Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

Parlé/Parley

Is the inclusion of "Parlé" and the accompanying explanation of its root actually based on any official source, or just conjecture masquerading as fact? See Parley

Fourth film

Why do people removing the fact that Depp has signed up for a fourth film? There's numerous press sources for this, yet it keeps being deleted from the main page. Why? --Gaunt (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read it to see it's already there? Alientraveller (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it wasn't there when I last looked. Must be getting confused by all these edits, re-edits and edits of re-edits.--Gaunt (talk), 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's looking: it's on the top of the paragraph; I added in a little snippet with the source so it works out ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is confusing, I'd suggest a re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.188.25 (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only confusing if you read this little... section. Leaving it alone. BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Will the fourth film be the last film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.13.147 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Zac Efron

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding whether Zac Efron is in the fourth movie - people are citing assorted dubious sources to back up this claim. Should we not be waiting for OFFICIAL confirmation instead of adding rumour and speculation to this article?--Gaunt (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is being flooded by IPs adding this, regardless of it being an unreliable rumour, but we editors are bound by WP:3RR. Thank you for deleting it as I was unable to, and some IP tried to revert my 'rumour' wording. Now let's hope an administrator changes his mind and protects the article. Alientraveller (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I spoke too soon: the IP is still reverting under new addresses. I checked WHOISes for all four of them and they all trace to the same person. Alientraveller (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if a few more people reported this illicit editing to an admin?--Gaunt (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources reporting it, then we can repeat what reliable sources have reported. MTV seems reliable enough to me. If it turns out to be wrong later down the road, the sentence changes to "It was initially reported that..." –xeno (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, we've wisely moved this here. It's a rumour. Rumours do not belong on Wikipedia: we did not report any of the silly disproven rumours that Sacha Baron Cohen or Russell Brand would play Sparrow's brother, and we should not give to an Efron-obsessive IP. Alientraveller (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, MTV is reporting it as slightly more than a rumour, they're reporting it as news. –xeno (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As you will be aware, even news channels are often wrong. We should wait for official confirmation from an official Disney press release.--Gaunt (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We are free to report on what is said is reliable sources, as long as we accurately report what they've said. –xeno (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So in that case you just perpetuate the rumour? I could start off a rumour telling everyone that the queen of England is a man and could no doubt get it into the papers, but does that make it factual? Of course it doesn't. People should wait for OFFICIAL confirmation from Disney. That's all there is to it.--Gaunt (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as we accurately report what the reliable sources say, the information can be included. At least as far as I know from my limited understanding of our mountain of guidelines and policies... Nevertheless, I'm going to step back, I've said my piece. Please be mindful of 3RR - you're way over =). WP:V does seem to back up these edits, however: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. –xeno (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for 48 hours so that we can all come to a consensus here, although clearly we can lift the protection far before that expiration if we come to an agreement. Tan | 39 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've solicited more opinions from WP Films. Please add the protection template and also split the combined refs (add </ref><ref>) for the sentence in contention. –xeno (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the information should be added to the article per WP:V. Waiting for an official Disney press release is waiting for truth, not verifiability. What we can do here is indicate that MTV announced that Zac Efron will be in the fourth film and that it reports Efron getting a £6 million salary. I think that MTV is a reliable enough source to use here; it's not Joe's Movie Blog. With my suggestion, we can ascribe the information to the source so it is not necessarily treated as the gospel truth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The statements on Zac Efron are a valid inclusion in this article. It is sourced by two reliable sources, meeting WP:V. A quick look at Google news shows that several other sources have also already picked this up. An "official statement" from Disney is completely unnecessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After the 'revelation' that Efron knows nothing about his supposed role in the movie, it just goes to show that you really can't trust what you read, unless it's from an official source. I'm pleased that people have finally seen sense and removed the rumour. Should we have a rule here that anything to do with the fourth film is not included unless it's from an official (or 100% reliable) source? If not, how can we prevent a repeat of the debacle the other day with various unregistered users constantly adding the erroneous information?--Gaunt (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This still speaks to what Erik says above. I don't particularly care that the paragraph is being trimmed now, in the grand scheme of things its probably not a notable occurrence that helps to understand the subject; however, the initial reports were completely justified in being written into the article. As long as it's verifiable, it can be included. –xeno (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is what puzzles me - if it's only verifiable via some media source who could well be wrong, should we include it? Waiting for an official press release can of course be a lengthy process, so does this Wikipedia article become, in some cases, simply part of the chain of rumours?--Gaunt (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We cannot predict if a reliable source will be wrong or not in providing verifiable information. We include it in the meantime, and if the information turns out to be inaccurate, there are two ways that it could be handled. Sometimes the press circulating around a rumor might be substantial enough for inclusion, but on the other hand, the rumor may turn out to be pretty silly and not worth adding to the encyclopedic article. It's basically something whose importance is to be decided by consensus; there's a lot of verifiable information that could be said about any film, but sometimes an item might be too miniscule to really warrant inclusion. I am fine with excluding Efron from the article since the casting information was refuted and it is not that important, but if editors come in to add this information, we may want to keep it around for a little longer until it becomes old news and ultimately irrelevant. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Can that last source in Future be fixed. They are mushed together right now, making it hard to evaluate for the discussion. Specifically change this:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3232739/Zac-Efron-signs-for-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-4.html|title=Zac Efron 'signs for Pirates of the Caribbean 4'|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21|publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/455101-zac-efron-to-star-in-pirates-4|title=Zac Efron To Star In Pirates 4|publisher=MTV UK|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21}}</ref>

to this

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3232739/Zac-Efron-signs-for-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-4.html|title=Zac Efron 'signs for Pirates of the Caribbean 4'|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21|publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/455101-zac-efron-to-star-in-pirates-4|title=Zac Efron To Star In Pirates 4|publisher=MTV UK|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21}}</ref>

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tan | 39 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd edit request

{{editprotected}} Well we all knew it wasn't true, could an administrator add this in:

"When interviewed by MTV, Efron denied the rumor, which originated from The National Enquirer."

Alientraveller (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the new information, edit warring is no longer a concern, I've unprotected the article. –xeno (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

it should read on wikipedia that "It is speculated tha Zac Efron is in the fourth Pirates movie, but has not been confirmed" --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Alientraveller (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception: Box office revenue

You have "Box office revenue" for the three films. But you should also have the budget for the three films as a comparison. - 4.240.78.135 (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no one knows for sure what the true budgets of the films were. $175 million? $200 million? $225 million? $250 million? $300 million? Which number will wind up being the real final pricetag for "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest"? Alientraveller (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the whole table. To be fair just about all budgets are estimates unless stated directly from the producers/directors/writers, therefore we can only go by Box Office Mojo or The-Numbers' data (or whatever reliable source cites the production budgets). --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Russell Brand

I hate to possibly start a ruckus similar to that which clearly has surrounded this Zac Efron issue, but I have read that Russell Brand could play a role as Jack's brother in Pirates of the Carribbean. Earlier, I wrote this:

It has been speculated that British comedian Russell Brand will play the character of Sparrow's brother. .

What's the problem? It seems informative enough, it has a reference, I would have thought this would be an interesting fact to put in this encyclopedia. 86.134.8.157 (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's speculation, not fact. And if you look at the date at the top of the article you'll see that it was written on 4th November 2008. --Gaunt (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

plot disambiguation

One of the reasons for the poor critical reception of the sequels was the difficulty of following the story. There are so many characters, each with their own goals and motivations, that it's often unclear "who is doing what to whom, and why". Carefully written plot summaries would help. (I consider these well-written and well-directed films that deserve more respect than they've received.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge On Stranger Tides

Per WP:NOTFILM, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." We should merge Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides into this article, as its article is almost entirely copied from this one anyway. ShadowUltra (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support that. It should merge here until Stranger Tides actually commences production. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but only if the article is split again when filming starts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the usual practice. Usually there isn't much worth putting in to an article until it is actually filming as it is mostly rumours and hints.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support redirect. SpikeJones (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support redirect. Flamedude (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support redirect. Cliff smith ^talk 05:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Support redirect. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Note: If creator of this article still wants to keep the article, please keep in a subpage.

Un-Support redirect. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support until production begins, which is not a guarantee. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. (JerzeyHellboy (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Wait a second, guys: didn't disney confirm it at the D23 convention event? BlackPearl14^{[talk•contribs]} 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Intent to produce a film does not always mean that a film will be produced, unfortunately. We use the start of filming as the threshold to create a stand-alone film article because at that point, the film is very likely to be produced and released. Before filming starts, though, the project can be hindered by factors like scripting and casting or even strikes like the WGA strike not too long ago. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition Johnny Depp recently made comments that suggest he doesn't want to take part following the removal of the Disney film head, so this could never happen. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it is a fact of life that films often get cancelled for a variety of reasons - which means reasonably enough that even if they are the next installment in a long-running series (James Bond, for instance) they don't merit an article under current rules. There is however an argument to be made that major films that were cancelled in the past The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (although this has now been re-started) could qualify under notability grounds. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On Stranger Tides: revisited

A user has created Pirates of the Caribbean:On Stranger Tides by copy-pasting a section from this article (Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)) (sans refs, weirdly). I came across it in new page patrol, and had added a link to the talk page to attribute the page history, before I discovered (by trying to move it to the correctly-punctuated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides) that this had all been fought out before. Not being familiar with the subject I don't know if enough has changed since September to justify the article's independent existence now, so handing it over to you guys. I don't want to clean up the article if there may be no consensus that it should exist at all. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pirates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.219.19 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK but then why does the 'on stranger tides' section link to it's own article, which then redirects back here? Very tiresome