Talk:List of Disney Channel original films

The Disney Channel had original movies long before "DCOM"—Tiger Town (1983) comes to mind. tregoweth 18:00, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

More Future Movies

Ok, who's the loser who removed all the movies from the 2008 slot? there have been previews of such movies on the Happy U Year. Just stop removing movies unless they are completely rediculous, or really uncomfirmed.(O, yah, they are comfirmed on IMBD, too.)--24.63.18.184 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's So Raven:The Movie

No one knows if this movie is going to be a theatrical or DCOM release. DON'T put it on there. (Just like The Lizzie McGuire Movie) Tcatron565

There's a Movie for That's So Raven? My sister's gonna freak now. o_o 64.12.116.7 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Future movies

Can someone please point me to where you guys/girls are getting the information about future movies? I have heard absolutly no word on a sequal to High School Musical, or Cow Bells (Which hasn't even aired yet!). Wikipedia is Not a crystal ball, and we should only place the information on here if a credibal source reports on it. If no proof is posted in 24 hours, I'm removing all the future movies that no status is known on. --lightdarkness 03:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the source linked to on the main article, regarding High School Musical. The producer states that the series is intended to be a 3 part, and the second has been written, but no where does it say "Disney has picked up the second and thrid movies". I'm sorry, but we should simply not list them until official word is given that Disney is going to be making them, and that they will be DCOM's, and not other releases (May it be theatrical, or on another Disney station (ABC)). --lightdarkness 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Tcatron565 3:38 CST 2/02/06

Done, please do not add it back in unless there is an OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE from Disney. --lightdarkness 20:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

When you first see the commercial, put the release date (even if it only says the month) on here. If it's already there don't bother. Tcatron565

I have seen that people are putting on movies after Coe Belles. Do Not do this. When Cow Belles has premiered, you may put on the next movie and only the next movie. NOT any others.

Actually, Everyone already knows about Read It and Weep and Cheetah Girls 2. They even have a Disney 365 on it.

How do you people know about the "Jump" Movie and the "Double Dutch"?

If it is not listed on IMDB, you cannot put it on Wiki. It must be verified. This is not my personal ruling as I am following verdicts that exist throughout wiki. There was a movie I thought was cool, but it got removed because it was listed as cancelled on IMDB. Wiki is not a crystal ball. User:Lord Hawk 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Okay I want to know why Twitches Too isn't on the 2007 DCOM list because it is defintally coming out this October and also Cheeta Girls 3 is coming out in 2008...

Life Size

Does anyone know if Life Size is a DCOM? Tcatron565 4:36pm c 2/07/06

Life size is not a DCOM.

Judging by IMDB, I'm gonna say no. It was obviously made by Disney, but it wasn't a DCOM. --lightdarkness 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Life Size is not a DCOM, because the disneychannel list says Life is Ruff, then the next one is The Luck of the Irish.

I know it's not a DCOM, but the site is missing a few movies. They take it off when the movie isn't doing very well if views. Tcatron565 16:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fake Movies

I just removed a comment about a Halloweentown 4, and added a comment not to add movies that haven't been annouced. I found no indication on anywebsite that Halloweentown 4 is to be made, and why on earth would they make a fourth one anyways :D Please keep an eye out for fake movies, and remove them as such. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

High School Musical 2

I've temporarliy removed High School Musical 2. the president of Disney Channel Worldwide has stated that it won't be ready til 2008, and I don't think we should list it until we get a confirmed date. That January 17th 2007 date was just a rumor started by fans, no truth to that information. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone get rid of High School Musical 3.

Also, TV.com said "Cadet Kelly 2" is coming out, but IMDb doesn't have a profile yet.

Someone put on the article that High School Musical 2 is going to be apart of Disney Channel's So Hot Summer 2007. If it's comming out in 2008, why is it listed? I know, a dumb question, but still, I'm not going to edit, for one, Wiki scares me. o_o; 172.162.231.10 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • High School Musical 2 is defintaly coming out in 2007, and Haunted High School Musical or High School Musical 3 is going to theaters in 2008...

Future Movies

There has been several editors and non's adding future movies, and removing them. We need to come up with a solid convention to follow here. Do we list them or not? I think Tcatron565 said it the best, only putting movies on the list when they have been advertised on Disney Channel. Even though we know many of these movies are being produced, we shouldn't list them on this page until their release is nearer. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? yes i do and i think u guys have to make the movie quicker bc i cant wait that long for it to come out --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think future movies should be ut on when the exact release date is comfirmed. Ndrwatthedisco 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

Nearly all the DCOM articles have an inappropriate tone. Has anybody noticed that? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time

I've removed Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time becuase it isn't a DCOM. If it was, it would've been considered Disney Channel's first Original Animated Movie. Kim Possible: So the Drama is Disney Channel's first Original Animated Movie. Therefore, Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time isn't a DCOM. It was just made by Disney. -Rosepuff12 23:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

I have removed the 2008 entries, and commented out everything from Q4 2006 to 2007. They can probably come back once all of the following are confirmed for each:

• Title is certain (no works-in-progress, working titles, etc.)
• Production is known to be complete (IMDB might give a hint)
• Premier airdate has been confirmed (including the day in the month)

If any of these isn't known, what we have is mere speculation. 81.104.165.184 09:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove the future dates cause someone added them again.Please don't add future dates cause Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.--Cute 1 4 u 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Because some of the anons don't get the picture, that we are not to add future, unconfirmed movies (which is against wikipedia policy), I've semi-protected the page. This has gone on long enough. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Fat Liar

Big Fat Liar is NOT a DCOM. It is just a movie produced about 2 years ago, and premiers on Disney Channel. Do not put Big Fat Liar there.

P.U.N.K.S

Where do you come up with this stuff?--haha169 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the supplement to the book "Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia.", which everybody can download from the official site, it states that P.U.N.K.S. is a DCOM. This document is updated monthly. As long as I see, the information related to P.U.N.K.S. has not been amended or removed since it was added. If anyone thinks that P.U.N.K.S. is not a DCOM or the inaccuracy of the supplement, shouldn't he/she report the errors to the author of the supplement via email first? Isn't all the information in Wikipedia based on the official documents?

Citations

I don't know if this is just me or not, but whenever i click on the cittions for the future movies, nothing happens. Wwhat should we do about this? --Jak 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should close this article again to anonymous or newly reigistered users because they are the ones adding these speculative movies against the wishes of the majority and continue to do so when they are reverted. User:Lord Hawk 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cheetah Girls 3 and Twicthes 2

WHY ARE THEY BEING REMOVED?? THERE IS LINK PROOF!!!!!!! Jtervin 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Those sites are not counted as being authentic, in that they are not based on decisions by the Disney Channel producers and do not state that either is in production. User:Lord Hawk 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok fine The Cheetah Girls 3 not bein true I get that but Twitches 2 is a direct statement from TIA MOWRY HERSELF!!! WHY THE FUCK IS IT STILL GETTING DELETED?? WHAT IS SHE...LIEING??? HELL NO Jtervin 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm yourself. You do not convince others by typing in caps like some panicky fan. You were told why they were removed. Tia is not an authority on production, Disney is. Disney has stated nothing to the effect that this supposed movie will ever exist. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok So I am just asking WHY DO U THINK TIA IS WHAT...LIEING TO THE PERSON? I MEAN SHE IS AN ADULT AND THAT WOULD BE VERY DUMB. YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH...AAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!! Jtervin 18:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If I am correct, there has been a commercial on Disney Channel for Twitches 2, but it was about a month ago, and it might have been for the Twitches DVD instead, I will do some research, and notify you if I find some info. Tsears

The only commercial I've seen was for the DVDs there hasn't been any info on either series. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sorry, I saw it again, and it was indeed for Twitches DVD, but keep an eye out for The Cheetah Girls 3, that one might be true. Tsears

Friends For Life

The Friends for life is great. It shows how friends are important to people. The director of Friends for life is "Kenny Ortega" also known as the director of high school musical and cheetah girls.

Cast

Zac Efron as Jem

Miley Cyrus as Mae

Ricky Ulman as Karlo

Raven Symone as Joy

Vanessa Anne Hudgens as Arra

And Ashley Tisdale as Analee

Songs

Friends for life

Sometimes

Bailing isn't good

Circle of life

When you mean it

Good years

For my friends

What is going on here?

Enemies

Hilary Duff as Michaela

Brenda Song as Ainaa

Christy Carlson Romano as Jeanna

Alyson Michalka as Aby

What is this??? WAVY 10 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's some random person thinking they can list all of Disney Channel's stars and give them character's with uncommon names, list unimaginable song titles, and throws on a successful director, thinking we'll all buy it. Which of course, we won't. Snoborder93 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

High School Musical or The Cheetah Girls 2

Which is the most succesful DCOM ever? I don't know so could someone help me out with this one?72.94.46.117 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

--- The Cheetah Girls 2 was the most successful (7.8 million viewers)

High School Musical (7.7 million viewers)

Hope that helps you! = )

Sblngpedia11 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I knew that! (Thank you by the way). What I was talking about was which is now and soon to be the most succesful DCOM. Especially when it comes to Soundtrack album sales, DVD sales, Award nominations/wins and such.

And Don't Forget About "The Little Vampire" Which Also Is A Great Movie! Fun For Kids Teen Adults And Seniors Of All Ages!!!!!

• List of the highest viewed DCOMs. There is a list, can someone please edit these into the list? -24.92.43.153 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Movie After "Jump In?

What is the next DCOM? shouldnt we know by now? there should be one in March or April now!

To whoever forgot to sign, if they don't know, it's Johnny Kapahala: Back on Board. WAVY 10 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Same ending

many DCOM have the same plot/ending. Mostly sports movies, a character loves a sport, but begins to like something else. Then, the character has to choose which contest/competition to go to because both are on the same day. examples are: GO Figure, High School Musical, Jump In!, Eddie's Million Dollar Cookoff

Highest Rated Disney Channel Original Movies

Is it just me or is this section not really necessary? I have noticed that more people watch the next movie than the previous one (on the average). This would just mean that more people watch Disney Channel than before. Lord Hawk 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I took the last 3 off the list. No one has a list of the "top 8" most are either top 5 or top 10. Top 5 seems to be a good one. Anyone object to this? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since there seems to have been an edit war spanning several days, without much (if anything) in the way of discussion on this talk page, I've protected this page from editing. Everybody, please remember to use talk pages, that's why we have them! ;) If you're not familiar, already, you may wish to refresh yourself as to our dispute resolution options. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been using talk pages just not this one. (See mine, Lord Hawk and Laugh90). The editor seems to ignore the fact his sources are not official but merely fansites. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Verifiability

Wikipedia:Verifiability. Maybe this can help to clear some things up for both sides of this dispute. Lord Hawk 12:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheetah Girls 3

I think you should only be allowed to add a movie if it has an approved wiki article. (Like Cheetah Girls 3...which keeps getting deleted...and is on IMDB)! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anikuli (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Asterick after movie titles

What does this mean? The general use for an asterick after something means that you go to the bottom and it lists some type of information that makes something different from the rest of the list. There is no such thing in this article. 208.242.14.102 20:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at the top of the article "Most hit films are subsequently released on home video or DVD ( indicated with * )." --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Movie Titles Released On Video

There were subsequently other home video titles released that weren't given astericks. I have proof that these were released because all these titles exist on amazon.com for video releases.

• Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century (released on VHS)
• Can of Worms (released on Walt Disney DVD)
• The Thirteenth Year (released on VHS in 1999)
• Smart House (released on DVD)
• Johnny Tsunami (released on VHS)
• Double Teamed (released on VHS)
• The Color of Friendship (released on VHS)
• Zenon: The Zequel (released on VHS)
• Motocrossed (released on VHS)
• The Luck of the Irish (released on VHS)
• Hounded (released on home video)
• Jett Jackson: The Movie (released on home video in 2001)
• Tru Confessions (released on DVD)

--Allenk893 Userpage 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar Plotlines

Ever notice that nearly all Disney Channel movies have the SAME basic plot? They're all about some kid doing what he/she is not normally used to doing. For example, in Jonny Tsunami, a surfer snowboards. 12va34 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dadnapped

There is a source for the show, along with Cheeath Girls 3, and Twitches Too! DO NOT DELETE THEM...THANKS!

Sources for the top rated films?

Does anyone have any sources for the Top-rated DCOMs? Someone could have made those numbers up! We need proof. Snoborder93 05:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

2008

The films for 2008 should not be posted. I already deleted the High School Musical 3 from it because that film has not yet started production and will be in theaters. And while there is soucres that say those three films exsist, there is no evidence of what month they will premiere in and with Twitches Too already under speculation of whether it should be under 2007 or not, I do not think we should go as far as listing 2008 films. Snoborder93 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ppl think update now hsm3 is happening its starts filming in late april next month —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.166.41 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF? 2008-2009

The movies listed there are just random rumors or made-up! Although some of them have been confirmed, they should not be listed there! It isn't even 2008 and people are posting movies due out in 2009? I repeat, WTF!!Snoborder93 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they've been getting deleted. Then re-added and deleted and re-added... *sigh* The articles for them are in the process of being deleted. I've also asked for the protection level on the page to be increased. We'll see how all that goes. -Ebyabe 12:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good because it seems that all the Disney Channel articles get bombarded with fake information.Snoborder93 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And even if they're scheduled to be made, things could happen that would delay or cancel the project. Plus it's not unknown for movies to get made, and then not be released for years afterward. So all these future movies are iffy at best. Hence, WP:CRYSTAL. At least we won't have to worry about this after 2012. :) -Ebyabe 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, again. People. Seriously stop adding the 2008-2009 films. Even though there are sources that appear to be released by Disney to verify that these films are in production, they should not be added until a cast, storyline, and release date are made availible.Snoborder93 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Suite Life Of Zack & Cody The Movie

There Is Going To Be [[A Disney Channel Original Movie called The Suite Life Of Zack & Cody in 2008 Summer followed by That's So Raven The Movie.I Work At The Disney Company So I Know This.So Somebody please write it down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.17.129 (talk • contribs) 11:57, July 18, 2007.

Please see discussion above as to why this is inadvisable. -Ebyabe 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's summer and there is no SL movie or TS Raven movie. What do you do for disney anyway?

Format and layout of this page

Apparently, a few Wikipedians are trying to change the layout of this page from list to tables lately. However, this page is inappropriate to be presented in table form per Wikipedia:When to use tables. As this page is a dynamic list, the length of this page increases indefinitely, which contradicts that long list is not recommended to be presented in table form. In addition, the table contains many meaningless cells (under the column "Part of Series", up to 70% of the cells are "N/A", and under the column "DVD Release", all the cells are "N/A"!?), this would certainly lead to confusion in reading and hardship in maintenance. Personally, I don't think the table form is a nicer format for this page. Objectively, it is inappropriate to present this page in tables. So could the Wikipedians I'm referring to (I'm not going to point out who I'm referring to in order to show my respect to them) please stop changing or restoring this page to table form? 203.218.78.75 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the link Wikipedia:When to use tables states that it is not useful when the list is long, however this is 12 lists of multiple movies. so independently, isnt breaking any rules. and i removed a few collums as well. and the list form is random, very random and unorganized. Ndrwatthedisco 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I'm referring to the length of this page, I'm saying the bytes of the page (sorry if I'm not clear). Table form sure needs extra bytes in formatting, which may lead to the unability of edits for some browsers when the length of the article exceeds a certain length. That's what I'm referring as "the length of this page increases indefinitely... hardship in maintenance". Moreover, if the table is only used to present the movie title and original release date. Would it be too simple for a piece of information to be presented in table form? Please note that simple list is also not suggested to use tables to present. As the unorganization you've mentioned, clearly the movie title are in chronological order and each line is presented in the following order: the title, the original release date, an appendix to state whether the movie is part of a collection (if available), and an asterisk to indicate if the movie is released in DVD. In my point of view, there's nothing unorganized exist. And other Wikipedians are willing to follow this habit. I know you have the passion to make contribution in Wikipedia and I aprreiciate it very much, but what we are talking now is not some edits, it is the whole change in layout. If you have any disagreement in the layout of this page, would it be nicer to bring it to this discussion page first, rather than making the changes by yourself? I'm going to revert this article to the list form (in which the asterisk only means the release of DVD, coherent with the use of asterisks in other parts of this article). If you still think that table form is much more suitable. Would you please put it on this discussion page first (that is why a discussion page exist) and let other Wikipedians to state their point of view? Thank you very much. 218.103.154.220 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

i guess your way is more correct, becuase i was doing the charts just for aesthetics. Ndrwatthedisco 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What about making each section into a sortable list, instead of separate tables for each year, like List of Chicago Landmarks? Which is, btw, a featured list. Just a suggestion... -Ebyabe 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Cheetah Girls 3

• Why is it being removed all the time? There is clearly 3 sources for the movie so it does not need to be removed again. Jtervin 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single reliable source for it. Youtube, IMDB and laughingplace aren't reliable sources --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• How are they not reliable sources? You make no sense. If their not reliable sources, neither are the others.LAUGH90 00:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB and YouTube are never reliable sources. Laughingplace is not a reliable source either. Just ask Tommy2.net is not a relaible source. Newspapers, Official Disney owned websites, press releases can be considered reliable sources not fan run webpages. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the other need to be removed, becuase they aren't reliable sources. And the YouTube is a video of Adrienne Bailon (STAR OF THE MOVIE) giving an interview on it. IMDB has a page for TCG 3 and how is it not realiable? That was a big reason the page was kept open was becuase it has many relaible sorces backing it up. 67.149.159.116 03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Looked at the page and saw that there was a cite from Tiger Beat. Wonder if that helps. WAVY 10 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection request

Just added this page to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to these wild edits. WAVY 10 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is there anyway we can increase those protection requests. The general agreement on this discussion board is that we are not adding any DCOS beyond 2007 as of now, even if they have sources! Yet some people keep adding them. We need to at least have a specific premiere month for it to be put up... Snoborder93 05:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The New Layout is Disgusting!

It appears unorganized and I think it should be changed back. Snoborder93 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the layout is all that bad. The placement of the TOC on the right is nice, otherwise, it just makes it so you have to scroll a whole lot more. But I do think the title should remain what it was previously. When things have proper names, they should be used. If there is no proper name, then this kind of title would be useful. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 23:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Disney Channel Original Movie" is just a brand name for Disney Channel made-for-TV movies; there's no reason to treat this page differently than the other lists of TV movies by channel. —tregoweth (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally hate the changes made. Ive been an advocate of the separation of DCOM articles for awhile now, and personally I think it should be reverted to its' previous state. SofaKing381222 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

First of all, Bob the Butler was not produced for Disney Channel. It was intended for a big screen release but didn't make the cut. Leroy & Stitch was intended for a direct-to-video sequel but Disney Channel aired it first. These movies were not specifically produces for Disney Channel, but are considered Disney Channel movies. This article does not match its title. The title should be changed to "List of Disney Channel Movies" or something to that effect, and organized like it was before: by brand, and then by year.Snoborder93 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am vastly mistaken (and it's possible, because I haven't been a regular Disney Channel watcher for a long time), the name "Disney Channel Original Movie" just means that the movie is intended to appeal to teens/tweens, and gets promoted a lot. "Movies made for Disney Channel" is a small enough group that dividing it into even smaller groups serves no purpose

Also, about the "massive changes": all I did was re-group the titles, integrate the "non-DCOM" titles, and remove some stuff that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article, like iTunes availability. I think "disgusting" is a bit much. —tregoweth (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is much better as it is now. It is divided by the 3 types of DCOMS and sperated by year instead of every 10 years. Not all of these movies were produced specifically for Disney Channel. You're obviously outnumbered here and using your admin powers to protect a page you have been involved in an edit war over is abuse. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The new design looks like puke!

the original was better Tregoweth, the new design you made sucks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yankeesrj12 (talk • contribs) 04:39, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I agree the other way was much better. 84.64.39.222 11:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Return to Halloweentown: 7.8?

I am pretty sure this incorrect. I've found many sources that say HSM2, Cheetah Girls 2, and Jump In! are the only movies to outnumber High School Musical and that Return to Halloweentown only got into like the 6 millions. I will try and locate these sources but I decided to post this first so it can be up for discussion. Snoborder93 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This one says 7.53 and the main page for Return to Halloweentown states that it had 7.6 million, although no source is there to verify it. Snoborder93 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This says 7.8 --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay so it's conflicting reports. Neither one is more reliable than the other. The source that claims 7.8 million is the only one I could find online that Return to Halloweentown surpassed High School Musical. Earlier versions of this page report 7.6 and the August 27 issue of People Magazine reports that HSM is the 4th most watched DCOM premiere, while HSM2 is the 1st. Snoborder93 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it until we figure out which source is correct. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 06:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the article that cites the ratings for the others up there does not cover the most-viewed DCOMs, just the records of the ones in that time period. If you notice, they aren't "the top most-watched", they're all the ones from January 2006 - January 2007. Snoborder93 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This also states 7.53, which is not 7.6 but still lower than HSM. This as well says 7.53. As does this. So since I have found several articles that agree that the ratings for the premiere of Return to Halloweentown is 7.53 million, I think it's only fair to say that the source stating it had 7.8 million is incorrect (although it is correct on the others). So unless someone opposes it, I think we should list it as the fifth most watched. Snoborder93 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. When you list it, it would be good to include at least 2 of your sources this way it has enough verification to back up the claim. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will. Snoborder93 04:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Title of article

I think the original name of this article: List of Disney Channel Original Movies is much more fitting a title than the current title List of television films produced for Disney Channel. Does anyone else agree? If anyone agrees or disagrees add a comment and we can work it out. Thank You. 53180 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)53180.

I agree. Some of the movies listed there, like Leroy & Stitch were not produced for Disney Channel specifically, but premiered on it before they landed on DVD. Bob the Butler also fits this category.Snoborder93 00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, simply because most people know them by this name. When a proper name is available, I think it should be used. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Not all of the movies on here were specifically made to be on Disney Channel, but for some reason or another, they ended up premiering on Disney Channel. If we reach a consensus to move it back to the old name I'll ask an admin to move it back for us. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the should either be moved back to the original title or a completely new title that justifies all of the articles content, however I am leaning towards wanting the page moved back to the original title because it seemed to work very well. Thank You. 53180 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)53180.

Well nobody has really opposed it. Snoborder93 01:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for Alison asking her to kindly move it back to the original title. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Page moved

I've moved the page back to where it was, per the discussion above. What is going on here? This page has gone though a number of recent moves and I note that the links-to are a nightmare of redirects and ambiguity. Either way, having put the page back and fixed some stuff, I've also decided to move-protect the page to prevent further disruption. Folks - please can we figure out what's going on here. I'm seeing consensus re. the current name but obviously some people are not happy here - Alison ☺ 18:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed move-prot as it's probably not appropriate at this time - Alison ☺ 18:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I belive that only one person was not happy with this title and that person was the person who moved it in the first place. Thank You. 53180 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)53180.

Cadet Kelly's viewership

Cadet Kelly has been added as the #5 most watched DCOM with 7.7 million viewers (which actually ties it with High School Musical). But there are no sources confirming this. I myself read that it was 7.7 a couple weeks ago on an internet message board, and tried to find articles online to verify it. I did the same after the movie was added to the list and found nothing both times. So somebody should come up with a source or it will be removed. Snoborder93 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tied w/HSM...looks questionable (at best). WAVY 10 00:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we should give it... 3 days for a source to show up? I think that's fair. If there is no source by then, we will remove it. Agreed? Snoborder93 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I posted a link that says that Cadet Kelly 7.8 million total on it's premiere night. Which means it did better than HSM's premiere night. This is backed up by other articles as well.72.94.46.148 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct. HSM was like a record breaking one so I doubt it beat it since it wasn't that popular of a movie. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the source provided to questionable. Doesn't look to be too reliable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anbody know the Twitches Too ratings?

I cannot find them anywhere and they most likely beat out the original film, making it possible they could be on the top 5Snoborder93 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Motocrossed is NOT L.G.B.T.!!!

She did not really become a boy, she pretended to be a boy. just because she cut her hair, and dressed like a boy, that does NOT make her transgender! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.221.166 (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

iTunes Availability?

Itunes availability?!?! that seems sort of random to me. if we have that then why dont we have a Walmart availability or Bestbuy availability, etc. It seems like its only function is boosting sales at the itunes store and therefore it has no place on wikipedia.71.174.200.210 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2009?

Does anything here pass the WP:CRYSTAL sniff test?

Princess Protection Program (2009)[3]

Hatching Pete (2009)[4]

High School Musical 4 (2009)[5]

I'm particulary curious about HSM4, since there will be a big-screen version with the graduation of the original cast? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Preferably, I'd like to wait until a movie comes out to add it to the list since even though a movie may be scheduled for release and have a source, it might be cancelled at the last minute and therefore leaving wikipedia with misinformation. I think a planned section may be necessary, but only if sources are provided. Grk1011 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the movies are indeed cancled, we could simply go about removing them from the list, however, as they were announced as such, they are currently considered Disney Channel Original Movies. If they weren't announced to be such, I would agree with their removal, but even if they're in production or unreleased, they are literally still Disney Channel Original Movies. A "Planned" or "Upcoming" section would be sufficient as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.182.32 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Only add them once a month is known. Once that is known, we know that it will for sure be released in that year. But until then, the date could be changed. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The planned section works for me only if the movies are sourced; if not, they go.Grk1011 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I'd say that any movie that is not released yet should be under planned. Grk1011 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They shouldnt be there at all. Without an exact month for all we know the project could be cancelled. Don't put planned. Is it that hard to wait until a couple months? --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

that was originally my plan, I'm sure most of us could wait, it doesnt bother me, but the anon users come out of nowhere and add the movies. The planned section was our way of having them without crystal balling because planned doesnt mean that it will be finished. Grk1011 (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Planned" section is well warranted due to the fact that they currently are considered to be Disney Channel Original Movies, whilst they may not be in the future, they may rather be removed as of that point. For now, however, they are indeed planned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.37.3 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can still wait. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait until when? WP: Crystal Ball is no longer even a problem, as we've removed any correlation the projects have to dates. Currently, there is absolutely no problem with having a "Planned" section, I do not see why you are so set on not including specifically planned items, they are Disney Channel Original Movies, they were defined as such at Disney Channel's 2008 Upfront, and across other media; since this is the article for Disney Channel Original Movies they should be added, shouldn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.37.3 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know they have all been announced, but HSM 3 hasnt even been released yet and we already want to put HSM 4? To me that makes little sense. I mean it cant be that hard to just wait until a month is released. If we let this go, then we have to let almost anything go. Plus these planned movies can always be cancelled. One example was a movie last year (I cant remember the title, but it was announced at the same time as Dadnapped last year) it was planned, and after that nothing was ever mentioned again --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Which would then warrant its removal from the planned section. We can't keep protecting and reverting the page forever. We need to realize that whatever we do, people are going to add these movies to the page no matter what. We need to think of the best way to incorporate them into the article. So far, the planned section is our best idea. Grk1011 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Would announced make more sense then planned? --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much the same thing. I'd say keep with "planned". Grk1011 (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This just opens a can of crystal worms, or trades one can for another, imho. Announced or planned a year or more in the future is still the future. A meteor could strike Disney, or they could decide to completely change their schedule and not make any of the movies they've announced. I still think waiting until a movie is at least in production should be the condition for addition to the list. We'll see how it goes, I guess. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I leave for a few months an a war breaks out here. So I gotta throw my 2cents in. For the movie to be listed here, it should either have already begun airing commercials for it on DC, or be accompanied by a Reliable Source that confirms the movie with an airdate. Otherwise it is WP:CRYSTAL. I have no problem with having upcoming movies on here as long as they have been proven by either commercials on DC announcing them, or a reliable source confirming their air date. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Available as digital download

Can someone provide more information for the "Available as digital download" section? Such as where you can download them from? For An Angel (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly itunes, but most sites where you can buy movies as well. It does not say in the article because that would be borderline advertising. Grk1011 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems pointless to have that section without linking to where you can download them. I'm not saying we should do that, but what is the point of having that section the way it is? It doesn't really provide any useful information. At the very least it should have references. For An Angel (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

I have found a few redlinks. Why did someone make so many links to pages that aren't made yet? I just don't have the time to make does pages.Chimchar monferno (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Planned and Confirmed Section

OK. I already put it but can we just put movies that premiered on 2008 section, movies that has confirmed airdate(day, month, year) on confirmed section, and movies that is confirmed or in production but no confirmed airdate on planned section.Who agrees with me???By the way, if you have a better name for planned or confirmed section please write it here Gary0203 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Grk1011 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Camp Rock, 9 million for premiere

• Camp Rock received 9 million viewers, so I just thought I'd put that there. The other websites also say 9 million viewers.LAUGH90 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE LAST TIME: That source is false!

The source that claims Return to Halloweentown had 7.8 million viewers is false. Look at the discussion below. It actually had 7.5 million.

I am pretty sure this incorrect. I've found many sources that say HSM2, Cheetah Girls 2, and Jump In! are the only movies to outnumber High School Musical and that Return to Halloweentown only got into like the 6 millions. I will try and locate these sources but I decided to post this first so it can be up for discussion. Snoborder93 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This one says 7.53 and the main page for Return to Halloweentown states that it had 7.6 million, although no source is there to verify it. Snoborder93 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This says 7.8 --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay so it's conflicting reports. Neither one is more reliable than the other. The source that claims 7.8 million is the only one I could find online that Return to Halloweentown surpassed High School Musical. Earlier versions of this page report 7.6 and the August 27 issue of People Magazine reports that HSM is the 4th most watched DCOM premiere, while HSM2 is the 1st. Snoborder93 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it until we figure out which source is correct. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 06:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the article that cites the ratings for the others up there does not cover the most-viewed DCOMs, just the records of the ones in that time period. If you notice, they aren't "the top most-watched", they're all the ones from January 2006 - January 2007. Snoborder93 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This also states 7.53, which is not 7.6 but still lower than HSM. This as well says 7.53. As does this. So since I have found several articles that agree that the ratings for the premiere of Return to Halloweentown is 7.53 million, I think it's only fair to say that the source stating it had 7.8 million is incorrect (although it is correct on the others). So unless someone opposes it, I think we should list it as the fifth most watched. Snoborder93 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. When you list it, it would be good to include at least 2 of your sources this way it has enough verification to back up the claim. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will. Snoborder93 04:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

24.23.218.106 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)