Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Delete?=

Moved from my talk page - Puck 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've put a WP:PROD tag on Pirates of the Caribbean films, as each separate film has a sizeable page already. If there is anything which can only be said about all three films together, fair enough, it should go on the new page, but I can't think of anything like that. Regards, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, but I think there's a lot to be said about all three films, which better could be described in an article about the trilogy.
Also, there are a lot of wikilinks to to the article about the franchise which I think should go to an article about the films.
Puck 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't want to delete stuff just for the sake of it, so I'll leave things as they are to give you time to develop the article as you see fit. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this can be made into a disambiguation page if one doesn't already exist.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation), but I wanted to add more information about all three movies on 1 page (not a disambiguation page)...
After the PROD-tag was added I wondered if it was still a good idea and hoped for more discussion on this page, before I extended the article... Puck 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Verbinski quote

hey, I read an opinion article where he said that his comments about gore verbinski were taken out of context, should this be lef ton the page? otherwise an addendum needs to be added that says "but breathead feels his comments were taken out of context" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk • contribs)

Prove it. Alientraveller 09:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

http://adage.com/results?search_offset=0&search_order_by=score&search_phrase=gore, http://virtualpolitik.blogspot.com/2007/05/immaterial-has-become-immaterial.html, http://www.huntleyneighbors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with blogs and forums. Alientraveller 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you were impressed with blogs and forums, they got their quote from an la times op-ed piece by breathead, which is a newspaper. anyways, the original breathed quote was reported on in blog, hence, you shouldn't put this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.83.203 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you keep up this fight? get a subscription to advertising age, ball is in your court, and it is furstrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.83.203 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) ---

I agree with Alientraveller. There needs to be a better source than a blog or forums. I own PotC forums, so I can tell if there are rumours of articles floating around, and sure, this may not be one, but there needs to be more of a legitimate source. BlackPearl14 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

wait. the sources are advertising age and the la times, not blogs, did you read my post? come on, IT WAS AN ARTICLE BY BEREKELY BREATHEAD! look at it logically: the orignial quote came from a blog, the second comes from an article breathead wrote himself. honestly, i can't understand the hold up here. honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I too read the article on the Los Angeles Times website where he retracted his comments. You can see that I am not the same person who posted earlier because our IP addresses are completely different as mine is based in Italy. Please we should take down this Verbinski quote. Alientraveler take down this quote! 82.210.228.21concerned pirate fan (and brand new wiki editor)

Link the LA Times piece please. Alientraveller 11:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I told you, i dont have a description, please, look for it yourself. The advertising age link had a link to the now defunct LA times article, thats proof. in fact, i'll find the wbesite where the quote originally came from. If it is a blog, then you have to tkae your quote down, agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Clearly the only link around right now is Breathed saying Verbinski is sick of pirates and that's that. IGN is clearly a more reliable source than you. Alientraveller 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

who did ign link from? listen, have you even tried to look for the la times piece? do you agree with me that thos elinks i posted indicated the breathed wrote an editorial about his comment? don't you feel you have a duty to look for it? you know they exist! also, i would like a week to gather proof, but would like the quote to be taken down for a week while i gather the proof, agreed? lets compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want us to do something, don't make us search for it. Please locate it yourself, we also have our own Pirates work to do! BlackPearl14 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

http://mobile.latimes.com/detail.jsp?key=39018&rc=newmedia&p=1 This is article I talk about in early postes. It are about how blog community took coment out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I get an apology, or at least a concession or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast table

Can someone else with Firefox 2.0.0.8 have a look at the page? The cast box is horribly merged with the infobox on my screen (1280 x 800 resolution), and I don't want to amend the article to fix it just in case it's only me. Cheers, Steve T • C 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the same issue, too. I've implemented a temporary fix. I think there may need to be more content in the lead section or just before the Cast table to fill out the white space. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Much better. That's how it looked in IE anyway. Cheers, Steve T • C 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Accidental Deletion

I’d like to apologize for the big deletion on the Future Plans. I was editing something and accidentally deleted the whole thing. Thanks, Alientraveller, for undoing it, I didn’t notice :) BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insufficient context

I came close to adding the ((context)) cleanup tag to this article. It contains a tremendous amount of historical information on the franchise project but about two sentences on what it is. It really makes little sense to someone who has not seen the films. -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for use

According to this;

"I hear [Pirates 4] would toss the Elizabeth & Will characters over the side in favor of doing a bawdy buddy picture which would star Jack Sparrow & Barbossa. Where both captains of the Black Pearl would initially be competing for the exact same prize. But eventually all the double crossing would have to stop as these two rivals were then forced to join forces in order to defeat some supernatural terror"

So how reliable is Jim Hill Media? This fella seems to be friends with Disney. Alientraveller (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very in my opinion. Jim hill Media is the team that did the crack reporting on the alleged verbinski quote from above. They started the whole mess about verbinski being sick of pirates the breathed had to write a personal opinion aricle to end the controversy. In my opinion, it is a nothing more then a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.63.22 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article needs a lot of work. First off, tere's a lot of random info under the template at the bottom of the page. Why's that there? Second, the article needs more images. There's only one in the infobox. Third, the Films section needs to be expanded. Fourth, an External Links section would serve more closure to such a substantial article. Lastly, we NEED references in the Box office section, and more in the Future section wouldn't hurt. Leave a note on my talk page when all is fixed! Limetolime (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - it's good to know. We'll work on it! BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything has been fixed that needed to be fixed, so the article has passed. Congratulations!Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What film?

From the page -- Future: "Walt Disney Pictures has reportedly made tentative plans to shoot a fourth film in 2009 ......... The film has since been produced." What film? Produced? --Dumarest (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's get real about this! In the text of that section, it says "In February 2007, after filming was completed on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, screenwriter Terry Rossio said he and Ted Elliott may try to write a screenplay" It is now - as can be told by my signature - May of 2008, so has this happened? That last recently added paragraph indicates a "will" happening, and that can't be anything but a piece of personal information? not applicable in a Wiki page. --Dumarest (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We can't really understand what you're saying. I tried deleting it earlier, much, much earlier, but it was reverted with a sidenote that there is a reliable source. So, therefore, I don't see any reason to argue with that. I did remove the part where it said "the film has since been produced," because it actually hasn't. I think this is just speculation, but no one else, save for you, agrees with me. BlackPearl14The Adventuress 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All I am really saying is that talk about a new film at two years ago, and nothing else happening, seems not applicable to this page. But, with what you took out, and the recent addition also gone, all that is left is I would expect correct, and is referenced. But two years on, and nothing? I and I guess you would just remove that historical trivia. --Dumarest (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I can delete the section with a wikinote, but not right away. Thanks for your input. BlackPearl14The Adventuress 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)