by Italian online film communities, and Il Post was simply reporting it.

If you want to add that Moana was renamed Vaiana also because of that actress, you need to bring the sources that

  1. does not rely on rumours and speculations
  2. does not mention that Il Post report (directly or indirectly)
  3. has a confirmation from The Walt Disney Company or a high-level staff at the company.

About another source recently added, it cites a report from Cartoon Brew which used 'A friend of mine told me' type of Twitter post as an 'official' confirmation, not to mention that it has a link to Il Post report in question. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mulan and Mandarin[edit]

From the article. 

On October 25, 2016, at a press conference in Papeete, it was announced that the film will be the first motion picture to be fully dubbed in the Tahitian language. This marks the third time Disney has released a special dubbing dedicated to the culture which inspired the film: the first case was The Lion King (1994), for which the directors travelled to South Africa to cast voice actors for a Zulu-dubbed version; and the second case was Mulan (1998), which was the first Disney film to have a Mandarin Chinese dubbing made in China, separate from and independent of the version released in Taiwan.

But would a Mandarin dub really be considered "special"? Isn't that the general procedure for all Disney films released on the Chinese market, anyway? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Mandarin version made in China. Before Mulan, all Mandarin dubs of Disney movies were made exclusively in Taiwan. True, it's not the only Mandarin dub ever made nor is it the sole dub made in China, but Mulan marked the entrance of Disney into the Chinese market. That's why it's to be considered "special". Ninahi8 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moana (2016 film). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music credit in infobox[edit]

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. 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) 06:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • ^I agree with this actually. I removed the two songwriters because of WP:Whichever one it was..., which stated that it should only list the score composers, but I think that's an overtly disagreeable policy. Songwriters have a considerably more vital role in musicals than score composers do, and because of that they should obviously be mentioned in the infobox, whether it be in a separate box or in the same one. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 20:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess names[edit]

Is it not worth a passing mention that Moana's grandmother shares a name with Tagalog Tala (goddess) and her mother shares a name with Samoan Sina? The latter was Maui's wife and the film even has Maui singing about killing/burying the eel.

There's also the pet pig Pua's name resembling Kamapua'a.

Pele_(deity)#Expulsion_version references "Kaneapua" and further research shows they had the ability to part waters like Moana did. 70.51.193.44 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reputable primary and secondary sources making note of the similarities? Otherwise, such comparisons appear to be WP:original research--Mr Fink (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

This section requires cleaning up. For one, reference 113, published by Fiji Times in 2014, is used for establishing that a traditional canoe used in the film, which is believed to a Fijian camakau, could be considered a violation of property rights. This is overblown and should only have been noted if there was a legal case, which does not appear to be. The person quoted is not a historian (as was originally claimed in our article), but an employee for a cruise company, in which case, it almost certainly does not merit inclusion. The tone of the piece is not one of criticism.
That leaves two other sources in that section. The first is a piece by NBC News, which is fine, but it was published prior to the film's release, and quotes attributed to some notable Pacific islanders (based on pre-release speculation) are wrongly stated as facts in our article. A previous discussion contemplated deleting all lines using this place as all those 'critics' hadn't seen the film, before it died out due to inactivity. The next is a contributor work on HuffPost, and as stated on their website, "Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site". The writer's bio/credits seemed to be somewhat legit, but this still needs to be discussed.
Frankly, I don't see a need for a controversy subsection when WP:CSECTION advises against this. Moana was considered to be one of Disney's better examples of cultural representation unlike a certain movie I can think of; the latter's WP:GA article has only a simple "historical accuracy" section. The criticism can definitely be addressed in a couple of lines in Moana (2016 film)#Critical response, lest it become WP:UNDUE. 2.51.186.75 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no balance in the section and the actual criticism is pretty much pro forma now for creative works for "not doing it right" and some people are offended. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it has been 12 days since this comment with no further input, I am going ahead with the proposal. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the music credits[edit]

According to the credits, Mark Mancina also wrote the songs in addition to the score. Given that, should we use “(songs)” for Miranda and Foa'i’s names in the infobox or is it unnecessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could add him under songs and keep him under score as he did both and they are different work products for him. Or drop the Song and Score division and just put composer role in parenthesis for each person (songs), (songs, score). Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Princess merchandising[edit]

Should it be mentioned about Moana's appearance in Disney Princess merchandising as a traditionally-animated form? Visokor (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Localised ("pacific") releases available anywhere?[edit]

Is there any information on availability of pacific localisations (Tahitian, Hawaiian, Maori) on physical media or via digital distribution? The usual suspects (amazon, etc.) don't seem to carry these. --133.56.199.131 (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Maori language version is currently available on Disney+, in New Zealand at least.--2407:7000:A12B:8553:156C:7A81:AFC9:8DB (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Maori version seems to have followed a different iter than the other two: the soundtrack was made available on DisneyMusicVevo, the movie was sold on iTunes for a limited period of time and now it's available on Disney+. The same doesn't seem to apply to the Tahitian and Hawaiian versions, which were never made available for any kind of purchase. Only a limited number of DVDs was distributed to schools for free.

Please explain....[edit]

In Critical Response, it states: "'Moana' would have been enormously entertaining regardless of when it came out, but its arrival at this particular moment in history gives it an added sense of significance—as well as inspiration." Please explain why the "added sense of significance". Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quote from a reviewer; I suggest you follow the citation and read the review. —VeryRarelyStable 06:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is left hanging in the article itself. Shouldn't tell readers to go elsewhere for understanding of what is written in Wikipedia even if it is a direct quote. Perhaps more from the source can be included in the article to give some understanding what was meant as by itself, out of context, it is a nonsense statement and ephemeral as "this moment in history" referred to has passed. Or remove it completely if it is just a confusing statement that adds no value to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't protected, and the source of the statement is linked. Anyone who feels the statement needs elaboration is free to elaborate on it. —VeryRarelyStable 00:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pulled a different quote from the article and used that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that change, Geraldo Perez. No more head scratching! And as for VeryRarelyStable's suggestion to leave the article to go 'net surfing for a definition, that has long been a peeve of mine even when the alternative is to go to hop-scotching another WP pages. The current little mouse-over windows certainly help with jargon-laced articles in that regard, but things could still be better. All the best and stay well, Wordreader (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that Polynesians stopped making long distance voyages 3,000 years ago[edit]

I don't have access to the source article for the claim that "the people of Polynesia abruptly stopped making long-distance voyages about three thousand years ago" but this seems to be factually incorrect as Polynesians (specifically those who became the Māori people) first arrived in New Zealand as recently as 700-800 years ago, migrating long distances from other Polynesian islands in the South Pacific region. Historical evidence and oral tradition indicates long distance voyages between islands were a fairly common occurrence for Polynesian peoples.2407:7000:A12B:8553:156C:7A81:AFC9:8DB (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the article reads: "Native peoples of the Pacific resumed voyaging again a thousand years later". It is a fact that around 3000 years ago Polynesian people suddenly stopped voyaging, and the reason why is still not entirely clear, but they started again after a thousand years. It was a hiatus, not a definitive stop.[1] Ninahi8 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been more research since 2016; I gather the latest explanation is that once they reached Samoa, since islands in the Pacific get gradually smaller and more spaced-out as you go east, the canoes they had 3,000 years ago weren't good enough for longer voyages. Then someone invented the kind of boat we see in Moana, and within a generation they had reached Hawai'i, New Zealand, and South America. But I got that from a lecture, not a published paper I can reference, and it wasn't known when Moana was made. —VeryRarelyStable 23:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://historydaily.org/disneys-moana-depicts-an-actual-event-in-polynesian-history

Polynesian response[edit]

It would be very helpful if someone more knowledgeable about the topic could expand the "polynesian responses" section - it's a tad scarce right now, and it would be useful and important I think if it was expanded. Farleigheditor (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2022[edit]

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 00:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– This is the real primary topic. RapMonstaXY (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC) RapMonstaXY (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior RMs for this page:
  • Oppose - There is WP:NOPRIMARY between all the various meanings, but especially between the film and the character articles. Keeping all disambiguated prevents mistakes with wikilinking. OP hasn't explained why the current arrangement prevents readers from finding the correct article (because it doesn't). -- Netoholic @ 16:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the movie is probably the primary topic. The character article is viewed much less than the movie. If you look at the other stats, nothing else comes close that isn't connected to the movie. --Quiz shows 18:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pageviews of the most viewed pages of this title favor the Disney film drastically. Tree Critter (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, film seems to be overwhelming primary topic by page views.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Polynesia has been notified of this discussion. 2pou (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the long term significance portion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Page views are only part of the equation, and it is often overblown. Looking at the disambiguation page, it is clear that the term itself is integral to Pacific Islander communities, not even limited to one region. The term has impacted royalty lines, the names of several towns and areas in multiple countries, buildings, shopping centers, etc. taking their names from the term itself. I love the film, but taking the base name does not seem to satisfy long-term significance aspect. All those things listed did not take their name from a Disney film, and like those other things, Disney in all likelihood took the term for its name. Way to Americanize/Disneyfy the world above other cultures, en.wiki (well, not yet, there's hope)... Note that this move was proposed and did not receive consensus back in the height of the films popularity. I've listed it using a substituted {{priorxfd}} template above for reference. -2pou (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 2pou above. No way does the film have long term significance even if most popular now. Sort of why Apple points to the fruit, not the computer company. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No clear primary topic in this long list by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the reasons cogently stated by User:2pou. Fully concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not certain that the nominator even looked at the dab page for other uses of "Moana" before confidently declaring a propos of nothing that "this is the primary topic". There are several significant historical uses for the term. Disney did not just throw a few random letters together to make the name; they used a name with deep significance. Good for tying it in to the historical context of the people groups represented in the story, but bad for claiming primary topic. Red Slash 21:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – For reasons given by 2pou. My country recently lost a loved public figure named Moana Jackson. —VeryRarelyStable 22:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 2pou's argument. As wikt:Moana shows, the film derives its title from topics that have been around much longer, so while the film is popular, I don't think there are grounds to determine a primary topic here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that the other uses are either far less prominent than the film, or are non-English uses. For the English encyclopedia, I think the Disney film is the primary topic. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 2pou's arguments. While I understand the support arguments, I am hesitant to say that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per the reasons 2pou have already laid out above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per above, its presumptuous to say that the film is the primary topic, given the historical and cultural background to the term. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

production[edit]

I strongly believe that the passages in the production segment of the article should should be their own little small passages like the music and soundtrack it could be turned into a small passage Sarah afton (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film which goes into detail of what the major headers for film articles should be. Article as it is conforms to the style guideline for section layout. Keep the subtopics under subheaders under the standard film article major headers. Geraldo Perez (talk)

Moana 2 has been announced and is set to be released this November![edit]

Here's a link to the announcement video from the official Walt Disney Animation Studio YouTube channel. https://youtube.com/cZSywj-vkxA 100.14.106.43 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moana_(2016_film)&oldid=1219327290"