# Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

The alleged budget given here came from a notorious tabloid, the Daily Mail, which is barely an RS for most news claims and is certainly not RS for movie-industry trade claims. The cited article didn't even originate the claim but cited another tabloid, Australia's The Daily Telegraph — also not RS for movie-industry trade claims. An ENCYCLOPEDIA needs better than tabloid sourcing. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Please don't change the budget. Pirates 5 cost $230 milion. No $320 milion Travatar91 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Didn't realize the Daily Mail was also banned as RS on wikipedia.  I am adding back in the range, however (per the infobox rules), as the SF Chronicle, Consequence of Sound, Stuff.co.nz, and cinemablend all reported the same budget.Foodles42 (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
No the budget of this movies is only $230 milion. Stop to chance this please. Deadline confirms that the budget of this movie is only $230 milion. $320 milion is fake news from a tabloid newspaper.  Travatar91 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave multiple RS sources that are not the tabloid. You, however, seem like a sock puppet for Carlos Galanti. You have had multiple accounts blocked on wikipedia, as your writing gives you away. Foodles42 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The Budget is $230 milion. Travatar91 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop making edits that have multiple RS.  The infobox rules for film clearly state that if multiple sources give a budget range, then the entire range is to be included, not just the number you want.  You are using a sock puppet account.  Revert again and I will report you. Foodles42 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Stop making edit Please. The $230 milion is officially confirms by The Numbers and Box Office Mojo. Tony Strak (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The budget is $230 milion. The $320 milion is the presunte budget of notorious tabloid Daily Maili that Wikipedia bands as realiable source. The $320 milion was made by Daily Mail in 2015 and the other newspaper reported the budget of $320 milion thinking that The budget was true. Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
[}Betty Logan]] Please change the budget. Wikipedia lost is credibility.  Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Betty Logan Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
In Febrary of 2017 Wikipedia bandish Daily Mail a realiable source. Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Jacopo Alighieri is another sock puppet for Carlo Galanti. Foodles42 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
No bro. Stop Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You have already been reported.  Cut it out Carlo. Foodles42 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Fuck you Foodles42 95.249.144.166 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice in the Plot description that "Devil's Triangle" is linked to the Bermuda Triangle. I don't believe that "Devil's Triangle" in the movie references the Bermuda Triangle; but rather that cave thing. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC) 
How was Captain Salazar imprisoned? how did Jack trick him?  
Did Jack seriously cause all this by selling his compass for a bottle of wine?

Uhhhh … someone not see the movie , when writing the synopsis?  I know , previously his role was kept under wraps , then rumored to be "Poseidon , "Guard #2" , "Jailer #2" , etc. But , "Jib"? Any source for that one? He is in fact "Uncle Jack" , seen in the jail Jack Sparrow gets put in. ( They even drove the message home by having him singing "Maggie Mae" , a traditional song , re-arranged by The Beatles ,  and heard on the "Let It Be" album. ). Posted here , since I can't edit the body of the article. 75.104.163.77 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Budget of this movie is only $230 milion. No $320 milion. This was confirmed by Hollywood Reporter, Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes  Tony Strak (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The budget is only $230 milion Luke Firth (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The budget of this movie is only $230 milion. Please stop to change Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be an idea to remove the ‘(née Barbossa)’ from after Carina Smyth’s name. It makes one of the film’s twists obvious.
Opinions? Jcvamp (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this for a review, a quick skim makes me think that there may be a bit of work before I can pass it. I'll try get to the review soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so there is definitely some work to be done here. The first thing that I would recommend you do is request someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to give the article a full copy edit. Particular issues there include an overuse of dates in the production section, repeated information in places, and some quotes throughout the article that could easily be paraphrased and cut-down. Once a full copy edit has taken place, I can be more specific about issues to do with the writing of the article that I think need to be dealt with. While the article is on hold, you should also make sure all references are filled out, and it is especially important that they each have archives. Let me know when you are ready for me to have another look over this, though be warned that if it takes too long for you to respond to these issues then it will be likely that the review will be failed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A Guild copyeditor and myself have cleaned much of the article, think it needs more work before continuing your review? igordebraga ≠ 21:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I am finding this one to be a struggle. It just isn't up to the standard I would expect from a Good Article. I'll give you some specific points to deal with, and you can keep working on the general writing as you go through my problems, but I can't promise that taking care of this list will get the article to where it needs to be.
Lead
The alternate title was not used everywhere outside of the US, so I find the opening parenthetical misleading.
The lead is not the place to list all of the characters in the film (if any were to be noted at all, it should probably just be Jack Sparrow). You should also base the cast listing on the poster (as a neutral decider of who is important), and keep this list consistent for the infobox and cast list.
There should not be references in the lead. If it isn't already sourced in the body, then it shouldn't really be in the lead to begin with.
We don't need to list the formats of release here.
The whole line about release 10 years after the third film is irrelevant trivia.
Plot
The summary is too long, it needs to be less than 700 words per MOS:FILM.
Cast and characters
I would prefer that this section be just a 'Cast' section, as there isn't really a need for too much character detail in this section which should otherwise be simply plot information. Try to cut down each paragraph accordingly, and focus on the real world details.
For better readability of the actual list, I would suggest use of {{Cast list break}}.
Again, make sure the cast list is according to the poster.
Carina is never said to be formally called Barbosa, just that he is her father, so "(née Barbossa)" should be removed.
I think the images are putting too much weight on characters who aren't actually the main characters of the film. I think just having Depp and Rush as main returning actors would be fine, or just having Bloom and Knightley as special returning actors, but all four is a bit much.
Production
Still a lot of c/e issues in this section. You bring up Depp without ever mentioning how he is relevant or who he plays (the production section should really be able to standalone). Also,
Verbinski directed more than just the third film, which becomes important later.
"and confirmed that they were working on the film" makes no sense in this context as it already appears to have been confirmed.
"The film was postponed until Disney felt secure to greenlight it" is redundant.
"Rønning and Sandberg had been chosen to direct..." this paragraph should go with them signing on.
"As with the fourth film, Depp was involved in scripting and planning Dead Men Tell No Tales." redundant.
You don't need to say "via Twitter".
Little paragraphs in the casting and filming sections can be combined with others.
Remove fluffy lines like "sailed into the Gold Coast" and "greenscreens were so tall they blocked sunlight ... added to the set to allow light to creep in". These can be worded in a more professional way, I'm sure.
The music and post-production sections should be expanded if possible, especially the post-production section. There is a lot to a film's post-production, and stuff like information on the visual effects are often readily available online. This should be as extensive as the filming section, if not more so.
Reception
This section is generally reasonable, but the box office subsection is way too much. It needs to be drastically cut down and c/e'd.
Let me know how you go with this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Igordebraga Any update on how this is going? I have given you quite a bit of time to get this sorted. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Think I did most of what you asked, and am now trying to figure a second look taken by the one sent by the Copyeditor Guild. Can you check it? igordebraga ≠ 00:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You have addressed some of my concerns, but not all of them, and have frankly just taken too long. The article just isn't ready for GA status yet. I am going to fail  this review, and leave you to try and improve the article some more. Have a look over my notes above, you haven't got them all yet. Also continue the work of c/e the article, the more you go over it the more you will find basic errors that require fixing. Once you think you have significantly improved the article, give it another nom and someone will give it a second review. Good luck!  - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: I've finished my first pass through the article. It needs additional work but I have to take a break.  Some notes:

At no point in the article did it say what the curse on Will Turner was, which seems fairly important as a motivating force for the characters. It also leaves the first sentence of the Plot unclear.
Salazar captures Henry and possesses his body, chasing Jack and the others across the ocean floor and seizes the Trident, freeing Henry. I'm not too clear on the last half of this sentence.  Does Salazar, using Henry's possessed body, seize the Trident and the contact of touching the Trident breaks the possession?
Would it make more sense to reframe the Cast section as a Characters section, to look at Sparrow as portrayed by both Depp and De La Torre? I feel it's good as-is, just considering the option.
It might be worth considering if the Cast/Character section should precede the Plot section, because of all the character backstory which might aid the reader's understanding of the plot.
Is there a reason that the vertical strip of actor images is in the Development section?  (It should probably either be in Cast or Casting.)
The statement in the Development section by Bloom about the directors seems to be from after the film was completed so I'm not sure it belongs in that section.
There are some wikicode comments regarding the Nathanson script, asking for clarification on whether it was a new script or a rewrite.
Are the figures in the first paragraph of Filming in US dollars or Australian dollars?
Is The Whitsundays, Queensland the same thing as Whitsundays?
which opened last year and good word of mouth—it has a score of 7.5/10 on reviews aggregator Douban, and 8.7/10 on top mobile ticketing platform Weying. I feel this bit about Shanghai Disneyland Park is getting a bit off-topic and could probably be removed. It's linked if readers wants more information.
Please give me a {{ping}} if you have any questions or comments.  Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC).
I did a little more copy edit.  I'm afraid I'd be a heavy-handed with cuts to the Casting and Box office sections, so didn't make a lot of changes there.  I think I have to step back at this point, but will try to be available for any concerns. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: can you take another look, specially given what the GA reviewer asked? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 04:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done just a little bit, will try to return to it tomorrow.  For the plot, the easiest and simplest thing would be to cut the last paragraph, the post-credit scene – which I'm never sure if it's really part of the movie. That would save 90 words and should get at or close to 700 words. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Trimmed some material from the Box office section but it might still be too much. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are some possible cuts I noticed for the Casting section but I'm not especially comfortable with making these cuts myself:
He said that Barbossa's megalomania "could explode in horrific ways". This shows his enthusiasm for the project, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's essential to his casting.
Cruz would state that she would most likely not reprise her role of Angelica because the studio had not approached her. I don't like listing things that didn't happen. If this is important, if her appearance was expected or her non-inclusion was controversial, then that should be stated to say why it's important she wasn't part of the cast.  If there's no particular reason, though, then it might not be worth including.
In mid-January 2015, he stated that he was to travel to Australia for the film in February, disclosing that his role was indeed that of Will Turner's son, struggling to break a curse to meet his father. This starts to repeat material stated elsewhere (Plot, Filming).
In earlier drafts of the script the name Carina Smyth appeared as Barbossa's daughter, a love interest of Sparrow's and an astronomer accused of being a witch.[72] Scodelario confirmed that the character was an astronomer and that "she's a totally different character" to Elizabeth Swann, and also confirmed that Smyth will be Henry's love interest instead of Jack's. I think the middle part of that could be deleted, it's stated elsewhere. The part about the character's love interest being changed from Jack to Henry, unless you can say that was affected by her casting in the role, I feel that might fit better with the rest of the character information in the Cast section.
Hope that helps – Reidgreg (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Change Mixed reviews to negative reviews in critical response section and lead. Therealhuman21 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Here you go.https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/pirates-caribbean-dead-men-tell-no-tales-reviews-critics-rating-pirates-5-1006319Therealhuman21 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

95.93.160.191 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear what you want done since you did not make an actual request. MarnetteD|Talk 20:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

What on Earth does this sentence mean? The source isn't online so this point should either be expanded and phrased differently (it's poorly-worded to begin with) or removed - as it is, it doesn't make any sense. 86.1.177.137 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Over the last few days there have been several attempts to alter the description of the reviews from "mixed" to "negative". This entails removing sourced commentary and replacing it with the editor's own interpretation of the aggregator scores. May I remind editors that this is WP:Original research and WP:AGG states that aggregators should not be taken as "arbiters of critical consensus". Let's take a closer look at the metrics.
The Rotten Tomato score is 29%, so I agree that is pretty low. But what does this mean, exactly? It means that 29% of the surveyed critics gave the film a good review. On this basis it is safe to say the film is no Citizen Kane. But how do we interpret the other 71%? Does this mean that the rest of the reviews are all negative? The average critics rating is 4.66/10, so in other words slightly below average, so in context that would generally translate to lots of 2-star and 3-star reviews on a 5-star spectrum. That seems to suggest many of the reviews were mediocre, rather than "negative". However, Rotten Tomatoes is binary and does not quantify mixed reviews. Therefore it is incorrect to assume that a 29% score automatically translates to being outright negative.
Let's now take a look at Metacritic which classifies the reviews as "generally unfavorable". I suppose on face value you could say this translates to "negative", but a look at the data does not bear this out. Metacritic has three classifications: positive, mixed and negative. Around half the reviews are classified as "mixed", while the remainder are split evenly between "positive" and "negative". In fact, the spread of data in this case seems to be the perfect example of a "mixed" reception. The "generally unfavourable" classification seems to come from the the metascore of 39/100, which indicates that the negative reviews are more negative than the positive reviews are positive and thus skewing the score, but at the end of the day only a quarter of the reviews are actually characterized as negative.
In the case of Rotten Tomatoes the data is inconclusive because it does not have a mixed classification (although the average rating suggests there were many average reviews), and in the case of Metacritic the claim that the reviews were mostly negative is demonstrably false. This is why MOS:FILM#Critical response instructs that the overall critical consensus must be supported by attributions to reliable sources. And just to set the record straight, I have not even seen the film so my views is not being prejudiced by my personal opinion of the film. Pinging Erik who has spoken out on this in the past. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Betty. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are specifically designed to tell visitors if a movie is worth seeing. Rotten Tomatoes, as Betty said, is binary. Metacritic assigns specific weights to critics and publications, so there is more weight that happen to be assigned to critics who have negative reviews, like A. O. Scott of The New York Times. Like the guidelines say, sourced commentary comes first. If it is lacking, we use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic but cannot extract prose-based conclusions from these websites. The IP editor is incorrect that a favorable source is being picked; the two sources used provide a summary-level view of the reviews. If there is other commentary that skews negative, that can be added too, and in-text attribution provided all around. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The intro was changed again to say "generally unfavorable reviews"[1] by User:Sebastian James. I agree that the reviews are generally negative based on the scores from the review aggregators, 39% from Metacritic and 29% Rotten Tomatoes. Summarizing the reviews is difficult and there have been many disagreements about this before and I can understand wanting to leave a big middle ground to describe reviews as mixed ... but how low must the score go before we can agree to call them negative? Rotten Tomatoes by their own system call everything below 60% negative! (I happened to like this film more than most critics but 5 films into a series they seem to be more tired by the formula than appreciative of the changes, but I think it objectively is fair and neutral to say the review in general were negative.) --- 109.79.181.29 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Only Metacritic states "generally unfavorable reviews", so stop misrepresenting the sources and edit warring. ภץאคгöร 15:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 00:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article per a nice request from the nominator, Chompy Ace. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


### Basic stuff and comments
Archive all archivable sources.
Current progress: 


#### Infobox and lead
Infobox looks good.
 Done Chompy Ace 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
First sentence in the lead seems kinda long, so...
Add a period to finish the sentence right after "from a script by Jeff Nathanson".
 Done Chompy Ace 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Merge "with Jerry Bruckheimer serving again as producer" to the sentence starting with "It is the sequel" so it reads "Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, the film is the sequel..."
 Done Chompy Ace 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
With this done, change "The film stars Johnny Depp" to "It stars Johnny Depp".
 Done Chompy Ace 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chompy Ace: Initial comments. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


#### Plot and cast
Plot is 623 words, so it passes WP:FILMPLOT.
 Done Chompy Ace 22:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Remove the comma after "Royal Navy warship".
 Done Chompy Ace 22:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Add references after everyone's role.
 Done in a MCU style (example: Avengers: Infinity War) Chompy Ace 22:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


#### Other
Couldn't find any major problems with production, release, reception, or future.
 Done for all Chompy Ace 23:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
References 79, 86, 89, and 92 are all dead. Replace them.
 Done refs 79, 89, and 92 are archived via WP:ARCHIVETODAY; ref 86 removed Chompy Ace 23:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The image in #Marketing is kinda small and unnecessary, so I suggest removing it.
 Done Chompy Ace 23:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chompy Ace: Final notes. Ping me when you have added comments. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Budget of $320 million is a big mistake. The movie cost only $230 million. The $320 million came from the notorious tabloids Daily Mail that Wikipedia banned as reliable source. 79.35.220.18 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The article cites Cinemablend not The Daily Mail. It is irrelevant whether the Mail also reported the figure. The Mail does actually report lots of factually correct things, contrary to popular belief. If you are referring to this article, then the Mail is actually regurgitating a Daily Telegraph article, which is most likely where Cinemablend got the story from. The guidelines at {{Infobox film}} state If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range. If a properly audited figure comes along then the situation can be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
so Daily Telegraph is not a reliable source... 87.1.32.122 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Delroy Atkinson and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Delroy Atkinson until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  – DarkGlow • 22:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The sixth Pirates of the Caribbean film is currently in development. 24.111.55.7 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Budget of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 is totally wrong, it couldn't be $320 million because it could be a box office flop, the budget was only $230 million, Disney confirmed it in fact it was a box office success and they are doing a six movie. So please change the $320 million is fake, the others sites take it from Daily Mail that Wikipedia banned as reliable sources. 212.216.241.14 (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the budget figure to $230m with refs from Boxofficemojo and The Numbers. Barry Wom (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Then changed on the pirates of the Caribbean budget on the Wikipedia franchise too that even there is reported to be $320 million. 212.216.241.14 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I have restored the budget range. Per {{Infobox film}} editors should not be cherry-picking budget estimates, unless there is a strong reason for choosing one over the other. FilmLA is a reputable source with considerable knowledge of film production; if anything, I would say it is more accurate than Box Office Mojo and The Numbers for film costing because they rarely—if ever—update their budget estimates if it increases from the greenlighted cost. A quick google reveals that the budget ballooned from the approved $230 million to as much as $320 million, so FilmLA's $230–320 million figure is probably the best it can be pinned down. Betty Logan (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong, Film Studies Los Angeles reported teg $320 million budget from Daily Mail that Wikipedia banned as reliable sources. 95.248.186.16 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely not Betty Logan, the $230 million is official budget, Film LA reported the fake news of $320 million from Daily Mail, the directors Joachim Ronning ex Espen Sandberg debunked the ballooned budgets... Try Again Betty Logan fake news. 95.248.186.16 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The Daily Mail just repeated the claim along with many other media sources. The ballooning budget was first reported by The Sunday Telegraph. Given that the previous film cost $379 million (which has been verified via audited accounts) it is extremely unlikely that the sequel cost $160 million less. In any case, the guidelines are quite clear about how budget estimates should be treated. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The Movie budget was only $230 million, is absolutely possible instead. Pirates of the Caribbean 5 was shoted in Australia after receiving $20 million dollars of reinboursemts. Again the $320 million is a fake budget from an article of Daily Mail in 2015 and that all media reported for mistake. 95.248.186.16 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Sunday Telegraph is a journal part of the Daily Mail and all the others media reported the budget from it that Wikipedia banned as reliable sources i want to remember you. So there are no evidence the ballooned budget. It cost $230 million and was a financial successful and infact Disney is making a six installment. Try again Betty Logan. 95.248.186.16 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Betty is right. Regarding The Sunday Telegraph, it is considered a generally reliable source as seen at WP:RSP. So even with The Daily Mail being unreliable (as shown at WP:RSP), it is not the source of the budget. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Nope, Betty Logan here is totally wrong, no offense. She is pretty garbage about movies budgets and sources. Daily Telegraph is a journal part of Daily Mail and Wikipedia banned it as reliable sources, at least coherence please.... 95.248.186.16 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Per {{Infobox film}} editors should not be cherry-picking budget estimates
Fine and dandy, but the guidelines at Infobox Film also suggest four possible sources for budgets, including BoxOfficeMojo and TheNumbers. When I checked that both had the figure of $230m I presumed it was safe to make the change.
I've added a comment to hopefully help other editors avoid making the same mistake, and I've also added the Daily Telegraph source. Barry Wom (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The infobox guidelines are just making a few suggestions as to where such information can be located. It's not mandating which sources can be used. Ultimately a decision regarding the suitability of a source will be based on WP:RS and the context in the source. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Both the IP addresses used by the anonymous editor are Telecom Italia addresses, so there is a good possibility that the editor is Carlo Galanti (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlo Galanti/Archive) avoding his block. Targeting the financials for the POTC films is part of his MO. The editor seems to have no editing interests beyond these pages. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I just found out that the sixth film will be a sequel instead of a reboot, take a look at it on the future page. 2605:B100:1140:EAC:95E:B59F:8E40:D800 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to keep removing that. If you look at the article of literally any film on here that is a sequel, the info about which film it is a sequel to is always mentioned in the lead. I'm not sure why this has to be an exception, so it should be added back Additionally, it's only a sequel to At World's End and on Stranger Tides, since the plot threads of the other to movies in the series were resolved in At World's End.2600:4040:A5BC:0:510:F6C5:D9C9:5D6B (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the fifth film in a series and a link is provided to the franchise article should a reader wish to find the titles of the preceding films. Listing only two of the titles seems arbitrary and listing them all would be overkill. Using the reasoning that it's only a sequel to At World's End and on Stranger Tides seems a tad fancrufty.
Perhaps a better solution would be to introduce a "Continuity" section in the body? Barry Wom (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
It's a sequel to all of the preceding films—there is no value in saying it is a sequel to this film or that film, unless you are dealing with a reboot or prequel situation. The lead is supposed to be a high-level summary highlighting key aspects of the film's notability. Betty Logan (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It’s succinct enough to just say it’s the fifth instalment of the franchise. Rusted AutoParts 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Guy Without Name has repeatedly added the razzie nominations to the lead. I have reverted the edits because I think there is insufficient WP:WEIGHT for the razzies to be added to the lead. Whilst I have no objection to their inclusion in the appropriate section, they are a joke award that do not carry much significance in the industry. They certainly do not help define a film's legacy in the way an oscar does. In any event, it didn't even win any razzies, and Guy Without Name seems to be cherry-picking the razzies (particularly the one relating to Depp) from several awards it did not win. I am happy to reconsider if someone advances a compelling reason. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, User:Betty Logan. I've made WP:Weight for the Razzies the film received. I added the detail because the third paragraph of the lead in the page is poorly written. I hope you will be happy with me for apologizing to you. Guy Without Name (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
The third paragraph looks fine to me. If it aint broke, don't fix it! Betty Logan (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Ok  thanks. But excuse me to that I do previously. Guy Without Name (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)