Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean Online

Full Protection

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

~~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)

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)

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)

• 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)

 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)

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)

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

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)

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

(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)

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)