This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The article says that this movie "will premiere June 17, 2011". Where is a source for this? Me and some others are currently discussing opening this up to an AfD, and having a set release date would lean me towards keep. However, we cannot find a reliable source for the claimed release date. ~
Baron Von Yiffington.talk.contribs01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)reply
People are now saying that the movie will premiere June 24th, 2011. Who confirmed this? What is the source? This should not be on the page without a source because now people don't know if it's true or not. Please fix this. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Farmward821 (
talk •
contribs)
03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Shrek Forever After was not the first Movie/TV Show to have a twisted alternate universe. If anything it should be credited to "It's a Wonderful Life"!
75.68.52.240 (
talk)
18:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time was a Disney Channel movie...it was not considered a Disney Channel ORIGNIAL movie (DCOM) Also, The Proud Family Movie came out after Kim Possible: So the Drama
They kiss, right before the amnesia-intro is fired. Surprising that Ella would do that, but I'm guessing the only thing that motivated OWCA was the whole "Perry/Agent P." thing, and had nothing to do with [Phinaella ] [ User:Walex03|Walex03]].
Talking,
working,
friending.
16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)reply
The following discussion 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.
This page/info/en/?search=Help:Using_talk_pages should be renamed Phineas and Ella Palangi the movie : Across the 2nd Dimension.The logo uses 2nd rather than Second. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
114.108.196.243 (
talk)
04:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I moved this article from
Phineas and Ella palangi the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension to
Phineas and Ferb the Movie per
WP:SUBTITLES ("Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name.") - there do not seem to be any other films in the series, and both IMDb and the official Disney website just call it "Phineas and Ferb the Movie". It was moved back with the explanation "The film is never referred to as just "Phineas and Ferb the Movie" it is referred to as just "Across the 2nd Dimension"" - if that's an argument for
WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't it be moved to
Across the 2nd Dimension instead? --
McGeddon (
talk)
08:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)reply
After a brief check, most of the sources seem to refer to the movie by its full name. I've even see it referred to that way on Disney Channel. That said, I've also seen "Phineas and Ella palangi the movie :Across the 2nd Dimension" but never just "Phineas and Ferb the Movie" or "Across the 2nd Dimension". --
AussieLegend (
✉)
15:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)reply
It makes no sense to not include the second dimension in the title. The film has never been referred to as just Phineas and Ferb the Movie. There is a reason that the word "usually" is used in
WP:SUBTITLE. This is one of the times when they should be included.
JDDJS (
talk)
17:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)reply
The only way that the subtitle would be necessary in the title, is if there were more than one article titled "Phineas and Ella PALANGI the Movie". Per
WP:PRECISE, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Therefore, it's fine to include the subtitle in the text, but it's not necessary for the title of the article.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
19:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)reply
There actually was going to be a film released into theaters that was cancelled. However, there is a very good chance that there will be more movies in the future. Additionally there have been hour long specials like Summer Belongs to You that people might think was a movie. I don't get why not to add the subtitle.
WP:SUBTITLE says usually not always.
JDDJS (
talk)
20:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Please see
WP:OR and
WP:Crystal. Wikipedia is not based on speculation. The fact is, that until there is another article titled "Phineas and Ferb the Movie", the subtitle on this article is simply unnecessary.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)reply
WP:NCF also states: "If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation" The subtitle is not needed for disambiguation in this case, and therefore it is not needed in the title of this article.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
13:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)reply
WP:NCF specifically refers to disambiguation such as
Gone with the Wind (film),
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film) etc. It doesn't mention subtitles at all. As I indicated above, reliable sources call the movie "Phineas and Ferb The Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension" or "Phineas and Ferb: Across the 2nd Dimension". Although "Across the 2nd Dimension" appears to be a subtitle, it's clearly recognised as being part of the title, so we should using one of the versions that reliable sources use, not an abbreviated version. There's plenty of precedent for this. For example, using your argument the Star Wars movies could exist at
Star Wars I,
Star Wars II,
Star Wars III,
Star Wars IV,
Star Wars V and
Star Wars VI but each article uses the full title, subtitle included. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)reply
At the risk of
beating a dead horse, please keep in mind that even though
other stuff exists, the Star Wars films are not a good example. There is more than one Star Wars film, therefore regardless of the roman numerals, the subtitles are necessary. There is only one film titled Phineas and Ferb The Movie, and the article without the subtitle follows the criteria at
WP:PRECISE and
WP:SUBTITLES, so in this case the subtitle is just not needed for disambiguation.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Why are the subtitles needed for the Star Wars films? Your own argument above is "If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation", which you claim applies to subtitles. While there may be more than one Star Wars film there is only one
Star Wars I,
Star Wars II,
Star Wars III etc so disambiguation by subtitles is not required. Yet, we do exactly that, because the section of NCF that you've argued as justification for the article's present location doesn't apply to subtitles. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:14, 25 October 2013 (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.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Phineas and Ferb the Movie →
Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension – Honestly, I do not know what kind of idiot who would move Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension, to Phineas and Ferb the Movie. Through all of the sources around, including Disney Channel, that is not the full title of the TV movie. I would just like to request for someone to revert a stupid move that someone did, and bring it back to the way it was before, because obviously it was the fine the way it is, and someone tried to ruin it for all of us, and that's just so disappointing. --Relisted.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC) BlurredLines01:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - Amazon appears to add even more confusion to this by omitting "the movie" and just calling it "Phineas & Ferb: Across the 2nd Dimension"
[1]. As a side note to this, I think the nominator @
Steel1943: should seriously look at his/her use of wording in the nomination. Terms like "idiot" and "stupid" are basically a violation of
WP:NPA and it should be possible to present an argument without resorting to them. —
Amakuru (
talk)
13:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oo, I'm sorry about that, Steel1943, and for tarnishing your good name. I just read the first name after the nomination without looking closely enough. I've struck it out above. —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Poor lead section
The lead section needs a complete rewrite. It immediately gets bogged down in dry statistics and tells the reader nothing about the subject of the article. —
QuicksilverT@17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)reply