Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dylan and Cole Sprouse article.
Article policies
Good article Dylan and Cole Sprouse has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia CD Selection Dylan and Cole Sprouse is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!
Notice This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Dylan and Cole Sprouse. This page is not for discussion about the actors themselves, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion of personal encounters with the actors.
See also: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Contents

[edit] PICTURE

Can we get a recent picture of Cole and Dylan??

It is now recent. Enjoy. MiniMary12 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) http://search.comcast.net/?q=Dylan+and+Cole+Sprouse&cat=Images&con=net&x=22&y=11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bratzkid20 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Pass. The article is plentiful in references and maintaines an overall NPOV. --71.230.73.113 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You should register a user account and promote it to GA. :) Mad Jack O'Lantern 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

p.s. how caN GeT A PICTURES OF DYLAN COLE

AUTOTOAMS

[edit] Wikipedia is not a chat group

Talk pages are for discussion of the article only. Do not add irrelevant discussion to this page or it may be seen as vandalism. Mrtea (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things

I went ahead and added their role in "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things" onto their article.--Jennie Ambrose 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

"On Disney Channel's 2005 New Year's Eve Marathon one of the twins admitted to having a crush on "Brenda Song" " - Should this REALLY be on the page? I was going to take it off, but I want a second opinion. I doesn't really fit into the article. --Jennie Ambrose 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like info for gossip magazines; I support removal. HollyAm 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Not really verifiable either. Should be removed. Mrtea (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been deleted. Thanks for the reassurance. --Jennie Ambrose 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. Which twin? Mooski Magnus 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detail

You really need alot more detail of Dylan and Cole sprouse, and of course alot less facts about editing. Sincerly, Taylor Coleman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.96.211 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 January 2006

I think it's un-useful and could be considered as gossip. It would also help if you knew which one of the twins (Dylan) confessed that.--Jennie Ambrose 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Where did the image go?

Is it something wrong with my computer where the image isn't showing up, or is the image gone? --Jennie Ambrose 05:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The image was removed by an automated bot because it had no copyright information. Copyrighted images can't be used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. By the way, you can view all edits made to a page by clicking the history tab up top. Mrtea (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Oh. Ok. It makes sense now. Thanks. --Jennie Ambrose 05:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friends

Cody (whichever one he is) plays Ben, Ross Geller's son, in Friends. That surely must be notable. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article..... check under "Career" Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking Italian

I don't think they speak italian but that's just what I heard. Dont rely on that.

They said in a cited interview that they don't speak Italian. Hope that clears it up (it's mention under Personal Life here) Mad Jack 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We used to have a copy of the IMDB info that they speak Italian (which I didn't think was true, because it's not their parents' native language). Well, in MadMagazineKids (May 2006), they are asked about it and they say that they don't speak Italian, aside from "Pasta", "Spaghetti", etc. Just clearing it up. Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I discussed it with User:MKaiserman and thought was right to keep that info on the page. First IMDB is a common and correct source for cinema actors (it's used widely in other pages, I dunno why you think would not be correct). Second if u got they're not able to speak Italian just put a REAL link in the page so the users could check it.
A note: Sprouse's parents were English teacher in an Italian school. Obviously they KNOW Italian to be able to teach there and they probably teach Italian to their kids.
Anyway, no problem put the link to the article magazine and we'll check your sentence.--Doctor01 10:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Just another note, IMDb has plenty of false information. Users can submit entries to the trivia and quotes sections, and they only need to be verified by an admin before they go live. I don't know how much research they do to verify the facts. See also Imdb#Criticisms. Mrtea (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No, IMDB is not reliable and no one considers it so. It's not linked to as a source in any page when it comes to actual information about the person (although for film credits, maybe) and should not be - remove any such link if you see it. A magazine article which interviews the Sprouses first-hand is reliable. There's no real comparison between the two. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, as you can see on the top of the paragraph is reported that source to the criticisms are missing. IMDB has editorial control by admins, so I think is more probable it contains true infos than false ones. Anyway, humans can be wrong. And that's the same here in Wikipedia. If Mad Jack O'Lantern put a real link, no problem but until then I think IMDB is the right source. --Doctor01 18:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no think about it. IMDB is not a reliable source. Please stop linking to it. An interview involvin the subject of an article is immediately a more accurate source than anything else. It's a first-hand source. As you can see, the rest of the article also uses the same kind of first-hand sources - New York Times, etc. IMDB is fan-submitted trivia. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm stil waiting for the REAL source you put on the page, I'd like to verify it by myself (the links in Wikipedia are almost real, they link to web pages), if you don't mind. And please stop writing the twins are not Italian, no-one said that before. They are legally Italian American, I mean, according to Law. It's still reported they are American and sons of American people. Your sentence is unnecessary and redundant. IMDB is full of right infos. I just want to see your source and your sentence'll be on the page without any problem. Just to be correct.--Doctor01 11:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What real source? Magazine sources are perfectly acceptable. It doesn't matter if they sell those magazines where you live. Don't remove a whole chunk of well sourced information just because it isn't sourced to an online source. For goodness sake. And please don't refer to the IMDB as reliable. I also have not seen anything reliable that says they are Italian citizens. I thought it might be true so I didn't remove it. But I have not confirmed it. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I frequent the IMDb, still do, and belive me, there is always info that is wrong/cannot be verified. Magazines/books should always be cited, as opposed to an IMDb trivia entry - as the trivia entrys are just submitted by fans and thus may not be 100% reliable. Also - considering this article is a GA nominee - it will not pass if there are references to the IMDb trivia. Best not to reference such sources. Cheers. Cvene64 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship

This discussion has led me to notice something. The Italian nationality law article says "For Italian-born of foreign parents, the applicant must have resided in Italy continuously from birth to adulthood." Since this isn't the case with the Sprouses, I have a feeling that the whole "dual citizenship" thing is also an IMDB rumor. I'll remove it pending a good source (none of the magazine articles I used mention it, neither does the New York Times or other articles)

  • "They have Italian citizenship because of their birth, although they are not of Italian descent."

Mad Jack O'Lantern 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Even though they may not be of italian descent, they were born in italy and then immigrated to the U.S, so they might have dual citizenship.

They wouldn't have "immigrated" to the U.S. Being born to American parents, they would have gotten US citizenship upon birth. I am not sure if they have Italian citizenship or not, I've not seen a reliable source that says so. Mad Jack 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAnom Image:The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things film.jpg

I came to look at this article while reviewing GA articles. The use of this poster images though they are listed on the poster it out of step with the rest of the article. If they had the title role on the poster, or they were on it then it would be appropriate. Suggest it gets removed. As the last thing that is seen when reading the article it dominates way to much, especially as the movie only played in 3 cinemas in the US. Gnangarra 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They are on the poster.... The "little girl" that Asia Argento is holding is one of the Sprouse twins... In fact, the poster is perhaps useful in showing "a different side" of the Sprouse twins, so to speak. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont think the poster contributes to the article its only uselful if the message is delivered, personally I would fail for this poster image but I'll leave this nomination standing for another person to review. Gnangarra 13:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the picture. It shows what versatile actors they are. TripleH1976 20:34 p.m., 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think with the screen as opposed to the poster, it has a notable contribution. Can be a GA now imo. Cvene64 05:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

On the picture it says, "Dylan OR Cole Sprouse", it's definately Dylan. It's very easy to tell when your watching the movie in that scene. --Jennie Ambrose 11:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll correct it. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Dylan and Cole Sprouse has failed, for the following reason:

Information like The twins have a dog named Bubba,[3] and their favorite actor and co-star is Adam Sandler.[2] is overly trivial, and makes the article read like a fan piece. Most of it is good but this lets it down. Worldtraveller 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So what specifically would you do delete? I'm not too attached to any of it, so if deletion is all that's necessary to get the GA, then delete at your leisure. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can this decision be appealed? Did “Worldtraveller” alone arrive at this decision? I think the article is very well written, very informative and should be resubmitted. (Aperiodic 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
It was just worldtraveller. The GA system allows for anyone to either accept, reject an article into a GA, or re-insert it as a GA nomination (as long as that anyone hasn't worked on the page themselves). Therefore you can basically promote this article to a GA yourself, since it doesn't look like you've worked on it at all. 69.19.14.20 14:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

Alot of the stuff in the "personal life" section, seems more like trivia. does anyone think that we should just turn it into a Trivia section instead?

  • Trivia sections are un-encyclopedic... we shouldn't have them at all... So it should definitely stay in sentence format Mad Jack 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Also i think this should be put in the trivia section:Dylan was rumored to have viciously attacked Cole and knocked him unconscious for several minutes. Cole came to, and was reported saying "I'm never making another episode (of Suite Life) again!"

It's all vandalism. Don't pay it any heed. WAVY 10 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things...

Do the boys play girls in this film? Can someone fill me in here? Mrtea (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

They play a (one) boy whose mother likes to dress up as girls... Mad Jack 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

As there was no reponse to my query above, I've re-nominated it for GA and hopefully someone can fill me in on what needs to be cut. Mad Jack 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it doesn't appear that the article has changed substantially since it last failed GA, I assume you are relisting because you either disagree or didn't understand the reason for failure. Anyway, it seems good to me. It is well-written, I didn't notice any blatant typos, it follows WP:STYLE, has photos, etc. The tag on the first image is goofy, and there is no fair use rationale, but as far as I can tell that is not an inhibiting factor for GA status. I am promoting. Aguerriero (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I queried World Traveller what he thought needed to be deleted from the personal life section, but he didn't respond so I re-nominated. Mad Jack 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and some vandal messed up the info on the first picture - I reverted. Mad Jack 21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Does anyone want to find a newer picture of Dylan and Cole? They are more tan and have longer hair now. loulou 02:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, but there new look is pretty hideous. Who ever told them long hair looks good? Maybe in 1985, but certainly not 2006. TripleH1976 Thur, 08:41 p.m., 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, marketing-wise, I think the long hair is part of their appeal on the television series. Mad Jack 04:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That is correct and long hair is once again back in style with tween boys in the US. (Aperiodic 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC))
It doesn't matter if you like their look or not. It's better for people to know what they look like now. loulou 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

are u kidding they are so much hotter now

Only losers have short hair now. They look way better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.7.92 (talk) 09:58, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture from the Heart is deceitful above all things

Is the picture from that movie really necessary. What does it have to do with the article? I think it should be gotten rid of. It's out-of-place. - Rosepuff12 21:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because we
  • only have one picture in the article otherwise
  • this picture shows a different side of the Sprouses then the other picture, which means it's useful encyclopedically
  • Is there any good reason for removing it? Mad Jack 21:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's creepy and weird-looking. What is she doing in the picture? -Rosepuff12 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the film it comes from is creepy, so.... She's stroking his hair Mad Jack 04:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ok but still it's just weird. Should it still be there? -Rosepuff12 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We need more than one picture in an article this size. If the Sprouses chose to appear in a weird movie, why not represent that? By the way, why did you delink Asia Argento's name? Mad Jack 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. it should stay there then. -Rosepuff12 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk about Dylan and Cole Sprouse

Dylan and Cole Sprouse have just turned fourteen on August 4, and they are in the ninth grade from 2006-2007. Paulbob 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[1] for info and fan site of DC Srouse. Born in Arezzo, Italy. --Paulbob

Well, I go to their school and their nerdy weirdos. 12.73.121.116 21:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I bet ur very jealous to talk like this!
Last time i checked they had a private tutor and didnt goto an actual school Malevious 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Do we really need two? And, they should be at the top of the article, not spread throughout Mad Jack 19:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't they get their own pages?

Just because they are twins doesn't mean they should be one articleTrevorLSciAct 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mary-Kate and Ashley are really famous, do they get their own article, no. Until Dylan and Cole do seperate projects, there article will reamain one.--andrewI20Talk 06:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I Completly Disagree. That Is Un Fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bratzkid20 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

209.7.99.38 this user should be blocked for vandalising the article.

  • I think this page must be protected or semi-protected to prevent further vandalism, since many people are modifying/vandalising it without adding sources and by destroying the article.

Who agrees?

I do. I just deleted an unnessacry comment in the main article. The comment read that they were total hotties and the user who posted said hi to a girl named Elisia. ShadowWriter 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Hi" to a friend is not that big of a deal but whoever wrote that, go to a forum please.

xplosneer does. IP adress 71.115.209.229 posted "They are so friggen host OMG!!" so please semi protect this article!Xplosneer 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
One of moderators must protect it then, unless someone has another opinion on how to prevent vandalism!


THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT OF SERIOUS VANDALISM! please any of the moderators, protect the page.

Please remember to sign your posts on the talk page, otherwise they may not be taken seriously.Locriani 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I think it should be proteted too, i reverted a few things of vandalism yesterday Malevious 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please protect this page! It is probably very hard to have to constantly revert back to previous versions of the article. There is a lot of vandalism. (oops sorry didn't log in... re-signing) MiniMary12 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say this much. It won't reach Good Article status the way this page is getting hit. WAVY 10 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just sent a recommendation for semi-protection. WAVY 10 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I erased something that said they're gay. Ppl need to stop vandalizing.

Baby16 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC) I Completly Disagree. That Is Un Fair.

[edit] What about listing them in the Native of Tuscany list?

Arezzo is in Tuscany...

If there is such a list, they can certainly go on it... Mad Jack 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • there is...


[edit] New Picture

I have a picture from Thats So Suite Life of Hannah Montana, of the twins, Image:Sprouse Bros.png should we use this since it is a new picture of them? --Malevious 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That one's OK, execpt its not high quality like the other one that is there now. -- Switchfo0t813

[edit] Picture (again)

We need a HIGH QUALITY RECENT PICTURE of Dylan and Cole. Switchfo0t813 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High School Musical

They both were ball boys in High School Musical. I have added this to the Selected filmography section Man man man 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this info? Mad Jack 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I just requested semi-protection as a result of these crazy edits on this page today. WAVY 10 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 47 R.O.N.I.N. Book information

{{editprotected}} The 'spy' book information is dated now, their series (47 R.O.N.I.N.) was released recently (I believe in mid June). Jeff u d 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook pages

{{editprotected}}

Dylan and Cole both have facebook profiles now and an official facebook group; it was blogged about from their offcial myspace pages


Jeff u d 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cole is more popular?

It seems to me at every award show (Teen Choice, etc), Cole always seems to be the one that gets nominated and not Dylan? Why is that and is it something of importance in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.236.133 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

True. Isnt he the one that playes the irresponsible one on The Suite? Maybe because girls are more attracted to him because of the image he portrayes, and dylan is less liked because of his character, a inteligent, responible guy. Makes any sense?--Klaus Baude 123 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaus Baude 123 (talk • contribs)

Dylan = Zack and Cole = Cody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.191.202 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I deleted the sprousebrosmobile.com link as it redirected to: www.morethanringtones.com, and as I browsed that site I noticed that it was not an "official" Sprouse Bros. site and I couldn't find anything relevent to the Sprouse Bros. there at all. I also tried typing in www.sprousebrosmobile.com and I recieved the same page.

Also, do their individual Facebook profiles need do be listed? There is no real information given on the profile and it doesn't link to any other site. I think the "dual" facebook link is sufficent, but I will wait to get feedback on that first. Josborne2382 06:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The general rule for external links (See WP:EL) is only include information that adds to the article but can't written into the article for technical or style reasons. If the information can be in the article, it should be and the link used as a reference. I am not familiar enough with the subject to make a judgment, but do the facebook links meet the WP:EL rules for inclusion? If not, remove them. --NrDg 16:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography NEEDS to be edited.

I can't get into my account and do NOT feel like making a new one and waiting 4 days. Around the year 2007 on the chart, the year and films during that year are in the wrong places(under wrong headings). Could someone please fix this? Written by Ima Dufus(who still can't log in!) 74.142.43.49 23:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it and I have fixed it. Josborne2382 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it take awhile for it to come up? cause it doesn't look changed. Written by Ima Dufus(who still can't log in!) 74.142.43.49 00:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I dunno. It looks fine to me and I checked it in both IE and Firefox. Josborne2382 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It still looks wrong to me. Maybe its a cached version or something. :( Written by Ima Dufus(who still can't log in!) 74.142.43.49 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Try dumping your cache, maybe that will help. Josborne2382 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It did. I just tried it. Thank you for fixing the mistake. :) Written by Ima Dufus(who still can't log in!) 74.142.43.49 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure, anytime! I'm a dufus for not noticing it as well! Josborne2382 01:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd put it under here that I finally signed up for another account. Purplewowies 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yay, I was half expecting your username to be Imadufus! hehe. Josborne2382 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I almost named myself that! Purplewowies 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADHD rumor

I read (on Sprouse-Fans) that Dylan Sprouse has ADHD. Is this of any relevance to the article? If so, which part? Purplewowies 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything on any fan site has a high probability of being a planted rumor/hoax so that source is totally untrusted and is pretty much the definition of an unreliable source. In other words we are not allowed to use it as a reference in the article. And this type of information requires a rock solid reference (see WP:BLP). If this information is true, which I doubt, and we can find a source that meets the WP:RS requirements, then and only then can this be put in the article. --NrDg 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Just asking because the site said they are the "most complete and up-to-date" Sprouse fansite on the Web. It was under newer facts that he said he has ADHD. I KNOW that site checks its facts before it puts things up, and revises its facts if they get things wrong. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't trust the site. If you want to see the site for yourself, here's the link: [2] or [3] That page was just recently (like Tuesday) edited. If you change your mind about whether it's a fact or not, just post a reply here. ;) I understand (if it is true) your disbelief in it. I didn't believe it when I read it either.
Still a fansite. Also, if the reason you said you "KNOW" that site fact-checks is because you work with that site, that poses a new problem of conflict of interest. WAVY 10 Fan 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't know for sure if they fact check everything. But I know they fix things if they get it wrong. I don't work for the site. I probably shouldn't have said that I "KNOW" they fact check every thing they put up since i don't know. :P Purplewowies 23:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
They might be good at fact checking, they might not be. Unlike a major newspaper, they don't have a widely known reputation for fact checking. That is why we can't trust and use them as a reference. If they are real good they will include a source for their information that might meet our reliability standards. THAT source we might be able to use. This is not a slam on the fan-site. By Wiki rules we can't use Wikipedia itself as a reliable source of information. We have to dig back to where the information originated and judge that source. Bio stuff being wrong is a bad thing we like to avoid. Better to say nothing then get it wrong. --NrDg 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If I actually find from a reliable source that it's true (like sprousebros.com or maybe imdb or tv.com) I'll edit the article or bring it back up here.Purplewowies 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't use IMDB or TV.com either for the same reasons. They are about as reliable as Wikipedia. --NrDg 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well if it's true, it will be in a reliable place sooner or later. They are debating the truth (or non-truth) on the sprouse-fans forum as well: [4] If I seem like I'm spamming or something, I'm not trying to. Purplewowies 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Not spamming, it is good that you brought it to the discussion page to hash it out. This is the way potentially controversial topics are supposed to be handled. Good luck on finding a good reference we can use, it looks like you are staying on top of this. --NrDg 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I found this in a seperate part of the site (and it leads me to believe it might not be true or that he was joking or something): "The only thing I really remember is Dylan telling a ADD joke which nobody really laughed at, but then he told us he could only tell that joke because he had ADD"[5]. I don't really care if it's in the article or not, but if it was true (and it might or might not be) it might've been a possibly relevant thing to add. Oh and they're debating it on the forum for that website too: (Check above post). I hope this issue will be resolved soon if it's not resolved now. Purplewowies 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds resolved to me. WAVY 10 Fan 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you mean resolved as in, "it's resolved not to include this without a reliable source". Corvus cornix 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. WAVY 10 Fan 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we will wait for a reliable source. Purplewowies 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
When I said IMDB or tv.com, I meant if they linked out to a reliable source :) Purplewowies 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable?

Are those myspace links real or just a fake posted by some person?--Klaus Baude 123 06:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes they're real. They are linked to from the sprouse's official website. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role in Friends sitcom

I've added cite for Cole's role as Ben Geller in Friends. However, while searching for reference on the net, i came across a | E! online site which states that Cole and Dylan shared the role of Ben Gellar. But the Sprouse brothers' official website claims that | only Cole played that role. Since both are contradicting each other i have decided to include the official website as the cite.Gprince007 (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J-14 interview?

On 2 January 2008, Katney added the assertion that Dylan Sprouse had recently dated Miley Cyrus, and sourced it to a quote from Dylan Sprouse in J-14, August 2007. Does anyone have access to this magazine to check the quote? Is it from an interview? Is this magazine generally considered a reliable source for direct quotes and/or interviews? -- Zsero (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats precisely my point.The user added the info but didnt cite it. I tried to get alternative references by searchin the net but again i got nothing. The antecedents of the said user seems shady becos Katney has received lot of warnings too regarding vandalism edits. Also J-14 magazine is the magazine which falsely reported that miley cyrus is pregnant. So the credibility of the magazine is also a suspect. So i believe we shd remove the info becos in absence of reliable sources, it would be considered as a libelious information. Gprince007 (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The user did cite it. I don't know whether the cite is accurate, but AGF we should assume it is. This is alleged to be a direct quote from Dylan Sprouse, perhaps from an interview; the question is therefore whether the magazine is a reputable source for quotes, not for general gossip. Again, absent other information we should not assume this to be unreliable. But the best solution would be for someone with access to the magazine to check whether this quote actually appears there, and in what context. As for not finding it elsewhere on the net, where exactly would you expect to find such a detail? This isn't exactly earth-shattering news that would make the front page of The Times, or even "the cover of the Rolling Stone". -- Zsero (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is that neither miley nor sprouse twins' official site mention this. AGF is ok but the Katney we are talking about has received warnings before and doesnt seem credible. As for the info available on net, i guess if their getting "Straight A's and honors" and "their receiving tutoring for three hours each day on set" (which is not exactly a earth shattering news) is available on net, then such a major news shd also be on net. Bottomline is that the User and the J-14 magazine are both unreliable. We need secondary sources to back this claim. Only then can we add this in article. Gprince007 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would the official sites mention it? I did find other mentions of this on the net, though none from citable sources. It seems to me though, that J-14 should be a reliable source, assuming that Katney was correct in citing it to there. For all we know no such thing appeared, or it wasn't a direct quote, and Katney is just having us on. But that shouldn't be our default assumption.
The bottom line is that we're both arguing in a vacuum, since neither of us appear to have access to this magazine. Why don't we leave things where they are, and wait for someone who actually reads the magazine to chip in and tell us whether this appeared in the cited issue (Aug-2007), and in what context? -- Zsero (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How can we let things be the way they are??? ...what if the info is wrong (which i believe is the case) ???...wouldnt it be libel to leave it in the article??....I believe we shd delete it unless and until we find a secondary, reliable source. Gprince007 (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not libel in any case. At worst it's harmless gossip. If it turns out not to be in the source cited, no harm will have been done. -- Zsero (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is definitely libelious in nature. Even if it is "harmless gossip" ,wikipedia is not the place for publishing gossip. Pls read Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material and WP:BLP properly before making such comments. Gprince007 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How on earth is it libelous, even if it does turn out to be untrue? WP is certainly not the place for publishing unsourced gossip, but we don't know that that's what it is; at worst it's harmless gossip, but as it stands it's a sourced fact, which while it might be too trivial to note for a more weighty figure, is perfectly appropriate (if true) in this article.
In the meantime I've been checking up on your contention that User:Katney is a vandal, and I can't find a single edit that can be called vandalism. Some of the user's edits seem uncontentious and remain to this day, some have been removed by other editors as unsourced or too trivial, and one page that the user created has been deleted as not notable. None of that constitutes vandalism, and none of it casts any doubt on the user's veracity. You should be more careful before making such allegations.
Nor have I found any reason to doubt J-14's reliability as a source, at least for direct quotes. Your contention that the magazine published a false and defamatory report is itself false and defamatory. My only question is whether this alleged fact really appears there, and in what context.
Let's just leave it alone until someone with actual knowledge can contribute. In this case, the people most likely to be able to shed light on the question are those who actually read the magazine, which I certainly don't, and I assume you don't either.
-- Zsero (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I verified that the statement is true - I found a scan on a fan-site, I won't link to it as the scans are copyright violations but a google search for fan sites will get to it and most have magazine scans. A normal google search won't find the magazine scans. The cite is
dylan "I'm not popular with girls", J-14, August 2007, p. 88  "According to Dylan, the last girl he dated was Miley Cyrus after she guest-starred on Suite Life. "
Note: it is not a direct quote from Dylan - it is the writer's paraphrase of what the author heard him say. Gossip magazines are pretty good at twisting words and taking things out of context to make things sound interesting to their readers. He probably went out with her once as a social thing, nothing more. It doesn't belongs in the article, however, due to the trivial nature of the information. Good for a teen gossip magazine, but not for an encyclopedia. Long term committed relationships do belong. The social patterns of teens "dating", no. --NrDg 14:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I was just about to raise a similar point. Nobody cares whom George W. Bush dated when he was 15. Even if it were very well-attested that he had dated Jean Smith (now Mrs Tom Jones) of College Station, it wouldn't be notable. But Paris Hilton's dating history is notable, because that's pretty much all she's notable for. This is a less extreme example; it's unlikely that anybody will care about this (now-verified) fact in 10 years, unless they end up marrying, or she marries Cole, or they become bitter enemies or something. But let's face it, the main reason Dylan Sprouse is notable today is as a teen idol, and in my opinion that makes his recent dating activity notable. After all, to the tens of thousands of teenaged girls (and smaller number of boys) whose worship makes him the celebrity he is, that's the information they're most interested in. So I think it should stay for a while, until it becomes obsolete. Just how long that will take I wouldn't hazard a guess. -- Zsero (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The info is obsolete as of now i guess, because the so called statement appeared nearly 6 months back. Also as NrDg pointed out that social patterns of teens "dating" are not notable, i think it shd be removed. This is precisely the reason why Miley's dating info is not included in Miley Cyrus article. J-14 magazine as a secondary source might be ok...but to include an information solely based on J-14's statement might not qualify as per WP:RS and WP:V. Gprince007 (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not obsolete so long as it's the latest information available. And why wouldn't J-14 be an RS? Earlier in this thread you made a false claim against the magazine. Perhaps you should reconsider whether you're unduly biased against it. -- Zsero (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not notable as exactly one source reported on this (noted it). The info is now likely a year old based on when the interview occurred and the taping schedules of shows. It is insignificant trivia at the best. It does not impact Dylan's career and life in any way and is of interest only to rabid fans. We need a higher threshold for inclusion than the interest of one gossip magazine. It does not belong in the article. --NrDg 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The rabid fans are the ones who made him the phenomenon that he is. And IMHO that makes something of such interest to them automatically notable within the context of this article. His current teen-idol status will eventually disappear, as such things always do, and then this will be irrelevant. It may become irrelevant sooner than that if it can be replaced with more recent reliable news. But right now I don't think it is. -- Zsero (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I never made a "false claim" against the magazine. What i had claimed was that J-14 had reported that miley was pregnant which later was proved to be false. The magazine reported it and then retracted it later. See Miley Cyrus#Controversies for more info.In such a scenario, how can it be called a "reliable source"???? Gprince007 (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining. Not only is what you've written untrue, but the very reference you give explicitly contradicts you! That's the very definition of chutzpah! -- Zsero (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Miley Cyrus incident was involving some hackers that wrecked a story on her. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I still dont get it as what is "untrue" ....did u even bother to read the previous threads ??? J-14 made an allegation (even though it may be the work of hackers) of her pregnancy and later denied it. What is untrue about it??? Even if hackers did it , then what makes u think that they wouldnt get hacked again??? What if the info abt dylan was also put in by "hackers"??? Since J-14 has been proved wrong before, thats why i believe that it shouldnt be trusted as a primary source of information. Secondary source...maybe yes... but primary (and in this case the sole) piece of info...maybe no....Also the info is very trivial and backed up by no proper source....As NrDg said, "We need a higher threshold for inclusion than the interest of one gossip magazine" ... Gprince007 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the ref that you yourself supplied (and the refs there). J-14 never made any such allegation. It did not first make the allegation and then retract it, it never made it in the first place. The allegation never appeared, either in the print magazine or on the web site, even for a minute. Your claim that it did is false and defamatory, and you should immediately withdraw it. Your failure to understand this very simple point doesn't speak well of your own credibility. -- Zsero (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting a bit off topic. The facts are that J-14 was never hacked. Someone photoshopped the pregnancy stuff on an IMAGE of the magazine page and posted that modified image on the web. J-14 was just an innocent victim in all this. The page never showed up on the J-14 web site - I looked after the hoax hit and found the original but not the modified version on their site. My problem with J-14 is that it does not have a reputation for fact checking and normally would be discounted as a WP:RS. It doesn't mean they are wrong, just not reliable. Also they tend to twist things to sound more interesting than the background facts would support. The cite I posted just proves that J-14 said what they said in the article and that the original poster of the information was accurately quoting J-14. I am still suspicious that J-14 accurately reported what Dylan said because of the gossip site tenancy to take things out of context. We generally do not add information to articles based on gossip sites and wait until notability has been shown with mainstream news outlets. I would normally have removed this by now but it is relatively benign info and I don't want to get into an edit war with people who strongly disagree.--NrDg 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The reliability of gossip mags as a class depends on the context. When they say they're passing on a rumour, that's exactly what they're doing, and no credence should be placed on the rumour itself. But when they quote a named person directly, whether in quote marks or not, they can be trusted to the extent that that is what the person told them. If it's not in direct quotes then caution should be exercised in extracting information from subtle nuances of expression, and as always context is important in interpreting quotes, and often the mags do not supply the context. But the same is true of most RS. In general, WP's treatment of RS is somewhat bizarre, considering that the term "Dowdify" comes from a column published in that most venerable of RS, the NY Times! -- Zsero (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian

NrDg, why did you remove the Italian cats? Are they not Italian citizens by birth? Or does Italy not have jus soli? -- Zsero (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Italian nationality law answers my question. Being born in Italy to non-Italian parents does not give citizenship, so the twins are not Italian, and you were right to delete the cats. -- Zsero (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Also. American parents, American nationals. American ethnicity. Italy is where they are born, not sufficient to make them Italian in any meaningful way since they moved back to the US at 4 months of age. Lots of Americans by parentage were born in other countries, lots at military bases or had American diplomats for parents for example. Does not make them nationals or ethnically of that country. The US is kind of rare in granting citizenship by birth on US soil. --NrDg 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo Answers

I don't know if this should be added, but they have an account on Yahoo Answers. I'm not sure of the link to it, but is says they have one on the Wikipedia Article of Yahoo Answers. RACiEP (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, don't do it without having a reliable source --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying I know anything about it, but they were listed under the page on Yahoo! Answers. I wouldn't know what to put on the website, nor do I know if this is anything significant, but I'm just throwing this out there for people to think about. I don't know. --RACiEP (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)