Talk:Disney's Friends for Change

29 Stars
Brenda Song said in an interview that there are 29 Disney Channel stars promoting the Friends for Change program. I think there are only 25 on the list so far.. I'm not sure but I think the stars of Zeke and Luther are also in it.

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jjr/2009/05/disney-project-green/disney-friends-project-green-20.jpg That's the link to a picture of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.58.199 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still not the correct number of stars participating in the project. As of right now, there are only 28 stars when there should be 29, as stated by Disney. Kyle Massey is included in the project as can be seen very easily by the picture for the Radio Disney planet premiere. Every star pictured is in a Disney Channel series; Kyle and Jason Dolley are the two members from Cory in the House. ShuffleStop (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That is NOT Kyle, it is Larramie Shaw, he is joining The Suite Life on Deck cast this coming season. Why would Kyle even be a part of this when he no longer has any current Disney Channel projects? Cory in the house ended in September 2008. Jason Dolley recently has starred in Dadnapped so thats why he is there.Spears154 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that was Hatching Pete that he recently starred in. ChrstphrChvz (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Former Stars
It seems that a lot of the stars have left the initiative after their shows have ended. Should we create a separate section for the former stars? --DisneyFriends (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to bring up this same point. (So that's a yes for me.) Actually, yesterday I copied the list of stars into Notepad and edited it down to the current stars. I could put that in the article. I used the Friends for Change Games article as a reference, and I removed the stars I was pretty sure weren't even with Disney anymore and left any I was pretty unsure of, so it might be missing some or have too many, but I could put that version in the article for the current stars. I'm on the fence about a former stars section, though. I'm also trying to figure out if it would be against policy/guidelines to have a former stars list. But again, I do agree that the list of current stars needs to be cut down, since a lot of them are no longer in it. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with a "Former stars" list, or a single list with a "date" column. If you delete the former stars completely, then what are you going to do if/when the initiative is discontinued? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal
To the proposer... what's the rationale? My thoughts:


 * The Send It On section didn't need to be reduced to that level. I personally believe it's fine the way it was.
 * The Make a Wave section did not need to be removed entirely.
 * Send It On already has an article, and a Good Article at that. Besides, DFFC wouldn't be the thing to put in parentheses.
 * The correct article title for Rise would be Rise (McClain Sisters song).

Oppose - Personally, I don't feel the current sections have enough notable, sourced content to make it as an article as-is, so they would need more in-depth content. Honestly, I don't think that Make a Wave should have been restored into an article; it fails (or just barely meets) WP:NSONG. The others, based on information already in this article, fail it. And even if they passed, the current information provided here doesn't make me think a reasonably detailed article could be written on any of them. - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 03:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree - The Disney's Friends for Change article is very messed up, especially because of the charity singles section/s. We should split them. Streamerlovesmusic (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources that could be used to expand the sections? Because at the current point, there's not enough content to warrant splitting the sections per WP:NSONG. (I'm not adamantly against splitting, but I don't feel there's enough content.) - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 03:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose until a song meets WP:NSONG. Basic minimum for a song article is that the song charted on some significant chart. Absent that the song article gets redirected back to the album or artist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To Geraldo Perez...the songs "We Can Change the World" and "Rise" did peak at number 7 and 13 on Radio Disney's Top 30 Countdown but doesn't have a reliable source that tells us that it did chart in the top 30. And why does the song Make a Wave's section says that it peaked at number 4 on the Radio Disney's Top 30 Countdown and let it stay there without a reliable source? Should that be removed since it has no source or just leave it? 203.97.167.3 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Make a Wave hit 84 on the Billboard Hot 100 - stated reference is Billboard. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Sooo... the proposer of this split (User:RomeAntic14) has been indef blocked for block evasion and socking. Does this split proposal still "count"? Or should it be closed or something? - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 06:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - "Make a Wave" peaked number 84 on the Billboard Hot 100. "We Can Change the World" has good content to make an article. No charts but has notoriety as other promotional singles like "Daddy" by Beyoncé, only needs to be expanded. "Rise" is the only song without notoriety. The song should not be modified. - Stephanie J Stone (talk) 2:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I agree with Stephanie J Stone. The song "We Can Change the World" does have good content to be made as an article. However, the song "Rise" is too short to be an article. "Make a Wave" should be made as an article too since it charted at number 84 on the US Billboard Hot 100. 203.97.167.3 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Make a Wave" did chart on the US Billboard Hot 100. So why is it not an article? "We Can Change the World" does actually have good content to be an article. "Rise" should not be an article since it's so short. Streamerlovesmusic (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly (and I know I've said this earlier), I do not think any of them have enough content for an article (with the current info and sources). A little stub? Sure. A "reasonably detailed article" (per WP:NSONG)? No. I believe that was also the rationale for making Make a Wave a redirect. - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 08:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I agree with Stephanie J Stone too. "We Can Change the World" and "Make a Wave" yes. "Rise" no. Jully Tompson (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But would the article(s) be reasonably detailed (per WP:NSONG)? I only ask once more here because I'm hoping to get an answer from someone. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So... What was decided? - Stephanie J Stone (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing's been done (with the exception of anything the proposer did that wasn't reverted). There's not really a super clear consensus, so nothing really should be done (and perhaps Make a Wave should be a redirect again, since it's not a reasonably detailed article). Do you know of any reliable sources that could be used to expand the proposed articles beyond what's written in this article? (Reliable sources and plans for expansion are some things that might make me change my tune from Oppose to Agree). - Purplewowies (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given how long the discussion has been stale and that the proposed new articles do not remotely qualify under WP:NSONG, I am removing the tag.
 * I think that we can expand on it. We (or other people) just have to research and gather up extra info about the songs that are high quality and would qualify under WP:NSONG. Any other suggestions? 203.97.167.3 (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Disney's Friends for Change. 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/20090519223045/http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com:80/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3121352&type=lead to http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3121352&type=lead
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113123243/http://disneychannelmedianet.com/DNR/2009/doc/F4C_PR_080609.doc to http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/DNR/2009/doc/F4C_PR_080609.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060009/http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/DNR/2011/We_can_Change_the_World_release.doc to http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/DNR/2011/We_can_Change_the_World_release.doc

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) 23:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should the article be changed to refer to the initiative as defunct?
I can't find coverage in the last year specifically referring to Friends for Change, and its website clearly hasn't been updated in awhile (maybe since 2012?). (And actually, depending on the link you follow, it might even just redirect to the newer initiatives, like this one.) Further, Disney appears to have roped their nature initiatives into their newer Disney Citizenship/"Be Inspired" thing. Newer stars definitely take part in PSAs for that program, but that's not precisely the same thing as Friends for Change. Would that make this initiative defunct? - Purplewowies (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)