Talk:The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: A VeggieTales Movie

message: STOP PUTTING ON THIS PAGE THAT FHE PICTURES IS INVOLVED. It is not true. Phil Vischer said that only Big Idea Productions and Universal Pictures is involved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.216.74 (talk • contribs) .
:Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your comments.  May I please offer a few suggestions, however:
**Please be nice.  Shouting commands doesn't come off as nice.  You can say what you need to say in a civil tone and still get your point across.
**Please sign your comments by adding for tilde characters in a row.
**Please be careful with your edits, and use the preview button.  Your HTML comment addition was incorrect and caused the entire article to be blanked.  I fixed it, even though it's a bit nonstandard to put comments into the article.  
:Thanks again for your contribution and desire to have a factual article.  The above suggestions are given in the spirit of helpfullnes.  --Rehcsif 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FHE Pictures 

message: The last section on the page ("Confirmed Plot") reads like a tagline, so I added both advert and inappropriate tone templates. If that text is actually a plagiarised advertisement (I wouldn't be surprised if it is), it needs to be deleted immediately, and then paraphrased in an objective and encyclopedic tone. Statements like "this movie is filled with good family values" are not factual. Sean Parmelee 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection, the section was indeed borrowed (read: plagiarised) directly from the press release link listed directly below the section. If that's not blatant, I don't know what is. I'm deleting the section. Sean Parmelee 00:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed Plot 

message: This page needs a lot of help.  I read through it and it just made my head hurt.  Maybe I'll take a crack at it another night, but please, someone feel free.  There's way too much uncited stuff and really badly written text.  --Rehcsif 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Mess 

message: Anyone know?--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Relient K have a role in the film? 

message: Universal's first computer animated film ever???? I'm confused. What happened to Shrek 1,2,3 and all the others? Am I missing the ball here? 162.83.124.195 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal-Trivia Facts? 

message: I am a member of the PWDDA Movie Fan Club, and I recieved a newsletter that stated that "Universal Pictures has recieved more group ticket sales inquiries for Pirates than any other picture- ever!" (Could not copy directly; it was in a picture.) Can this be added- and how should it be cited? Thanks! 70.104.162.6 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say that the PWDDA Movie Fan Club isn't exactly the most objective source out there, I'd suggest either finding a reliable source, or citing it something like "the PWDDA Fan Club claims..." 77.180.26.78 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Sales Record?

message: Now that the movie's out, can someone add in a plot summary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.92.115 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot? 

message: The Reception section says that the movie earned $12.7 million out of an estimated $15 million budget. Is this to say that it earned $12.7 million profit on top of the budget, or that it ultimately lost $2.3 million? Ralphy512 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profit 

message: and  Seem to be having a dispute over the length of the plot summary.
:
Walter Görlitz asked me to weigh in. I'll address canvassing concerns in a moment.
:
Wattsj is currently blocked for edit warring. IMO, Walter was hardly blameless here. For both: Please consider WP:BRD as more than a light suggestion. Reverting back and forth with brief comment summaries that amount to "I'm right" and "Nuh uh, I'm right" rarely solves anything. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page. We will probably have to do that when Wattsj's block ends, but discussion will have to happen.
:
Yes, WP:FILMPLOT says, "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." Yes, it is "just a guideline". It is part of our Manual of Style: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Do we "have to" follow it? No. Should we follow it? Yes, unless there is a reason not to. In the back and forth, this pearl of wisdom from  seems to have been missed: "Restoring embedded note. Plot should not exceed 700 words. Needlessly verbose plots may present copyright concerns as "derivative works". If Star Wars can keep it under 700, so can we." I haven't seen this film. I have, however, seen Star Wars, which is aimed at an older audience than this is. As movies go, that film is fairly complex. If anyone would care to argue that this film is more complicated than that one and cannot be summarized in under 700 words, I'm all ears. If there is some other good reason to have a more expansive summary here, please explain.
:
It's pretty easy to get sucked up in wanting to use the plot summary to tell readers about various things that happen in a film. Most of the material in a movie, however, is not about the movie. We are here to write about the movie, not to get people to see it. If you want to write persuasive review, that's great, but don't do it here.
:
I don't think WP:CANVASSING applies here. Walter seems to have been frustrated and wanted to end the stalemate.
:
TL;DR version: Don't edit war; discuss. The guideline says under 700 words. Is there a good reason to ignore this? - SummerPhDv2.0 12:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why a discussion was not opened prior to this, and I don't get the cavalier attitude toward the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines or Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works. Walter, what is wrong with these changes made by IP/Wattsj528 that warrants the repeated stonewalling? I don't see the problem. Even if we were dealing with a straight-up WP:REVERTBAN issue, there might be occasion to let a sock's constructive change slide through, but we're not even talking about that here. The "just a guideline" argument is super-thin. If you were arguing for a really complex storyline that needed more flexibility to convey the story arc/arcs, then I might get it, but an 85 minute Veggietales? C'mon. My point with the Star Wars example was to suggest that Star Wars would be a huge magnet for crufty detail, ("B-b-but what about Leia's kiss! What about Yoda training Luke on Dagobah?") but Star Wars (film) keeps the plot summary a freckle over 600 words. Can we all at least agree that "Rock Lobster" playing over the closing credits is not part of the plot? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of plot section 

message: So, was it:
"...mixed to negative reviews and was a box office bomb..."
or
"...mixed reviews from critics and flopped at the box office..."
or something else entirely?
For openers,  "mixed or average reviews" is not mixed. Maybe they were mixed. Maybe they were average. In either case, neither review aggregator says what the reviews were. Each gives a score, calculated from the reviews they use and one gives an automated summary, generated by an algorithm without editorial review (not a reliable source). By consensus, we can quote what the sites say with in-line attribution. Interpreting either one -- or combining both and imagining what they might say if they worked together -- and deciding it says "mixed", "mixed to negative", "positive to negative", or anything else is synthesis. We do not have an independent reliable source that says the film received mixed reviews.
Was it a box office bomb? Did it flop? Did it lose money? We don't know. We know the estimated production budget -- but that's an estimate and certainly does not include promotion, distribution and other costs.
We have a box office gross -- but that does not include theater cuts or (especially relevant here) home video rentals and sales. This film was pretty much made of home video, not theaters. Cooking up a box office success or failure statement from that is clearly synthesis: "combin(ing) material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Moreover, it is misleading.
Instead, say what the sources say:
- This is the estimated production budget.
- This is the box office gross.
- Rotten Tomatoes said this.
- Metacritic said this.
If there are independent reliable sources that directly state it performed well/poorly at the box office, say it and cite it. If there are independent reliable sources saying critics gave it excellent/average/mixed/conflicting/poor/whatever reviews, say it and cite it. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SYN|Synthesis]]