Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean Online

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pirates of the Caribbean Online article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Pirates of the Caribbean Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on August 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Piracy B‑class Low‑importance

This article lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth.PiracyWikipedia:WikiProject PiracyTemplate:WikiProject PiracyPiracy articles

B

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Piracy To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Piracy:

Requests: John Lopez (pirate), Lords of the Spanish Main, Benjamin Bennett (governor) (see What links here), Thomas Walker (pirate), Richard Bishop (pirate)
Expand: Charles Vane, Edward England, Emanuel Wynn, George Lowther, Pierre Le Grand, Roche Braziliano, Thomas Cocklyn, Woodes Rogers, Piracy in the Indian Ocean
Verify: Daniel Johnson (pirate), Henry Jennings, François l'Olonnais, Olivier Levasseur, Edward Davis (buccaneer)
Copyedit: Golden Age of Piracy
Images: MV Delight, MV Powerful,

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Bejeweled Stars (1 participant)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (2 participants)
Game Sack (4 participants)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Full Protection

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Full protection: Confirmed user edit war. Overheatedlaptop (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overheatedlaptop~~

I believe you were trying to request that we revert back to this version, so I fixed the template for you. Unfortunately, that edit contains plenty of unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT, so it's unlikely we'll be adding that content back. Woodroar (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party fan projects

I'm curious why we mention third-party fan projects at all? As far as I'm aware, they're not official spin-offs or affiliated with the original game in any way. The claims are supported by primary sources, which are inherently self-serving as used here. Plus it's in the lead! I'm not opposed to mentioning either or both projects briefly if doing so is supported by reliable, independent third-party sources (such as those at WP:VG/RS) but not until then. Woodroar (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not official spin-offs. It seems the creators of TLOPO and POR didn't even ask for permission to recreate the game but they think Disney won't sue them as long as they don't make any profit on the game.[1]--Max Tomos (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable sources independent of the projects, then remove them. This is canonical policy. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The WP:VG/RS custom Google searches (both reliable and situational) returned "No results". I removed mention of both games. Woodroar (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article shortened?

I can see that there was an edit war from the history and the talk page, but the article used to be much longer than it is now. Why was it shortened so much? --ScriptorHistoriae (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the WP:GAMECRUFT was removed. Woodroar (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked back at the history and it looks like it was shortened in the edit war. I think the article should just be reverted to the October 18th version, which was before the edit war started. It looked much better and had a lot more content. --ScriptorHistoriae (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I just saw your comment above. --ScriptorHistoriae (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Honestly, no it shouldn't. The major part of the edit war took place between October 18 and December 22, and not much was changed in the process. It was user JzG, who remove a lot of content from the article -- but correctly: He was right in saying that the content given was not properly sourced and hence had to be removed. The "Closure" section was eventually restored, and there was a back-and-forth about the unsourced "Development" section, and the naming of the two fan revival projects on December 24. Everything that happened after that was pretty much just housekeeping by me. So, no. No need and no sense in reverting here. Lordtobi (✉) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw Woodroar's comment right after saying that. If I have the time, I might try to provide citations for the section that got removed. Being as large of an MMO as the game was, it definitely deserves a larger article. --ScriptorHistoriae (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]