Talk:Princess Protection Program

I wish to assure editors that Project Film accepts IMDB for WP:Verification of cast listings and does not them require them to be additionally sourced from other, non-IMDB sources. Controversial facts, yes... but cast listings? No. True, the project still currently falls under WP:NFF, but the film has finished filming, and is slated for release in a few short months. Cast as listed on IMDB are not going to vanish between now and then and the removed information do help a reader's understanding of the film and its scope. The removed informations should be returned as not contentious, and will doubtless have additional sources added as the article grows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

cast update per WP:V requirements

Certainly not all cast members and character names are WP:Verfied by every source available, as different sources updaste their informations at different times and for different reasons. As IMDB is acceptable for WP:V of cast, I only only added that cast and character name information that I could also confirm elsewhere. I ask that any removal of properly verified cast informations be discussed before being reverted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that you had sourced the information to a reference on film.com that did not contain any of the information you had sourced to that reference. Not one piece of it verified. You sourced actors to the site that the site didn't list and character names to the site that the site didn't list. Misrepresenting sources is a very serious problem. I will always revert any addition of information that falsely represents what the sources referenced to it contain.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturally. But you removed the other cite that did contain the informations. I'm sure it was an oversight and not intentional. It may have been easier to just revert than just remove the cite that only supported some of the information. As I find more, I'll keep you apprised. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I plain screwed up. Tracking your sources, I wound up validating your moviees.com sourced info against film.com instead of moviees.com. None of it validated, which makes sense, because I was looking at the wrong site.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I have decided to stop adding the Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie link to this page as it has not been accepted here as legit information. Please do not remove anymore information from the Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie. Thank you.98.232.58.47 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Starring Selena?

From the previews I've seen on Disney Channel, they keep saying starring Selena and then Demi. So I think Selena is actually the star of this movie. Should her name go first in the cast list? 98.232.58.47 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Just because Selena is ONE of the big main characters in this movie doesn't mean that her name should go first. Not that I don't like Selena! But, Demi is also in this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.94.247 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Personally I think Demi is the MAINMAIN character because the title refers to this protection program, and she's an actually princess, and Selena is just a girl who helps her adapt to her new lifestyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LalalandxDemi (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Yeahh , Demi seems to have the lead role rather than Selena.

I happen to think both of the wonderful actresses star in this movie equally and that nobody has the "main role". They share the main role equally. Noliandynamite (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think Demi and Selena in this film pretty much define co-leads.76.103.241.159 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Princess name

is it Rosalina or Rosalinda? the article has both names mentioned. Writergirlrocksit's Rosalinda. We should change that

its both  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.119.226 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 

PPP premieres in Germany on 29th of May!

I'm surprised! I just read (serious source) that PPP will aired on 29th of May on the german DC. It's weird because we can see Dadnapped on 21th May the first time and Hatching Pete isn't mentioned yet... --Shego123 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Release

Please DO NOT put the future film tag as this film has already been released. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo Alvarez

Consider maybe removing the link in his name; it leads to a page about an inmate from Oz. It isn't necessary to have a name attached to a link, especially if the link leads to a completely different subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.108.124 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

general Kane

or whatever, wears the russian double headed eagle on his baret for some reason. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They knew it back then. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Princess Protection Program

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Princess Protection Program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Plugged In":

• From Don't Forget: Asay, Paul; Smithouser, Bob. "Don't Forget". Plugged In. Focus on the Family. Retrieved April 29, 2011.
• From Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato album): Holz, Adam R. "Here We Go Again". Plugged In. Focus on the Family. Retrieved October 9, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Extension at the end of the film

This addition in the plot describes this extension, which is what I saw myself at the end of the film when I rented it on Amazon - shortly after it left Netflix. I don't have the DVD version of the film, but a link on YouTube gives me the impression that this extension is there, too (search "Princess Protection Program Royal BFF DVD Extended Ending" - avoiding links in case any are copyright violations). The extension I had never seen before when watching from either Disney Channel or Netflix (and I've watched the film countless times), though perhaps it was when originally aired on DC. At this time, I removed this addition to the plot, pending further discussion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh... Disney Channel just reaired that, but I did not pay full attention to the ending. In any case, I do not recall seeing the scene mentioned before. Is it a post-credits scene?... If this exists, it should be mentioned somewhere – if not under 'Plot', then under 'Production' or 'Broadcast' – as a "special add-on" that is not included in most(?) airings of the film... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: This airs right before the end credits are rolled, but after the scene where Rosie becomes queen of Costa Luna (which is normally where the rolling of the end credits begins when I've watched the film outside of Amazon). It begins with the heading "One year later", and shows both Rosie and Carter at the PPP headquarters with its director, ready to take on a new assignment. I agree it needs mention, kind of like a notable deleted scene would get (so probably not under "Plot"), but I'd need more info about this extension, as in whether it is included as part of the film in the DVD. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. If you track down that info, then please add some mention about this to the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)