Talk:Disney Channel Games

message: I would appreciate it if someone would clarify this:
Several animated characters are also seen in the audience of the games. They include Nancy Cartwright and Grey DeLisle (Todd and Riley), Dante Basco (Jake Long), John DiMaggio (Fu Dog and Dr. Drakken), Christy Carlson Romano (Kim Possible) and cheerleaders, and J.P. Manoux (Kuzco), among several others.
I realize that by special effects, Disney Channel could have animated characters appear to be in the stands watching the games. However, what this article is saying is that the animated characters seen in the audience were Nancy Cartwright, Grey DeLisle, John Basco, John DiMaggio, Christy Carlson Romano, and J.P. Manoux, who are real people, not animated characters. If it was the animated characters who were seen in the stands, the article should say something like "Several animated characters are also seen in the audience of the games. They include Todd and Riley from The Replacements, Jake Long from American Dragon, ...." Etc. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally  - Purplewowies (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, somebody changed this again to make it incorrect in the opposite way. I have no idea whether they showed real life voice actors in the audience, or used special effects to make it appear that animated characters were in the audience, because I didn't watch the program. However, the article currently says: "Several voice actors of animated characters are also seen in the audience of the games. They include Todd and Riley from The Replacements, Jake Long and Fu Dog from American Dragon: Jake Long, Dr. Drakken and Kim Possible from Kim Possible, and Kuzco from The Emperor's New School, among several others." That doesn't make sense, because Todd, Riley, Jake Long, Fu Dog, Dr. Drakken, Kim Possible, and Kuzco are not voice actors. They are animated characters. If they had real life voice actors in the audience, then the real life voice actors should be listed. If they had animated characters appear to be in the audience by special effects, then the animated characters should be listed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the passage now. If someone wants to add the correct information, they can do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated characters in the audience 

message: The article currently says:
It is assumed that the D.C. Games will not return until at least 2013 because most of the players will likely be filming and working on different projects for the next few years. (e.g. Camp Rock 3, etc.)
Who is making this assumption? There is nothing to stop Disney Channel from holding the games in 2011 or 2012 by having teams with mostly new players and/or returning players whose schedules are less busy. I don't actually know much about the D.C. Games or whether they will be held again, but if Disney Channel wanted to hold them before 2013, they would. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose assumption? 

message: I would go ahead and suggest a merge (or even boldly do one without discussion), but I don't have much time on my hands to figure out logistics (where, the rationale, template placing, etc.) today. It just seems that a split was boldly done without any discussion, resulting in three unreferenced, rather low-quality articles, and leaving this "hub" article almost stublike. Was a split discussed? - Purplewowies (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...Who thought a split was a good idea? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Disney Channel Games. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218220833/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com:80/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/02/disney-channel-no-disney-channel-games-this-year.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/02/disney-channel-no-disney-channel-games-this-year.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Rather than deleting this "hub" article, I propose a merger of the 2006, 2007, and 2008 event articles into this and delete those three. Best, haha169 (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed those... Nonetheless, I'd argue that there's nothing to "merge". As I said in my PROD message, these are not notable either collectively or individually, as there is no mention in even the usual trade publications that mention everything. I suspect there's an article somewhere where these probably merit a mention. But they don't merit standalone articles... If this PROD succeeds, I'll PROD the individual "season" articles after that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Up to you then. If anything notable about these games pops up, I'm sure someone somewhere will put it up. Best, haha169 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  Comment What might be useful, however, is contacting a few of the more recent editors who might be willing to fix up the article. Like I said, I created this article back in 2006 and haven't really come back; I'm not familiar with the topic much. --haha169 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   The issue with that is that outside of IP editors, the only editor who seemed to contribute much to the article was User:TDFan2006 who was blocked for socking in July 2014. So it looks like there's no one else to contact, unfortunately... OK, let's see if  has any thoughts. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely remember sources at the time that would have cemented notability (but at a time when I wasn't really an editor here yet *cough*), which would make this fall under WP:NTEMP... presuming those sources could be proven to exist/be dredged up... I don't really have much time to devote to a cleanup/sourcing effort on my end (or I gladly would; I've done it in the past on a different article). Unfortunately, my only argument against deletion other than the unproven existence of possible sources is that I have a slight sentimental attachment to it... which isn't really a reason, of course. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow-up, without searching too hard or paying too much mind to whether or not the links in question were reliable (it's late here), these are the "best" sources (read: with the games as a focus as opposed to mentioned in relation to Miley's performance at them) I found from a basic Google News search between 2006 and 2008: New York Daily News, TV Envy, appears to be a reprint of an Orlando newspaper article that no longer exists, Buddy TV - Purplewowies (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NYDN article isn't bad, but I'm still of the opinion that this belongs as a (shortish) section of another article (perhaps Disney Channel?...) rather than as a standalone article. On its own, it just isn't notable enough IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text: What about this as a redirect source? --haha169 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   I thought about that last night, but you can't really put "text" into that article. I'm envisioning this as a short one-paragraph section in another article. And List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel just doesn't really lend itself to that... Pinging  to see if they might have any ideas... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text: That might need more discussion. The PROD on Friends for Change Games was removed. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   I view this discussion as covering both articles. If you wish to start a separate discussion on Disney's Friends for Change Games, feel free to do so at Talk:Disney's Friends for Change Games. But I tend to not put much stock in PROD's that are removed by IP editors – they're often one-time, drive-by editors and they pretty much never justify their edits. I certainly don't see an explanation why the Disney's Friends for Change Games PROD was removed, and I don't see it preventing boldly converting it into a redirect... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice it was an IP and thought they might be drive-by, which is why I said "might". I just tend to be overly cautious because I've jumped into redirections (and moves, and deletions, etc. etc.) too fast in the past, so I always have that worry in the back of my head that not paying attention to things like PROD removals will make Very Bad Things happen. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   FTR, my current thinking on the subject is to merge the salvageable content from Disney's Friends for Change Games to here and convert it to a redirect to this article, and then DEPROD this article and leave it in place – I think one single article covering all of these is probably good enough: doing that would yield 2–3 decent sources, which is probably just enough to confer notability to the topic. I'll probably look at doing that tomorrow or Jan. 16... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't sound like a bad idea. The Friends for a Change Games sounds just like Disney Channel Games; this could become an overview article for the Games series or something like that. --haha169 (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep – it's fairly clear that Disney's Friends for Change Games was pretty much a direct "sequel" to the original Disney Channel Games. So let's just give its own section here, and that should be good enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: Why did someone delete those pages? Another thing, Who Decided to delete those pages? I think it's better to keep them separate instead of merging them. Also, if you are gonna merge them, atleast create a List of Episodes page or post the results of all three games.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.151.52.81 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they contained a bunch of unencyclopedic WP:TRIVIA, and were effectively unsourced. If someone wants to add a brief episodes list to this article, they are welcome to. But what was in those separate articles before belongs at a Disney Channel Wikia, not on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: No – that is what a Wikia is for. We don't do that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be reasonable enough to include them if there was a breadth of reliable sources giving that information enough coverage... but there aren't so... this reply means nothing? :P - Purplewowies (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   WP:ONUS applies: even if info like this could be sourced, it would be inappropriate to do so in a "general interest" encyclopedia like this. It is unfortunate that many of the Wikipedia articles devoted to competition reality TV shows have devolved into reporting endless amounts of WP:TRIVIA about stuff like this – that is literally what Wikias are for, and something we at Wikipedia should not do... At least, I believe that's what some of us around here think...  --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I admit, it's a delicate line between due weight given to that sort of coverage and trivia. :)  - Purplewowies (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Wikia's often rife with vandalism and can be unreliable. We can't add all that stuff here because it's not due weight to the coverage that's survived of the games, and we can't use the YouTube copies of the games as a source because they're copyright violations (and they might not be considered reliable sources, either, since they're a primary source and not an independent secondary one). Wikias set their own rules so they're more free, rule-wise, and that's why fansites love to use them, but they might not be as accurate specifically because of that free-ness. Wikipedia wasn't designed to cover things like a fansite, it was designed to cover things like an encyclopedia. We can't thank you because we can't use the information you gave us. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Someone Delete the 2006, 2007, and 2008 sections?