Talk:Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension

Animation: American / Films Low‑importance

	Animation portal 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 edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American / Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Animation portal This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Release date source

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 ^. _contribs 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little late, but it was told at Comic-Con that it would release on August 17 2011. Don't touch the sides! Butterfingers! (talk) 20:04, 23 September 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]

The release date is now August 5th, 2011. Is this true? And where is the source? 99.191.112.209 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek Forever After? Really?

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

Ella +Phineas

Is it really true that Ella finally tells Phineas how much she likes him? 09MurphyM (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wiki??

M Sorry, but why is source #4 from a fan wiki???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.36.40 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The users of this particular wiki have frequent contact with the producers of the show, so... Just my two cents. -Happy5214 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

MOVED BACK

The article's name has been reverted back to the way it was by BDD. Blurred Lines 16:18, 21 November 2013 (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 pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]

I added a redirect at Across the 2nd Dimension. I think there is reasonable case for moving the article there per WP:COMMONNAME if that is how the movie is most commonly known. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 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]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) says "If a film does not share its title with any other topic on Wikipedia, name the article after the film's title". If the film has been released under the title "Phineas and Ferb: Across the 2nd Dimension" and is referred to by reliable sources that way, that's the title we should be using. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:49, 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.

Bare Url

Why are articles here used as refrence are mostly bare url.I think these should be removed.--Muneeb Reply me on my talk page See my contributions 14:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) Blurred Lines 01:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see discussion about this issue at #Name in section above. This requested move is contentious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move The film is rarely, if ever, referred to as just Phineas and Ferb the Movie. Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension is both the official and common name of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDDJS (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Support The film's common name includes the subtitle. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:35, 11 November 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]

@Amakuru:, for your information, I am not the nominator: I am the relister. The nominator is Blurred Lines. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 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. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]