This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Can someone fix this page and get it passed. Now that the movie is officially in production and more information has been released, I think there should be an article started about it.

The movie is premiering as I speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquis90 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THUYNGA (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed a bunch of references that don't meet the reliable source standard. Specifically twitter, myspace and Disney Society are not reliable. Twitter and Myspace have too many posers and untrusted security so don't know whether or not the purported source actually said what is referenced. Disney Society is a self declared fan site - it is not a part of Disney - and other than directly quoted interviews does not do sufficient fact checking to be trusted as a source. MTV and IMDB are good references. IMDB for non-controversial cast and crew info as it comes from the producers, not users. MTV is a trusted new source. I tagged as needing references plausible info and did not remove them. --NrDg 04:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also the referenced must actually support what is being referenced. Merchandise link did NOT say anything about supporting the movie, just the show in general. --NrDg 04:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The twitter is a reliable source IF on the star's official website, or in an interview, the star specifically refers to the twitter. David Henrie's (Justin Russo) twitter is mentioned on his website and in an interview. If he were to say something on his twitter, a key communication source for him with the public, concerning the film, then I think it can be taken as fact. It is coming from HIM!75.179.161.245 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the link did reveal that an Alex Russo doll will be released along with other merchandise this summer. You may remove a few unreliable citations and indicate that citations are needed. But do not remove any information as they are needed to make the article legit. I have decided not to add the Princess Protection Program link anymore upon your request. But do not remove anymore information for this article unless it's irrelevant or are not beneficial to the article. And any links with information that comes directly from the stars of the movie is reliable. Thank you. 98.232.58.47 (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that you WP:OWN the article. Wiki is a collaborative project. Info that gets unreliable references either gets tagged if plausible or removed if it is dubious. As it stands this article may barely meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). I haven't tagged it for deletion as there is some reliable coverage and I want to give the article some time to grow. Dubious references don't help. Use blogs like Disney Society to determine THEIR source and use it. Sources like MTV are good. We need other news sources. The dubious info I removed is not important to this article.

If the star of the movie says something to a reliable new source like MTV we can use it. If they give an interview and they are quoted exactly that is also usable. Anything said on an unverified myspace account or twitter is not usable as we can't know whether or not the star actually said it - too many posers and hackers corrupt any self declared star site. If you find it on an OFFICIAL site, that is usable. OFFICIAL means that some new source said it was an official site. Usually official sites are listed on the article for the actor. --NrDg 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. I just did not want too much information to be deleted because that might result in the article being deleted. I am sure that this movie is in production and am sure that it will be released this summer along with merchandise. The rest is information that might be of interest to viewers of the article.98.232.58.47 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stick with the key information for now and try to get more good references. That the movie is in filming now is only referenced on a fan site blog. It is plausible, which is why I left it as a citation needed, but you can't use that reference. As for release date IMDB just says 2009. They get their production info directly from producers so that is all we can really go on for now. Actors won't know for certain Disney's plans and even Disney hasn't decided for sure. --NrDg 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jake T. Austin released a new youtube video saying that the movie is called "The Wizards of Waverly Place Movie: Stone of Dreams." Can someone help me change the title of this article to the new name?THUYNGA (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sure i will DemiLovatoWishes (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I think i did it right not really sure but yeah i changed it to Wizards of Waverly Place Movie: Stone of Dreams. if i did it wrong someone that has more experiance can fix it. DemiLovatoWishes (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone change the page to "Wizards of Waverly Place The Movie". That is now officially the title according to this site http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if87cf911cde7b6e920bf74daf787c100 98.232.58.47 (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved as per reference above and http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3121148&type=lead --NrDg 13:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone put in the official poster on this article? It is now on the official website.

Also, someone keeps changing the title back to Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie. On DisneyChannelMediaNet.com, they refer to the movie as Wizards of Waverly Place The Movie, no colon. source: http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3121148&type=lead 98.232.58.47 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that the music section states that the soundtrack is for the movie. To my understanding, the soundtrack is for the WOWP series not the movie. This is also what it says in the main article for the soundtrack, as well as, the movie just uses the songs from the series soundtrack. ShuffleStop^talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I just checked the source, and the soundtrack pulls from both: It "features songs inspired by the show as well as songs from the show and songs that will be featured in the upcoming" movie.[1] I'll change the text both places to reflect that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The plot needs fixed. A spoiler section, as well as several factual inaccuracies (Max isn't in the competition, for one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.75.26 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello... I am aware that it was filmed on location in San Juan, Puerto Rico. However, during the subway scenes in the beginning of the film, there are CG images of the TTC (Toronto) Subway trains (the T1 model, particularly), tunnels and stations used.

I know it's not much so I didn't add it to the article, but I think it's an interesting fact to add if a section about filming locations does go up. For instance:

- one of the trains that almost hit Harper and Alex head on in the tunnel, clearly still says "Downsview", as opposed to a New York City subway destination.

- "42nd Street" station is Bessarion Station in the TTC's Sheppard Subway Line

- The station that first shows the Sub Station's subway room/car zooming by and the station that Harper and Alex stop at before going back the way they came is Bloor Station, on the TTC's Yonge-University-Spadina Line.

Oddly enough, I thought the Disney guys would do better in recreating New York instead of using CG-style Toronto. Although, Toronto's system is much cleaner and aesthetically more pleasing than NYC's system, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex Luthor80 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Why are there no section for cast yet, unlike the other movies? Thanks. 121.96.120.204 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norway had the premiere yesterday, but Norway is not written on release. Why? 213.161.238.170 (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 87.113.53.65 (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I have put it on the broadcast list 87.113.53.65 (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where about in the Wizards of Waverly Place timeline does the fit? I know that it aired between seasons 2 and 3, but is it part of the continuity? So far I have yet to see a reference to anything that happened in the movie in season 3. Crazydude22 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I ask for is proof. It says this whole plot of the movie sequel and it says that it will be called Wizards of Waverly Place 2: The Next Big Adventure but there is not proof or reference. Someone please fix this! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmward821 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!! We need PROOF! There is no reference or anything that tells us, "Oh this article is so very true!" Please just please put up some proof for Wizards of Waverly Place 2: The Next Big Adventure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmward821 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out. Since no reliable source is provided to support the claims, I've removed the section entirely. Like the text below the edit box says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In current version of text, "Giselle" is simply mentioned with no explanation of who she is. Not mentioned in other Wizards of Waverley Place articles (e.g. the article on the TV show). Later it is mentioned that she has become human. Still later, it says that she turned back into a parrot. Does this mean she was originally a parrot? Is she the family pet? Did they meet her while in vacation? This aspect of the article needs some fixing up. Wiki88V (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She is Archie girlfriend who got turned in to a parrot, she uses him to get the stone of dreams, but when she gets turned back into a human, she ditches Archie. He later turns her back into a parrot.--Babar Suhail (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's your proof for your sequel: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/27/selena-gomez-to-executive-produce-and-star-in-new-wizards-of-waverly-place-television-even-on-disney-channel/150583/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.99.252 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]