Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

27/11/09 : I recently sent a recent image of Zack and Cody, but the former image was put back and I would like to know which is the one who made that, and who blocked the article while its image is not really recent at all !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbigbang (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The photo you uploaded to the Commons has been deleted as a blatant copyright violation. You then uploaded it a second time, and it was again deleted. Upload it again and it will be deleted again. We only want free images here. -- Zsero (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by free images ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbigbang (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:IUP has the answers you seek. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, my picture was very much recent than yours ! Unless you're nostalgic, I don't see why you put that 11 years old Cole Sprouse picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbigbang (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

11 years old?! That would be 1998. The picture is certainly more recent than that. But if you have a better and more recent FREE picture to put up, by all means do so. Do not put up a copyright picture, though; we are not interested in such pictures, and they will be deleted. -- Zsero (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture I put was, I think, as the same status as yours, and dare say to me that my picture isn't much recent than yours XD Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which must be on the page, and the twins are actually 17, not less, and by the way, the Sprouses were born in 1992 ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbigbang (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was openly copied from a web site that you even gave the URL to! How did you imagine it would be acceptable? Wikipedia is not interested in copyright images whose use is restricted. And why is their age relevant? We don't change people's pictures every year! Why is a photo from a few years ago not just as good as one from yesterday? And yes, of course they were born in 1992; who said otherwise, and how is it relevant? -- Zsero (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He said there was an 11 year old Cole picture, and you said that would be 1998. That would mean they were born in 1987, i think that's what he was referring to. I think he meant Cole was 11 years old, not the picture. (GT4GTR (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

And you tell me that your picture is NOT copied from a website ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbigbang (talk • contribs) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture that is there is free. Anyone can use it for any purpose. The picture that you are trying to add is not. You blatantly violated the owner's copyright, and don't even seem to understand that this is a problem. -- Zsero (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You say free, but you took that from somewhere, ddidn't you ? So it's not "free". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbigbang (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, it is free, as you can see by looking at it. I'm done arguing with you. Just don't upload any more copyright pictures, or they will be deleted. -- Zsero (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you say I'm wrong, but you moved your picture after all. Now that I can't edit the page which is semi-blocked, you can add a recent picture of the Sprouses =) . Right on time, ther's a lot of pictures with the new December's event, the Power of Youth. I let you choose one which is the most suitable to the Sprouses ;) --

Sigh. The picture has been moved down into the article. So far there are no new free pictures available, and nobody has yet been able to find any free picture of Dylan, let alone of both brothers. If you find one, by all means add it to the article — but make sure it is free. If you add a copyright picture it will be deleted immediately. -- Zsero (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Calling it vandalism is going WAY to far. Lighten up. And assume good faith.TrevorLSciAct (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Dylan and Cole Sprouse/Archive 1 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why don't they get their own pages?

Just because they are twins doesn't mean they should be one article TrevorLSciAct 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.--andrewI20^Talk 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)

I think that they should have, and they do now. Lets say there were two unrelated actors who had only been in things together, do they get their own articles? YES! Just because someone is a twin doesn't make them less of a person. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

- they are two seperate people, so they should have their own pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southconfederate (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

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...

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

Picture (again)

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

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)

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)

47 R.O.N.I.N. Book information

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)

Facebook pages

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)

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)

Actually, to correct what has been said before, Cole is the smart one. Cole plays Cody(the smart, responsible one), Dylan is Zack(lazy, irresponsible one). I have no idea why only Cole was nominated but both are almost like a team. It seems to me that if one would be nominated, people would consider it as both of them getting nominated or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigirl636 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Is their official YouTube channel reliable enough? If the original reference was actually true, this is at least the second time he's brought it up. Here is the video: HABBO ADVENTURE. Approximately 8 minutes and 42 seconds into the video it says on the bottom of the screen, "Shaking camera provides proof!" then in smaller type underneath, it says, "never give a camera to a person with a.d.d." I know it's their official YouTube because they appear in the videos. Also, it says so on Cole's official MySpace and I quote, "We have a youtube account, keep regular! CDPRODUCK252." If it is added to the article, I feel we should say something about how the disorder is now called ADHD Predominantly Inattentive Type. Or maybe we can just link to the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. If nobody replies to this in seven days, I'll figure it's fine to put in the article. Not sure where to put it, though.Purplewowies (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There you go. It's a very reliable source. It's good that you have added the information already. I've seen the video weeks before the update on this article and it is exactly as you have said. Case closed. Winx knight (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, there are a couple issues on this. First, YouTube isn't acceptable as a source per WP:RS, but moreso, the video isn't on YouTube anymore, so it can't remain. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've found another copy of the video on Youtube. It's obviously the most reliable source possible — from the horse's mouth. I do wonder about its copyright status, but since it isn't a commercial video I think it should be OK unless and until Dylan Sprouse issues Youtube with a takedown notice. Until then, since he published it himself, we should assume that it has his tacit consent. -- Zsero (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That was actually right, the original Video on youtube was no longer existent but some fans was able to repost the exact video. If you search youtube and Cole's Official Myspace, their official youtube channel: CDPRODUCK252 was apparently hacked by someone and was eventually reported to Youtube resulting to the deletion of their Account. The same HABBO Video can still be seen without any edits from the original. I have my own copy as well. I'll try to search the statements from Youtube and the Twin's Official Myspace regarding the announcement. But with regards to this topic, the ADD information based on the Video is indeed reliable. Winx knight (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, no, that isn't correct. It isn't okay, for a couple reasons. YouTube isn't generally an allowable source, especially for articles in the good article and featured article class. If this is such a big point, then there are reliable third party sources out there to confirm it. The video would qualify as a primary source and there are caveats about that in WP:RS. Then, if the original video was taken down, and fans reposted their hacked copies of it, the copyright status isn't even questionable, it's a copyright violation. No one is questioning whether one of the boys is has attention deficit problems. However, the way you're both using the word "reliable" isn't congruent with how it is defined in terms of sourcing. WP:RS says: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. If it's valid, which is qualitatively different that reliable, it will be published by an established author in a reliable publication. Until then, it hurts no one, and is supported by Wikipedia policy, to wait for it to be published. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says primary sources are reliable so long as we "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". That is the case here.

As for the copyright question, when the author released it on youtube, we can assume that meant he didn't mind it being seen and spread. We don't know why he took it down, and it's possible that it was because he changed his mind and no longer wanted it seen. But it's equally possible that he closed his account because he lost interest in it or because it had been compromised, and his implied consent to its continued availability is still in force. That wouldn't be enough for material uploaded to WP, but I think it is enough for us to link to it. If the author really wants it gone from youtube, he'll issue a takedown notice and youtube will remove it. I'd bet, though, that he has no interest in doing so, and that's enough to justify linking. -- Zsero (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not begin an edit war with you, however, I will say it is troubling that you would restore the material which has had a legitimate concerned raised over the appropriateness of its sourcing, rather than wait for a discussion to ensue. I will take it to WP:BLP/N for review of possible WP:BLP issues. The "bureaucracy" of WP:BLP is to assume nothing and insist on complete verifiability. You can't make assumptions about acceptability and implied consent and take a wait and see attitude about the possibility of a takedown notice in issues regarding WP:BLP. If this YouTube video is not on an official page, it must be considered a copyright violation and cannot be used. I'll repeat for clarity's sake - this isn't the sort of reference that is acceptable on good articles or featured articles and again, it is disturbing that it is more important to slap the questionable source and material back in than it is to protect the GA status of the article, and by extension, its integrity. Please respond at WP:BLP/N#Cole & Dylan Sprouse. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The video's copyright status does not affect its reliability. BLP is about reliability, not copyright, so what does a takedown notice or its absence have to do with it? Even if the video were a clear copyvio it would still be a reliable source, and there would be no BLP issues with it; we could still refer to it so long as it was publicly accessible, we just couldn't link to it. Sources don't have to be linked to. The bottom line is that it's obvious that this is reliable - how could it possibly not be? If you think there's any question about its reliability, please explain how. -- Zsero (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See the comment below, as well as addressing this on WP:BLP/N#Cole & Dylan Sprouse. I've listened to all nine minutes, watched it all. The context of this cannot support a definitive statement that he has ADD. This would be one of the primary issues with primary sources, you cannot presume to know what he meant when he added the caption. By making that presumption, you are interpreting meaning from it, which we cannot do on Wikipedia. That makes it original research by definition. I didn't intend to revert again, until I saw what is being offered as reference on an article that falls under WP:BLP concerns. The validity of the reference is questionable, by WP:BLP, it has to come out until this issue is determined. Otherwise, the whole GA status of the article is under question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say that you are supporting the inclusion of this in the article based on a caption added to video from a handheld camera during an interview that said "Shaking camera provides proof: Never give a camera to a person with A.D.D." There is no way to use that as verification that he has ADD. Please find something more definitive than something that could just as easily be a flip comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(3rd party opinion here) This issue really doesn't have to do with the fact that the video is from YouTube. While YouTube really shouldn't be used as a source for various reasons, there is no policy saying it can't be used. In this case, the video and its caption do not serve to back up the claim. If there was an outright admission, I'd be more inclined to let it stand. I watched the video and I missed the caption because it's blurry. Even if it wasn't blurry, the comment seemed to be a joke and it doesn't say "_____ has ADD". In other words, the comment was relative and can be interpreted in different ways. Since this is a BLP, all the references should clearly support the content. If I were doing a verifiability check on this article, I certainly wouldn't let this source and the accompanying text remain. I suggest that anyone who wants the claim included should find an additional source. If this is worthy of mentioning, there should be no problem in finding another source outside of the YouTube video. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

According To Jim Cameo Appearnce

The twins made a guest appearance on an episode of according to Jim called "I Drink Your Milkshake" my question is where they playing their characters from their show "The Suite Life Of Zack & Cody" as some sort of crossover or where they just playing themselves in real life???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Diff.

According to Disney Channel info, the distance between Dylan's and Cole's birth is 20 minutes. Please correct, thnx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.205.40 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The cite states 15 min time difference. The official website also states 15 min time difference between the twins....So i guess the article shd state it as 15 min. Gprince007 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture on Infobox

As the article is for both Sprouse brothers, should the picture in the infobox (fitting free-use qualifications, of course) feature both guys instead of just one (currently, the article features only Cole in the infobox)? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Even i feel the same way....someone shd try to find a free image of both of them together....since they appear together most of the time that shouldnt be a problem....the only problem is proper licensing of the image in order to be used on wikipedia. Gprince007 (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dualstar and S&S

Someone reverted my edit about the twins' associations with Dualstar and Simon & Schuster ending claiming it wasn't relevant. The information is relevant because a reader may think that they are still with those companies. Besides, in an article that talks about whether they can speak Italian or not and what their favorite foods are, how can you delete actual career information and claim that it isn't relevant? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well due to oversight i deleted their association with "Dualstar and Simon & Schuster"...i didnt see that these were covered in the beginning of the paragraph....Regarding info abt "their favorite foods", pls remember that this is an encyclopedic article. Stuff like what they like to eat wont meet the notability guidelines. Also it is a trivial issue of tastes and dislike of 16yr old kids. They may like pasta today but when they grow up they may not like it....so its trivial issue and was maybe removed. Gprince007 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The part that I was talking about is this paragraph:

---

The Sprouses enjoy skateboarding, snowboarding, surfing, and basketball,[5] as well as writing or drawing a comic strip, The Adventures of Tibblebu and Thumbin, based on a stuffed animal of Cole's.[18] Cole Sprouse's favorite school subjects are mathematics and science; he names The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as his favorite video game and Forrest Gump and Godzilla as the films he likes the most.[4] Dylan prefers history, dislikes mathematics, and enjoys playing the video games Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros. Brawl; his favorite film is Napoleon Dynamite.[4] The twins have a dog named Bubba,[5] and their favorite actor and co-star is Adam Sandler.[4]

According to a May 2006 interview with Mad Kids magazine, the Sprouses do not speak Italian,[4] despite incorrect reports to the contrary:[19]

Cole says: "I can't say anything in Italian. "Pizza, per favore [sic]" maybe?"

Dylan says: "...I don't really speak Italian except for "spaghetti", "Italian ice" (Yum!), and "Ferrari".

---

Most of the stuff in that paragraph is trivial and irrelevant.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well i have removed some stuff now....however some stuff may be left as it is, because the section is after-all abt personal lives....anyways if consensus prevails, then u may remove other info too...Gprince007 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, my goal wasn't to have anything removed. It was just to get the info that I added to be left in. We've already agreed on that so I have no problems at this point.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of only one twin

You guys only have a picture of cole on this article. You need to get a picture of the two. Pirakafreak24 ( Leave a Message ) I can sing! Ha!. 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of a free picture that we can use? -- Zsero (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not. Just Google Dylan and Cole Sprouse. You'll find some pictures there. You guys used to have a picture of the two of them. What happened to that? But let it be known that the picture on the article is of Cole, not Dylan. Pirakafreak24 ( Leave a Message ) I can sing! Ha!. 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Googling will find plenty of pictures, all of them copyright. If you don't know of a free image of both boys, then you have no reason to complain that we don't include one. And yes, it is Cole; that's what the caption says. -- Zsero (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. What if you get permission from the website with the picture you want. (I'm new to this). --User:Pirakafreak24 (not signed in). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.183.97 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's one from Flickr, appropriate license. Its from 2007, but there are older pictures for other celebs, it shows both twins clearly, and is way more attractive. I'll leave it here because I'm lazy, but I'll come back later and if it hasn't been uploaded I'll do it. Enjoy! Liquidluck (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's copyright. We've had it added here several times, and had to delete it. -- Zsero (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Order

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move, waiting for admin's help to delete the redirect. GrooveDog (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Dylan and Cole Sprouse}}

Cole and Dylan Sprouse → Dylan and Cole Sprouse — "Cole and Dylan" or "Dylan and Cole"? Dylan is the older brother, and that is the way they are listed on their official web page. A hasty Google search finds that "Dylan and Cole" appears to be more common than "Cole and Dylan", especially when you bear in mind that a lot of the "Cole and Dylan" hits will be copies of this WP page. (For some reason Googling ' "cole and dylan" -wikipedia ' seems to ignore the quotes and bring back everything with both "cole" and "dylan" but not "wikipedia", so I couldn't get a better estimate.) As Gimmetrow says, the order should match the title, so I'm changing the title. -- Zsero (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it appears that I can't move it without an admin's help, since the redirect needs to be deleted first. It appears that the page was moved by User:Cory Malik on 18 August 2008 at 20:36 UTC, without any discussion, on the grounds that "Cory is always credited first". No source is given for that assertion, and I don't see why it matters anyway. In addition to what I wrote above, as I was going through the article to make all mentions consistent I noticed that the overwhelming majority of articles referenced refer to "Dylan and Cole". I'm requesting an admin to delete the redirect and move the page. -- Zsero (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• According to WP:Requested moves, "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." I don't think this really is controversial, and don't expect to see any arguments here against the change, but one never knows, and there's no urgency, so I'm erring on the side of caution. If anybody objects to the move, and has a reason for objecting, please join in and explain why the current name is more appropriate. -- Zsero (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support — It's not 100%, since there are a couple of news reports used as references which list the brothers as "Cole and Dylan", but the majority seem to use "Dylan and Cole" (the NYT article actually used both interchangeably). Barring the addition of new information to the article itself, I'll support this.
  — V = I * R (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see that the order matters much. If the article gets moved, then it needs to stay put for at least a year. Gimmetrow 23:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 Done, page moved per tagged request. ~ mazca ^talk 11:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actuall Picture

This Picture is old, it looks horrible and only one of them is on it.

Thake this one, it is from 2009 ant they both where on it.

[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Limpek (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea. Any idea who took it, or where it is from? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, according to the site the aforementioned picture is on (fourth row down, fourth picture), it's got a copyright on it by Getty Images, which means we can't use it. But I do agree that the 4 year old picture of Cole doesn't need to be on there. I think that the picture, if we can get one without a copyright placed on it, should include both of them, since this is an article for both of them. -- Purplewowies (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We've had this picture submitted before, and deleted it. Getty does not play nice with people who steal their photos. We certainly want a photo of both Sprouses, or at least a photo of each, if we can get them; but so far nobody has come up with one. Instead we've been subjected to one copyvio after another. It's not that hard: if it says copyright right on the page where you saw it, especially if it names a well-known commercial agency, the odds are very good that it is. -- Zsero (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was the picture moved down from the infobox? It seems to be the only free picture we can find; surely it's better than nothing. -- Zsero (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In short, people kept complaining about the pic. It's still in the article, just not in the infobox. Complaints should decrease. Gimmetrow 17:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture Question

At the Power of Youth event, Dylan and Cole (among several other celebs) posed with Piper Reese, host of the web show Piper's Picks. I'm 99.9999999% sure this was taken by someone related to Piper's Picks. Many of the other celeb photos are on the Piper's Picks Twitter (Twitpic account). However, the only place I can find the Dylan and Cole picture is on the intro to an episode of her webshow (which is copyrighted). I know that a screenshot would be considered copyright, but if it surfaced on her Twitpic, does anyone what its copyright status would be? Purplewowies (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Does anyone know their heritage? I heard they were born in Italy to Irish-American parents does anyone know for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexyShugar (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Reasonably wll written

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I fixed some dead links

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient coverage given the subjects' age

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, this complies sufficiently to keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dylan KCA 2010

Dylan won an award for the KCA 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.174.41 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gaby.richardson16, 30 March 2010

[7]{{editsemiprotected}}

Gaby.richardson16 (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Stepford twins

Hmm not one mention of how scary these two are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

NOT Identical

I think some people are confused about identical twins, versus fraternal twins. Identical twins are, just that: identical. They cannot be told apart unless they wear different styles of clothing or one gains/loses weight. Identical twins also have exactly the same DNA. Meaning if you do a DNA test you won't be able to tell who is who. When they have children, the paternity tests would show up as them both being a child's father. The kids of Identical Twin #1 and his wife will be genetic half-siblings to the children of Identical Twin #2 and his wife, even though they are cousins in reality. (If they had children by the same woman, they would be genetic full-siblings.) Dylan and Cole are clearly NOT identical. One is taller than the other, and their faces have different shapes. Even if they say they are identical, they are clearly not. Maybe it's "trendy" for same-gender twins to claim to be identical, even if that's not the case? Identical twins are not shorter or taller (unless they are separated and one is malnourished, which is clearly not the case with these two rich and healthy teenage boys). Fraternal twins can sometimes look alike, but genetically they are just like any pair of brothers. Sometimes they look very similar and other times they couldn't be more different. And of course, boy/girl twins are NOT identical. Stephe1987 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's possible for identical twins to look different enough to even look fraternal. Identical twins are VERY rarely completely phenotypically identical, and will often look different due to environmental influences, including, but not limited to external mutations while developing in the womb, chemical differences in the body that make each twin express different parts of their genotype, and even abnormal splitting of cells during development, resulting in aneuploidy in the affected twin. That last one (extremely, EXTREMELY rarely) can even lead to identical twins that express different sexual phenotypes (i.e. boy/girl identical twins). As the sections entitled "Genetic and epigenetic similarity" and "Phenotype similarity" in the Wiki article on twins state: "The number of... differences between MZ twins increases with age." and "As they mature, MZ twins often become less alike because of lifestyle choices or external influences." Both of these could apply to Dylan and Cole, especially since they're getting older. That being said, I do agree with what I think you're trying to say, and that we shouldn't try to mention whether they're identical or fraternal unless we REALLY have to or we know for sure. They look different enough that they could be look-alike fraternals, but also look similar enough that they could be identical with a few phenotypical differences. Everything you said that "makes them fraternal" could just be a phenotypical difference (taller can DEFININTELY differ with identical twins as much as it can with fraternal). I don't think they even know whether they're identical or not, since they said in People, "I think we might just be fraternal twins!" (Note that this quote doesn't confirm they're fraternal, either.) - Purplewowies (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, to some extent. For example, if one twin gained weight and the other did not, if one had a freckle, mole, scar, or bruise that the other did not. Of course these are things that would not match and technically they would no longer look identical in these cases. But in the Sprouse twins' case, they grew up in the same environment and started out looking very similar (not really different genes expressed). One did not get better nutrition than the other to be taller, and yet one twin is about 1.5 to 2 inches taller than the other (a noticeable difference)-- and being males their age they're possibly still growing, so that difference may increase by they time they hit 21/22. They could end up being 3-4" apart in height. The shapes of their faces are very different; one is oval and the other has a more round shape. Doesn't that seem strange to you for "identical" twins? To me, they just look like brothers. They looked a lot more alike when they were younger, but then again my youngest sister and I looked very similar in our baby pictures but now we look almost nothing alike. I think about the Olsen twins. They have stated they're fraternal from the beginning and looked pretty much identical as babies and little girls. But now one is 1/2" or 1" taller than the other and they have different-shaped faces. But they do have the same hair, eye, and skin color (except when one dyes it a color other than blonde). IMO, those two are more difficult to tell apart than the Sprouse brothers who are said to be identical! I think at this point that any label for the Sprouse brothers other than "twin" isn't good, except for the description of the characters on the show, because they are supposed to be identical. Stephe1987 (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I could've sworn the Olsens had different eye colors, but I'm not getting into that because that's not what we're talking about. ;) It is possible they could be different heights depending on other factors besides how similar their nutrition is (the body doesn't just use food to grow, but for other things as well), and they could catch up to one another and be the same height just as you said. The face thing could be differences in weight distribution (which could be phenotypically expressed differently in each twin) or differences in weight (especially if differences in height are involved). It wouldn't even have to be a big difference in weight, considering Dylan is shorter (at last check) and has said in the past that he weighs a little bit more than Cole. And for reference, I know identical twins (confirmed identical) who used to look similar, but now look as different as, if not more different than, Dylan and Cole. Perhaps I'll ask if they know anything more about whether they're identical or not on their message board. I don't think I'll reply to this section again unless I have proof or more facts that could help to prove whether they are identical or fraternal. And then we'll be able to say whatever they are in the article. (Gah, I didn't want this to turn into a long paragraph.) - Purplewowies (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please find reliable links for the interview where they say who's heavier and who's taller and the People one you mentioned earlier? As these questions arise regularly, we could well work it into the article. Primaler (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The one where Dylan mentioned he was heavier was at least a year ago, I think on the TSL Lip Syncin' in the Rain DVD. I don't own the DVD (saw it from someone else who does), and the only way I can show you the interview is on YouTube. It was around 1:50 in. (Is it okay to post the YouTube link to the interview, considering I think it's copyrighted and it wasn't posted by Disney?) They mentioned Cole was taller in that interview, and Dylan also said it on the message board quite awhile ago (I can't find the message, but in the message he said he was 5'6" and I think Cole was 5'... 9"?). The People interview with the quote about them speculating their fraternal-ness is on pages 16-18 (16-17 being a picture spread) of the May 2009 Special Collector's Edition about the Sprouses. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture Proposal 9 June 2010

Do you think we could have a new more current picture of the twins! I have one that they took themselves! Could that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A more current picture would definitely be nice. There are some conditions involved, however. Can you answer these questions?

1. Was this picture found on the internet? If so, on what website?
2. Do you know who the copy-right owner of the picture is?

Answer those two and we'll be able to determine if the picture will work. Thanks, liquidluck✽talk 05:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Its from www.Sprouseland.com but I actually have it on my Twitter http://twitpic.com/1ul2rz

Its actually a Candid picture of them, which makes it a free picture right? Thank you for agreeing to work with me to make this page better, um no one has ever offered to work with me, I think it makes the pages more acurrate and better looking, you are a true wikipedian. - Smalln --Nick 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It COULD be free, depending on who photographed them and if that person works with a company or not. I'll wait for someone more experienced to tell you if it's free or not or in that big black zone where more info is needed. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've been running into difficulty editing, Smalln! Regulars sometimes forget how difficult learning your way around Wikipedia's many rules can be, but a quick explanatory note will usually remind them. You're welcome to contact me by editing my talk page as well if you need any help.

As for the picture, I'm afraid that it looks like its copyrighted. It looks like Sprouseland took it from a shot by a paparazzi (the copyright owner); Even if this picture was actually taken by Sprouseland (doubtful), it looks like they wouldn't make it free. What someone could do is contact them on their forum (Dylan seems like he's pretty responsive) and give them a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. That way they or their representation can email an appropriate photo for use on Wikipedia. liquidluck✽talk 02:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rich Kids

"They have been described subsequently as "arguably the two best-known child stars in recent years" by the media and were one of the wealthiest children on the planet in 2007.[3][4]"

"In 2010, the Sprouse brothers were the highest paid teenage Disney television actors, earning over $40,000 per episode.[3]"

The second sentence is not clear, is it $40K each or combined? Anyway, the link (#3) to Gossipcenter.com doesn't say anything about their earnings. IMDB quotes the New York Post that the Sprouse Twins earn $20K each per episode and Selena Gomez earns $25K, so according to that source the Sprouse Twins are the second highest paid Disney TV actors. The People link (#4) doesn't say the Sprouse twins are some of 'the wealthiest children on the planet.' It gives no specifics, only mentions the defunct Sprouse-Dualstar deal, and only deals with young royalty and celebrities. On sprousebros.com, Dylan Sprouse said their income is trusteed, so compared to any trust fund baby of the wealthiest families in the world, the Sprouse twins are probably millionaires in trust but there's no source to say they are some of the wealthiest children in the world. I would delete the second sentence as unsourced and rewrite the first sentence. I wouldn't leave in anything about their finances. If someone wants to cite IMDB, fine, but I wouldn't. See my edit request.Daiquiri6(talk) 08:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request re Finances

{{editsemiprotected}} In paragraph 2, Change:

They have been described subsequently as "arguably the two best-known child stars in recent years" by the media and were one of the wealthiest children on the planet in 2007.[3][4]

to:

They have been described subsequently as "arguably the two best-known child stars in recent years."[3]

(Delete 'by the media' because the quote is only from a single source (link [3]), not 'the media' in general. Delete the rest because neither link supports the claim of 'wealthiest children on the planet.' See my talk "Rich Kids." Delete link [4])

In paragraph 3, Delete:

"In 2010, the Sprouse brothers were the highest paid teenage Disney television actors, earning over $40,000 per episode.[3]"

(Delete this sentence because it has no source. link [3] says nothing about their finances.)Daiquiri6 (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 13:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sivilized

"According to Dylan, the twins will be filming another Modern Twain Story film beginning in summer of 2009. The film will be called "Sivilized" and will be a modern version of "Huckleberry Finn."[13]"

Dylan said recently on sprousebros.com that this movie will not be made. Should there be any mention of "Sivilized" at all? I think so, since it was part of a three-movie deal to make modern Mark Twain movies featuring the Sprouse brothers as classic Mark Twain characters, its worth mentioning even though it fell through.Daiquiri6 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.206.166.151, 3 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In 2014, Cole Sprouse will play in a Disney movie called The Water Expression,he gonna play an austitic person named John Krowbar.

24.206.166.151 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.206.166.151, 7 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In 2014,Cole Sprouse will play in the last Disney Movie called The Water Expression and he going to play an austitic person named John Krowbar.

24.206.166.151 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.82.68.16, 11 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The fact that the boys were also in ABC Family's family sitcom Full House for 2 seasons needs to be added. 74.82.68.17 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Dylan and Cole were not in Full House. You're thinking of Blake and Dylan Tuomy-Wilhoit. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

international household names?

This is an awfully brave statement. Arnold Shwarzeneggar or Neil Armstrong may be international household names, not sure these two child actors are. It is not mentioned in the main body of the text to back up this statement either. Please could a cite be added, as no one in my household have heard of them. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have young children, like my son then these boys are household names. They do commercials for danimals yogurt as well. Watch the Disney Channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.122.156 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because your family knows about them doesn't mean everyone (a significant number) around the world has heard of/likes them. If a statement like that is going to be in an encyclopedic article, it needs a source to back it up. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} This page says that they were first in a toilet paper commercial, however they had said in their biographies that they started out in a diaper commercial.

(KenM66 (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)).

Just out of curiousity

Why do Dylan and Cole not have individual pages?

just Eleos 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason was that they haven't done a significant amount of separate projects (different movies/shows where they're alone and individual) yet. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request 26 July 2011

It is put up on the Dylan and Cole Sprouse's website. "sprousebros.com". That the twins are currently is in college. In their "News" section. Photos of them with their college buddies and in the college hallway and cafeteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.46.229 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The fact that they have been accepted to NYU and are going for the 2011-2012 year is already in the article. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oficial pages

Dylan and Cole individual pages: Dylan Sprouse: http://sprousearts.com Cole Sprouse: http://colesprousephotography.com/ (Coming Soon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDebbySprouse (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

...Are you requesting a change to the article? - Purplewowies (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added Dylan's link to the infobox under the sprousebros link, but I held off on Cole's since there's no content yet on his site. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Awards and nominations.

2010 - Award: Popstar Magazine's Poptastic Awards - Work: The Suite Life on Deck - Category: "Favorite Television Actors" - Result Cole: Won - Result Dylan: Won

2010 - Award: Kids' Choice Awards, Brazil - Work: The Suite Life on Deck - Category: "Best Television Actor" - Result Cole: n/a - Result Dylan: Nominated

2010 - Award: Celebrity Love Awards - Work: The Suite Life on Deck - Category: "Favorite Actors" - Result Cole: Won - Result Dylan: Won

2010 - Award: Hollywood Teen TV Awards - Work: The Suite Life on Deck - Category: "Teen Pick Actor: Comedy" - Result Cole: n/a - Result Dylan: Nominated

Sourse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Suite_Life_on_Deck — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDebbySprouse (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal lives or Relationships

We should add more information in Personal lives or "New section" Relationships.

Laundry list of gossip

Dylan Sprouse 2007-08, Dylan Sprouse is dating Rebecca 'Becky' Rosso Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_755/dylan-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/rebecca-rosso 2008, Dylan Sprouse is dating Daveigh Chase Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_755/dylan-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/daveigh-chase 2008-10, Dylan Sprouse is dating Danielle Glasscock Source: http://www.famousgirlfriends.com/dylan-sprouse-girlfriend/ http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_755/dylan-sprouse/ 2010, Dylan Sprouse is dating Kara Crane Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_755/dylan-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/kara-crane 2010, Dylan Sprouse is dating Juliet Stromin Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_755/dylan-sprouse/ 2011-present, Dylan Sprouse is dating Megan James Source: http://oceanup.com/node/36921 - Cole Sprouse Cole Sprouse is dating Camilla 'Milly' Rosso Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_57327/cole-sprouse/ 2007-08, Cole Sprouse is dating Erin Barr Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_57327/cole-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/erin-barr 2009, Cole Sprouse is dating Maiara Walsh Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_57327/cole-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/maiara-walsh 2009, Cole Sprouse is dating Katelyn Pippy Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_57327/cole-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/katelyn-pippy 2009, Cole Sprouse is dating Sophie Oda Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_57327/cole-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/sophie-oda 2009, Cole Sprouse is dating Rebecca 'Becky' Rosso Source: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_57327/cole-sprouse/ http://shagtree.com/relationships/dating-history/rebecca-rosso

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.62.60 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Whosdatedwho.com is not a reliable source for biographical personal information. Please see WP:RS for the types of sources required in biographies. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal lives or Relationships

2008-09, Dylan Sprouse is dating Danielle Glasscock

Source: http://www.famousgirlfriends.com/dylan-sprouse-girlfriend/ http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_755/dylan-sprouse/ http://blogdelatele.blogspot.com/2008/12/fotos-danielle-la-novia-de-dylan.html (Spanish)

2011-present, Dylan Sprouse is dating Megan James

Source: http://oceanup.com/node/36921 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.54.62 (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Whosdatedwho is not a reliable source. And from experience, Oceanup's not a very reliable source for relationship information, either. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oficial pages and Oficial Twitter

Cole individual page: http://colesprousephotography.com/ Cole's Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOleKingCole Dylan's Twitter: http://twitter.com/SprouseArts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.54.234 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll put Cole's page in the article. I held off last time it was requested because there wasn't yet any content in the site. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

birthdays

cole was born august 4, 1992... when was dylan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.163.168 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC) ...They are twins. --Boycool (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Friends Episodes

Seven episodes of Cole Sprouse in Friends.

"The One That Could Have Been" (Episode 15, Season 6)

Original U.S. air date: February 17, 2000.

Source: http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/The_One_That_Could_Have_Been,_Part_1

"The One With All The Candy" (Episode 9, Season 7)

Original U.S. air date: December 7, 2000.

Source: http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/The_One_With_All_The_Candy

"The One With The Holiday Armadillo" (Episode 10, Season 7)

Original U.S. air date: December 14, 2000.

Source: http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/The_One_With_The_Holiday_Armadillo

"The One With The Truth About London" (Episode 16, Season 7)

Original U.S. air date: February 22, 2001.

Source: http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/The_One_With_The_Truth_About_London

"The One After 'I Do" (Episode 1, Season 8)

Original U.S. air date: September 27, 2001.

Source: http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/The_One_After_%27I_Do%27

"The One With Monica's Boots" (Episode 10, Season 8)

Original U.S. air date: December 6, 2001.

Source: http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/The_One_With_Monica%27s_Boots

"The One Where Joey Dates Rachel" (Episode 12, Season 8)

Original U.S. air date: January 10, 2002.

Source: http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/The_One_Where_Joey_Dates_Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.54.234 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to put the individual episodes within the article. Saying that he was in seven episodes is fine. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture question

Can the two pictures in the body of the article be combined into one picture and used in the infobox? The copyright holder of the two pictures has released them both under the Attribution ShareAlike license, which says that people are free to remix/adapt the works. Would that be a form of remixing/adaptation? - Purplewowies (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct, this article complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See notes below. The sources here are fine (But I have doubts to "Gossip Center.com") and this contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See notes below. This article is quite focused on the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It all seemed preety fair to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I can see that the page is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All the images are tagged and there are no non-free images, see notes below for point b.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• For point Number six, the note is that the current picture of them could be a bit newer, but that is only a proposition.
• The end of Dylan and Cole Sprouse#Acting may leave the reader wanting more, as to what are they doing now, because this ends at 2010.
• I will leave a citation needed tag where references are needed. ()

FAIL – I have assessed the article and left recommendations, but noone can find what are they doint now and find the citations that are needed in 5 days. I am sorry to say that I have failed this article, Tough luck lads... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I was unsure where to put this, so I didn't put it in the transcluded article, just to be safe.

I have two things to say about your first and second comments:

• A lot of people have complained about the picture for awhile, but no one can find a more recent free one. I am in the process of inquiring about the license/copyright status of a more recent (late 2009) picture, and if I get a good response, I'll upload it and put it in the article. It's not a super recent picture, but it's better than the current one.
• I don't think they're doing a whole lot now acting-wise, since they're focusing on their art/photography and college, but they did say that they picked NYU because it would be close to NY acting opportunities. Should that be added to the article (assuming I have sources for it all)? - Purplewowies (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1. True, it is better from 2009 than when the other one was taken.
2. Yes, but it has to have some relevance to the topic, which is their acting.

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

Year: 2005

Award: Young Artist Awards

Category: Leading Young Actor (Comedy or Drama)

Motive: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody

Result Cole: Nominated

Result Dylan: Nominated

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_Young_Artist_Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.190.166 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already there; it's just marked as 2006 because that's when the awards were presented. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and the nominations in 2010

Year: 2010

Award: Popstar Magazine's Poptastic Awards

Category: "Favorite Television Actors"

Result Cole: Won

Result Dylan: Won

Year: 2010

Award: Kids' Choice Awards, Brazil

Category: "Best Television Actor"

Motive: The Suite Life on Deck

Result Cole: n/a

Result Dylan: Nominated

Year: 2010

Award: Celebrity Love Awards

Category: "Favorite Actors"

Motive: The Suite Life on Deck

Result Cole: Won

Result Dylan: Won

Year: 2010

Award: Hollywood Teen TV Awards

Category: "Teen Pick Actor: Comedy"

Motive: The Suite Life on Deck

Result Cole: n/a

Result Dylan: Nominated

Sourse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Suite_Life_on_Deck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.190.178 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

None of those (with the exception of the last one) are properly sourced in the article you linked to. The Popstar source doesn't mention anything about Dylan and Cole, and the link to vote within the source is dead. There's no source for KCA Brazil. The sources for all the Celebrity Love Awards are dead links. Wikipedia can't be used as a source. I'll add the Hollywood Teen TV one, but you'll need to get other sources for the other awards. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've tried everything I can think of and can't get the table to do what I want, so it turns out I won't add the last one. Someone who understands tables better than I will have to do that. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Source Hollywood Teen TV Awards: http://hollywoodteenonline.com/2010/07/04/hollywood-teen-tv-awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.163.113.135 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

'Acting' and '"Sprouse Bros." brand'

Should they be merged? Does the "Sprouse Bros." brand have anything to do with their acting?

If so, then '"Sprouse Bros." brand' should be in 'Acting', as it is related to their acting. It is a short, choppy 2nd header (== ==) and I feel that it should be merged with 'Acting'.

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Comments done for point a, comments done for point b.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Comments done for point a, comments done for point b, no original research, see comments for further comments on the point.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A pass for point a and b, see comments for further comments on the points each.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It seemed fair to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All the images are tagged; Comments for point b are done.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Please see below also... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. Picture comments:

   1. Could there be a date on the second picture?  Done

      I've put the approximate date on the picture. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Reference comments:

   1. Could the reference number be fixed here?:  Done

      From the end of 'Acting':

      ...As of early to mid-2011, Dylan and Cole are not in any acting projects and are focusing instead on college as well as art and photography, respectively.[20][21][18] However, Dylan has stated...

      Fixed. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

   2. 'gossipcenter.com' is not a reliable source (as of its name). Please see the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy reading:  Done

      “While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.”

      And:

      “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.”

      Removed reference and quote it was referencing from the article. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

3. MoS comments:

   1. WP:Lead:

      1. The lead is supposed to summarise and introduce the topic to the reader. It is fine, except you could fit in a word or two about their personal lives.  Done

         I've added a bit to the intro about their art/photography and how they are now in college. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

   2. WP:LAYOUT:

      1. The layout is fine, no comments to that.

   3. WP:Words to watch:

      1. I saw no words that introduce bias in this article.

   4. WP:Fiction:

      1. Not applicable here...

   5. WP:Lists:

      1. Not applicable here...

   6. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies:

      1. Consubstantial with the guideline.

   7. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

      1. Consubstantial with the guideline.

4. Prose comments:

   1. A section from the lead:

      “...one year, and they began attending the university in fall of 2011. In mid-2010,...”

      Can you spot anything that is wrong there, gramatically?

      Actually, no, I can't... and I'm typically a bit of a grammar snob. Are you referring to how the next sentence starts off mentioning an earlier year than the first one? - Purplewowies (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

      Thank-you for bringing that to my notice... The spot the difference between the upper one and:

      “...one year, and they began attending the university in the fall of 2011. In mid-2010,...”

      And that notice you arose was not valid in the context of the article. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

      Ah. Done. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Major aspects/Focused comments:

   1. Major aspects:

      1. I say that that point is satisfied...

   2. Focused:

      1. This is also focused on the topic, giving all the available information of them...

6. No original research:

   1. This, as far as I can see, contains no original research. All the points are addressed with reliable sources, bar that one that I mentioned in the 'References' section of this review.

7. Now, just a question. In Dylan and Cole Sprouse#Awards and nominations, there is a table. And I remember when there was more green in that table... The question is, was something deleted in there, data changed or was the table just vandalized?

   Some of the awards that were marked as "won" had no source, and I couldn't find one, so I removed them. The Celebrity Love awards used to have a section of the site that gives them out devoted to them, but that section now redirects to the main page, and the only reliable sources I could find made no mention of them winning any of them. Some others that were marked as "won" had reliable sources, but the sources stated that they were merely nominated instead of winning. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, then... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, some final words... I must say that I was impressed with your reference skill on this article. Do you Google for the references or what do you do? I have been very impressed by that...

Honestly, I have a bit of a vested interest in this article, and when it was delisted... well, y'know... no fury like a woman scorned and all that (not that I took it as a personal affront). So, since sourcing was one of the big problems, I Googled most of them, making sure the site was a reliable source and things like that. Then, some others were just common sense. Like how for the Kids Choice Awards, I'm pretty sure I went to one of the KCA articles and happened upon the source they were using for nominations, which was the official KCA press release site, which gave me every source I could ever need to prove someone won or was nominated for a KCA for the past nine years. So yeah, basically a LOT of intense searching. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The final verdict is going to be quite good... I am going to put this on hold for 5 days, to have the points adressed and it depends on if ou finish off the points above that this will pass. This is really close to passing, just mior details need to be adressed to attain GA status.

Now, just a few things you might want to know...:

• You are not the editor with the most edits on this article... The Top 3 are as follows:

 # User:Jack O'Lantern - 336 (4.3%) Last edit September 2007.
 # User:Zsero - 276 (3.5%) Last edit March 2010.
 # User:Malevious - 181 (2.3%) Last edit September 2007.

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of the second paragraph, there is a typo!Iluvmarchingband=) (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

PASS — Well done on bringing this article back to glory in the GA standards! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in Filmography Section

I don't have the rights to edit this page but in the 2009 Hannah Montana section in "Television credits", the text in the columns for Dylan's Role and Notes are switched. Continuants - 15:28, 21 November 2012 (EST)

 Doing... Thanks for bringing this to the attention of someone who can fix it. I'm having trouble with the table syntax (it isn't as straightforward as switching the columns, since it's some weird issue involving rowspans and such), but I'll make sure it gets fixed. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013

Bigseanc1 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC) I want to edit this page because this page is never up to date I can keep up to date

You can edit semi-protected articles (of this is one), after your account becomes autoconfirmed. This usually happens when your account is at least four days old with at least 10 edits. WP:AUTOC RudolfRed (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note, however, that edits that add information like "Dylan and Cole are in NYU Cole is a archeologist and Dylan wants to be a video game designer they both took up drinking" (an edit you made to another page) are unverified, not encyclopedic, and may violate BLP. (Feel free to redact the quote in this comment if that last point is true.) - Purplewowies (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2013

According to Dylen in an interview, him and Cole had a spin-off in development with disney channel which was quickly denied stating "They pitched us our idea, in Miami, with Selena Gomez. And Cole and I turned to each other ... we basically laughed in their face and walked out," Dylan said. "That was the last meeting we had with Disney. We were just like no, that was the end." <http://www.j-14.com/posts/dylan-and-cole-sprouse-reveal-why-they-left-the-disney-channel-15038> <http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/dylan-sprouse-explains-why-he-left-disney-channel-2013315> (MarkeeseD2013 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC))(MarkeeseD2013 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

 Purplewowies is doing... - Looking into this. Seems like a thing that could be added to the article, though I wouldn't use the J-14 interview (I remember that magazine being unreliable for sourcing purposes, and in addition, that link is a bit vague). I feel like the passage you're requesting also needs to be written more encyclopedically and also not be straight up copied from the source. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself.-- TOW  talk  08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Identical twins or not?

They are often referred to as identical twins. I am not sure about that because they can be easily distinguished from one another. Their faces are slightly different and one of them is taller and slimmer.80.141.182.43 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I know confirmed identical twins that look more different than they looked when they looked most different from each other. (And honestly, right now it's super easy with their hair being different lengths, which only serves to accentuate their differences. :P) I've also seen pictures where I had trouble telling them apart. There's no reliable source in either direction, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

They are identical twins, regardless of whether they resemble one another or not. No reason whatsoever this can't be mentioned in the article.74.194.116.209 (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source, 74.194.116.209? Because this has been disputed before (which is why it's not presently in the article... though it's apparently in the categories). I had one once, but it wasn't iron-clad. Dylan himself has been quoted saying they don't know. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we mention the Dylan nudes in the article?

I know most (all?) of the editors adding it are new/IP, but unlike the last thing that had gotten this article protected (that whole "social experiment" thing with Cole's Tumblr), this is a real thing that is confirmed to have happened. Most of the people adding the info have been doing it unencyclopedically (i.e. "Dylan has nudes", sensational accounts (incl. "just the latest in a long line of stars" type jargon), etc.), but most of them seem to be doing it out of a legitimate perception that it is something the article should have coverage of but lacks. Is it and/or Dylan's response to it notable enough to add to the article? Or is it just a random event that shouldn't be covered because we're not news? - Purplewowies (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Verification for Dylan's Commentating.

I added in the article a short piece about Dylan's recent commenting at Smash bros melee tournaments and i got a message saying verification needed. Here is a source from Dylan's reddit ama: http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2bwcdi/hi_im_dylan_sprouse_interested_in_commentating_ama/ and here is video footage of Dylan commentating at said melee tournament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9WxM8L750c , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRAAomCtx90. Is this enough verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehack771 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I added an inline tag to the reddit source specifically (largely because reddit isn't hard-and-fast reliable and I haven't had time to look). It's mostly there to confirm that it's actually Dylan Sprouse in the Reddit source. I'm less concerned about YouTube, assuming it's a non-copyvio video that includes Dylan actually commentating. If no one else looks at it, I'll get to it when I have time before the end of the week. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Brother's links

I suggest that the 2 links to their personal art pages be removed. The photography page doesn't even exist any longer and the art website hasn't been updated since 2011. Both of these links were creations by their publicist to show them as adults and an attempt to keep fans interested in them, but they're now long past relevance. Raszoo (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Raszoo

At least one of them didn't read as a publicist creation, but considering Cole's is a parked domain and Dylan's has been hacked by a spambot, I'll go boldly remove them right now. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dylan and Cole Sprouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220181556/http://www.parade.com:80/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-19-2007/In_Step_With...Dylan_and_Cole to http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-19-2007/In_Step_With...Dylan_and_Cole

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dylan and Cole Sprouse. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111228235958/http://www.sprousebros.com:80/videos/view/?mid=26150_video_84 to http://www.sprousebros.com/videos/view/?mid=26150_video_84
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111014221926/http://disneydvd.disney.go.com/thats-so-suite-life-of-hannah-montana-mixed-up-mashed-up-edition.html to http://disneydvd.disney.go.com/thats-so-suite-life-of-hannah-montana-mixed-up-mashed-up-edition.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110919192204/http://disneychannelmedianet.com:80/DNR/2009/doc/DC_PR_060909.doc to http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/DNR/2009/doc/DC_PR_060909.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dylan and Cole Sprouse. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-fftv4663642mar19%2C0%2C2560485.story?coll=ny-entertainment-bigpix
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://coletureconcept.tumblr.com/post/35113120750
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327070323/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704071111/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms27.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms27.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6PyCb3Cq4?url=http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms28.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms28.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Marking this as failed until the erroneous dead link reporter comes back online. (There's no archive.org for that coletureconcept link, but it's linked to an on-Tumblr archive that has the post reblogged.) - Purplewowies (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dylan and Cole Sprouse. 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/20111004085306/http://newportbeach.bside.com/2010/films/thekingsofappletown_newportbeach2010%3Bjsessionid%3DDD161FE20484EE22FBF718C2D46E089A to http://newportbeach.bside.com/2010/films/thekingsofappletown_newportbeach2010%3Bjsessionid%3DDD161FE20484EE22FBF718C2D46E089A

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Submitted archive url change and asked the bot to run again; I don't know if that means it'll replace the archive it added earlier, but... yeah. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Separate articles for each?

The consensus seems to be that the Sprouse brothers are notable both as a unit and as individuals, therefore there should be three articles. Dylan Sprouse and Cole Sprouse are currently redirects to this article, but any editor may WP:BOLDly create separate articles by replacing the current redirect with an article. The Dylan and Cole Sprouse article should mainly focus on their shared projects and will probably not need to change much, if at all, from its current form. The individual articles should summarize this article and go into more depth about their individual, separate accomplishments. I note that concern has been expressed that there may not be enough notable information to justify separate articles, but this can really only be judged once those articles have been created.--Aervanath (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anyone else think that maybe each twin should have their own article? They are going forward independently from another with Cole in his new TV show and Dylan with his own projects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.86.72 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Weak oppose (See comment below with same timestamp as this: 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)) - This would require a discussion to split the articles... unfortunately, I'm not sure I can !vote either way, since I'm torn, so I'm leaning toward the article being kept as-is, at least until they do more roles apart. At present, the articles would largely be identical because of the large body of work they have done together and the majority of references discussing the twins as a unit. I wouldn't oppose if a body of references and sufficiently different articles could exist. Basically, WP:TOOSOON. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree - At some point in the near future the articles should definitely be separated. It's not as if they only play shared roles. However, I understand why many would think of them as a unit. That is no longer the case. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 18:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree - Cole is now a series regular in a TV show, and they have strayed apart on other projects. They do not do a lot together anymore professionally. The articles should be separated otherwise this is turning into two topics within one title. Mjs32193 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree - Sam as Mjs32193. FR (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - Cole is doing his own solo acting now, and while they have shared roles and worked together that doesn't mean they should stick together permanently. GameofEnder. 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:A586:8200:7596:DB28:C9BB:681C (talk)

Comment - What would the split entail/encompass, though? What information would migrate over? I still hold that at present, most of the article's current content is intertwined enough that the article wouldn't be sufficiently different without any additions to the content, but on the other hand, there's probably enough of a breadth of sources containing different info that a split could potentially be worth it, so... Further, I presume this article would remain as a hub for their shared work, a la Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen? (Also, I'm going to add a box on the main page directing to this discussion to get more current consensus since the discussion had gone stale before about a week ago.) - Purplewowies (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I asked a question about twin notability on the Notability (people) talk page and thought it best to notify here since this discussion spurred my curiosity on the question. I don't anticipate it having an effect on discussion (most specifically because I think they probably both individually meet the GNG), but the section is here if you'd like to follow its progression (no updates yet). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree - This shared article was appropriate for their shared time as Child stars, but as they now have graduated college, it seems they are on their seperate ways, careerwise. Therefore the article should be split to reflect this new realtity. Like with the Ashmore twins. Maybe not immediately, but most defenitly in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.116.143 (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree - I completely agree, it's about time, Cole has his own wikipedia page. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen have their own pages too, so why not Cole and Dylan? Cole deserves his own wikipedia page, so please!!! Dylan has a new movie coming out this year called Dismissed while Cole is a series regular on Riverdale --Princessruby (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen were doing separate things for about three years when their article was split, though. (Note the original discussion in that link ended in 2007.) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS probably isn't a perfect argument to make here. (I think that's my entire problem with this discussion in all honesty; no one's bringing up good policy/guideline based reasons for splitting and also people are advocating a split but not adding anything as to how they think it should be done. I'm toeing closer to neutral now than my original !vote last year, but I haven't seen a good enough reason to actually tip over to neutral/agree yet, personally. There's also probably a small part of me leaning toward "keep as-is" due to the article's current quality status as a good article, but that's not really a policy reason, so...) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I've premptively added {{Not a ballot}} to the top of this section because Cole tweeted about this article/discussion, which has driven some people to come edit the article. Now that the article is protected for a week due to disruptive edits, people might be more likely to access the talk page and see this discussion, so I wanted to fend off any potential misunderstandings as to discussion process. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment Could we create an article for them both, but keep the joint page a lá Winklevoss twins for the topics where they are notable as a pair? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this idea. The same was done for Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. Brojam (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a "hub" article for their shared work is almost a foregone conclusion, even. The breadth of sources treating them as a pair along with the fact that a split would leave them with largely identical articles where their shared work is concerned completely justify it (along with the precedent). (And what do you know, I was going to bring up MK&A when I saw this earlier but Brojam beat me to it. :P) That still leaves the potential separate content to be determined (though if the split happens that'd be something that would of course get worked out somehow). I should also note, something about this chunk of comment made me decide to change my !vote from last year (even though it's probably kind of obvious I've been "pondering jumping the fence", as it were), so in perhaps the most useless extra comment:

Neutral per my original comment and all my other replies throughout the discussion thus far. (Part of me wants to get more into full-on agreeing, but I'm also worried because I'm still unsure how many reliable sources can be pulled up for their separate projects (though that worry might be unfounded) and also don't know if there'd be enough content at the potential new articles to warrant it (significantly more founded).) - Purplewowies (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Strongly against This is a tweet by Cole Sprouse (8 February 2014):

"@dylansprouse I hope we never get separate wikipedia pages. #ConjoinedTwins #AttachedAtTheWiki"

Another one (18 September 2015)

"@dylansprouse brother, they're trying to separate our Wikipedia page. The world is trying to split us once again brother."

And this was on March 1st:

"I'm just out here trying to make sure Dylan and I never lose our joint Wikipedia page."

So why would you want to separate them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.75.234 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This is why the notice at the top of this section is there. We don't follow the celebrity's wishes and only the celebrity's wishes in a case like this. In fact, Dylan and Cole both have COI in regards to this article. This discussion is only happening because someone thought they might have enough individual notability to have separate articles. Right now (to my rusty/untrained eye), it looks like there's consensus for a split but also consensus to keep the main article as a hub to cover their shared work. They probably won't lose the joint page even if they gain separate ones. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly agree based on separate projects from each other. Calibrador (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose This wikipedia article has become somewhat of a cultural icon - it is known that both Cole and Dylan, as well as their fanbase, appreciate that it is one article. Praise of this article is a frequent topic on social media sites. To split them would be detrimental to their branding; they have maintained relevance as twins functioning together and their wikipedia article should continue to reflect that. DYLAN AND COLE FOREVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.90 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please read the box at the top of this section and also read WP:SUPPORT. This is not about what Cole or Dylan want. This is not about their fanbase (per se, anyway). This is not about their branding. This is about whether they need separate articles for work that they've done separately, using arguments rooted in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The consensus seems to be that keeping this hub article for their shared work is appropriate, and also that they're heading toward needing separate articles. I myself am a fan, and while I'm the closest to an "oppose" vote in this discussion, even my vote is just "neutral", because I'm also a Wikipedia editor and the policy arguments are enough to get me neutral on this. (As a petty addition, I feel the need to ask for sources on "cultural icon" and "frequent topic", but that's not really beneficial to civil, policy-based discussion, so I won't.) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly agree Considering that Cole and Dylan are doing completely different things now, it makes no sense for them to have the same page. DaneLINED (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support split - Make 3 articles, Dylan and Cole Sprouse, Dylan Sprouse and Cole Sprouse. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support: Both have separate careers now, aren't just known as "twin actors". Same thing happened to Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (Mary-Kate & Ashley). { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support: One article was enough when they had effectively one career between them. It makes less sense now that they're working on separate projects.Bjones (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not yet. At this point, Cole's role on Riverdale is the only thing that either of them has done independently that is of note. Everything else worth noting was done together, and is well-covered here. Independent articles for one or both are a possibility in the future, but right now they would merely reiterate everything in this article. Regardless, this article should be retained. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

cody martin and dylan sprouse are twins that used to starr on 'the suite life on deck' cody martin decided to join riverdale and he plays the role as jughead jones. Dylan spouse is living a normal life after having a career as an actress.You may know him as one-half of Dylan and Cody, the twins from Friends and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. But now he's Jughead from Riverdale. 1. He was born in Italy on Aug. 4, 1992, in a city in Tuscany called Arezzo, where his parents were teaching English

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameiscloke (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The actual information present in your request is already in the article, and the rest of it introduces deliberate factual errors. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please update

Could you possibly change the photo and add in the rumours of Cole dating actress lili reinhart as it is stated on lilis page.

Thank you. LonelyCloud (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done You added that to Lili's page. Also, please note WP:RUMOUR. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add "That 70's Show" S4E2 on their filmography as Billy and Bobby DD2918 (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Already done This was already in their filmography (and has been for at least six years) when you requested its addition. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)