Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arrrrr! We'll make this article walk the plank, arrrrrr! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:2DAB because it is a disambiguation page that consists of only one primary topic and one second item.

It has a rather extensive "See also" section but again, that section is entirely addressed by the first article, making it a mere WP:CFORK. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That hits it right on the head. bd2412 T 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First thing first: Nominator (Codename Lisa) is wrong! The first entry in the page is "Piracy in the Caribbean"; the primary topic is "Pirates of the Caribbean", which is not even listed in this page. But I still say "Delete" because it makes no difference. Every single entry in this page besides "Piracy in the Caribbean" is already listed in "Pirates of the Caribbean" article, including everything under "§ See also" and Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom. So, the net result is that there are only two entries to disambiguate. A hatnote would suffice. Fleet Command (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's not a WP:2DAB. There are three topics here: Pirates of the Caribbean, ~~Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom~~, the boat in the 2005-06 Volvo Ocean Race and Piracy in the Caribbean. Tavix | Talk 03:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom is part of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, not an independent topic. bd2412 T 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that now. The disambiguation made that confusing because the book is not listed with the rest of the franchise. Changing my vote to Delete. Tavix | Talk 03:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I went ahead and fixed the disambiguation so that the two topics are clearly shown, with the book, boat, and everything else that's a part of the franchise in the see also. Hopefully this will clear up any further confusion. Tavix | Talk 03:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Meh, whatever - the page in question disambiguates between multiple subjects and articles, many of which are independently and individually notable while still being part of the same broad franchise. That the books and games and whatnot are derived from the same franchise doesn't necessarily mean that someone won't be looking for a specific film, or book or game. Imagine you're looking for the second film and you know it is the second film but you don't know it was called Dead Man's Chest. You end up on that page and can quickly work it out. The aim, here, is to make life easier for the readers so that they can find what they are looking for. By my count, it disambiguates 14 different articles, all with similar-enough titles that disambiguation is necessary. That all of the "sub-articles" appear in the franchise article is irrelevant, in my view. Beyond all that, I think there would be value in a specific disambiguation for "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "piracy in the Caribbean". Given that the subject of the films derives from the historical subject, determining a "primary" topic is problematic. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely redundant to the existing Pirates of the Caribbean article, which lists Piracy in the Caribbean in the hatnote and all of the other meanings on the page. bd2412 T 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I think you've missed my point, but it doesn't matter. I think WP:TWODABS should be ignored where it doesn't serve our readers or when the primary topic is difficult to determine, which is kind of what that guideline says anyway. As someone who works in this topic area a lot, the difficulty of separating the two is a daily annoyance and I can only imagine what that would be like for our readers. Anything we can do to help, we should. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he has. Ignore TWODABS. Still delete because of CFORK. Also, please stop abusing "serve our readers" phrase; you are implying that those who don't agree with you are goons. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't missed your point, Stalwart, your point is just wrong. No one in their right mind should expect to find Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides or Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom merely by typing in "Pirates of the Caribbean"; frankly, these partial title matches should not even be included on a disambiguation page. That is why we have a franchise page. bd2412 T 20:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not "abusing" anything nor "implying" anything. I said it was my opinion and it remains my opinion. That you don't share that opinion doesn't make my having it an implication that you are a "goon". I explained my reasons for my way of thinking. I use this page more as a "reader" than I do an "editor", but in the course of my editing. I also don't think the "primary" article does a good job of covering the subject. But others disagree and have decided that the best way of building consensus is to suggest that my opinions constitute a personal attack. So I'm out; do with it what you will. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to do much of use as a disambig page, and the massive "see also" is just weird. Artw (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scuttle, matey, but not due to the nom's reasoning. There are plenty of entries for a proper dab page, but they (and more) are already listed in the main page, which is itself a sort of super-dab page. The only exception is the boat, which can go in the hatnote. Hence, this is just plain redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ For a navigational guide like this the important thing is whether it is helpful to readers, not whether it meets or fails to meet some technical criterion. This page is helpful to readers. However, Pirates of the Caribbean is even more helpful (as I am looking at it now) and more in keeping with WP's general house style. Hence this "disambiguation page" is redundant and is best deleted to avoid the difficulty of having to maintain two extremely similar pages. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect for reasons below. Thincat (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Pirates of the Caribbean really shouldn't be a "super disambiguation" in the first place. It really should be about the story, the main characters, the development of the concept into the various media, relation to historical people, places, vessels and events. Not much of that is there now and instead we have a long list of derivatives and so we're looking at deleting a helpful disambig page as "redundant". But if the primary article did its job, this one wouldn't be redundant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes a lot of sense to me. If the Pirates of the Caribbean article was developed appropriately all this stuff might be excessive simply dangling from the stern. There's a huge navbox as well, Template:Pirates of the Caribbean. So all this could do with sorting out properly. I'll change to redirect though (and maybe a change of name?) simply to preserve this material in its edit history in case something along the lines of this "disambiguation" might be usefully spun off eventually. Thincat (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit on at the moment (IRL) but if people are willing to have this re-listed again, I could commit some time and energy to reworking the "primary" article along those lines. If it isn't up the scratch, by all means delete the disambig. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: This: 'Except that Pirates of the Caribbean really shouldn't be a "super disambiguation" in the first place.' Says who? And so what? First, Wikipedia is free to index its contents however it wishes. Second, even if it did contain "the story, the main characters, the [~snip~] and events", it would have been set index page and made a dab page absolutely unnecessary. Here is an excellent example: Final Fantasy and Bourne (film series). Fleet Command (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be disagreeing about something but I'm not too sure what about. The (rather good) examples you give don't seem to be "super disambiguation" pages, nor are they set indexes. All I was suggesting was that if (if) a page of substantial continuous prose was produced for the main article, the "classified" section (which might look a bit like the page we're discussing) might be possibly spun-off – I don't know. Anyway, I've now voted redirect, possibly with a change of name and I'm reasonably happy with that idea. Thincat (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not exactly the standard way to do it,but it's useful as it is. WP:IAR is the principle. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: All content forks are useful; they are deleted because an equally useful page exists. Pirates of the Caribbean is equally useful. Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.