Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

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

I am at an external wiki for PotC... I have heard from a friend that they HAVE in fact begun production for the fourth movie. Here is what he said: "Ok, in the news articles that I've read(which one of them said that they start filming on June 14th). But now, I've just read these two official movie websites, and they said that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is in production now(they are filming as we speak). Here are the websites stating this: 1. http://www.movieset.com/pirates-of-the-caribbean-4

2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1298650/ So, basically, I don't know if we should put that Pirates 4 is in production now or not. Because one of the websites that states this information, is imdb.com(obviously), and they already messed up with the "Jack and Barbossa meet up in New Orleans" thing, and it was confirmed to be false. Any suggestions? CJSFan 00:30, June 11, 2010 (UTC)"

We should start the new article on On Stranger Tides.

I've just watched Salazar's Revenge, of which there is no mention on this page, don't know when it was last updated but it obviously needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Knight 17 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

@ToadetteEdit: The whole point of "pending changes" protection is so that confirmed editors can vet edits by non-confirmed editors. It is usually imposed on articles that have a history of disruptive editing, as is the case with this article, with an IP-hopping editor persistently removing sourced content. You accepted this latest edit without querying why the editor was deleting sourced content. If you are not going to give an edit appropriate consideration it defeats the purpose of requiring edits to be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

My apologies, I didn't realised so. Toadette ^Edit! 18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

An anonymous editor has repeatedly added further details relating to a character in a rejected script. In the stable version (which I restored here), the article simply claims that Rossio's script was rejected for having a female villain, as Johnny Depp considered its premise too similar to another film he appears in. This is adequately verified by the existing source.

The anonymous editor has proceeded to add further details identifying the character. I have reverted for the following reasons:

1. These details are not provided by the existing source.
2. The editor seems to have coined them from a published version of a 2012 script. I have no opinion on the factual accuracy of the claim, but I am not reading a whole script to find out. Furthermore, this would constitute WP:Original research.
3. Besides not being directly verifiable, the name of the character is not relevant to the reason for why the script was discarded.

I would strongly urge the editor to cease edit-warring and obtain a consensus here on the talk page. If there is a consensus that the extra detail is relevant then more suitable sources may exist which can be used. Including the information in the way that the editor is attempting to add it to the article contravenes Wikipedia policies. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Adding to a recent edit here, the source is in the screenplay annotatitons: (67) This is perhaps the most key line in the story so far. Again, Jack knows that the Sea Widow is a formidable enemy, someone he is not likely to outsmart. This element of our villain is what makes this film different than all the other films; the Sea Widow is our Moriarty to Jack’s Sherlock Holmes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:4000:6960:2AAA:54E:A984:6269 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Please stop edit-warring; simply replying to Betty is not carte blanche to keep attempting to reinsert your edits. You need to wait for a consensus to emerge. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I noticed this error, I added it once, got reverted, and pointed out that my reasoning was in a talk page in the following edit. But that's besides the point. The information should be correct as it is in the source being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:4000:6960:D158:5BA8:E4FE:3B77 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_(film_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1262365276

And here I am once again having to explain another reverting of an edit without an actual reason from its deletion. "It's not sourced." Yes it is, it is in the script that no one bothered to read. "The Sea Widow is not a villain." Point (67) that is written above, taken from the script annotations. That should be enough to legitimize this information as accurate and reliable. 2601:903:4000:6960:598A:E005:BE84:B1E7 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]