Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (attraction)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Pirates of the Caribbean (theme park ride) → Pirates of the Caribbean – {* Pirates of the Caribbean (theme park ride) → Pirates of the Caribbean … Rationale: With little or no discussion on the talk page, a Wikipedian by the name of ContagiousTruth decided to move the article and then make "Pirates of the Caribbean" a disambiguation page. However, all this user did was move the page, then redirect "Pirates of the Caribbean" to "Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation)." The "Pirates of the Caribbean (theme park ride)" article should be moved back because the user that moved it did not take the time to discuss this with other users to give them a chance to decide. This move requires the move of an administrator because it cannot be moved back to a title that still exists. —Lyght 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support, as explained above. --Lyght 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Crumbsucker 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Move Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation) to Pirates of the Caribbean. Vegaswikian 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vegaswikian. After thinking about this a day I think that the movie franchise has become so successful the generic name should be a portal, perhaps beefed up into an article on the order of "History of...". If the movie had been just another brand extension, yeah, but it's become a major money-earner and the ride is now incorporating stuff from the movies, a tail wagging the dog situation. Due respect to Mouseheads or whatever Disneyophiles are called, but I think this is more logical and useful for the general public. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I feel that the ideal solution would be to turn the article Pirates of the Caribbean into an article describing the franchise in general, similar to the article Harry Potter, which is on the entire franchise, including the books and movies. The article would discuss both the ride (which would stay at its current location) and movies and link to them, as well as having a disambiguation notice to Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation). However, if people feel otherwise, I will be more than happy to delete and move any pages if necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. – Axman (☏) 10:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Deror 09:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Maybe this is the time to discuss what should be at Pirates of the Caribbean? Given the number of uses, once could be justified in saying that moving Pirates of the Caribbean (theme park ride) back to the main name would cause too many people to wind up at the wrong article. So now might be a good time to consider moving the dab to the main name space. I'd like to hear why that would not be the better move? Being bold does not make an action wrong. Vegaswikian 17:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

Whoa, this artical is so un-neutral. Somebody needs to fix it. SuperCooper

Indeed! Could there BE more weasel words?!

Politically Correct

[[]]I've heard some say the ride was rewritten to make it politically correct in the past few decades (e.g. fleeing women now carry food, to make it possible that the pirates are chasing them out of hunger).

Can anyone confirm?

Yes - I confirm
Definitely the case. It's pretty pathetic, in my opinion. —Morven 23:57, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow, Disney has become way too politically correct! I've been to Disney World twice and this was easily my favorite attraction. NEVER did the thought of rape ever cross my mind when seeing the pirate chasing the woman. I always assumed he was just harassing her or trying to rob her. Disney makes me sick. Buzda 03:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Now the scene is the women chasing the pirates for stealing the treasure! Actually, the changes in the 2006 version greatly lessen the politically incorrect scenes impact. First, the appearance of Captain Jack Sparrow hiding behind dresses from a shop while watching the dunk scene tends to draw the attention of the riders for far longer than before. This kind of lessons the "Buy a Wench for a Bride" scene. In the chase scene, the women are chasing the men for stealing treasure, and the attention is on the pirate with the treasure map and key, with Captain Jack Sparrow observing it from his barrel hideout. Finally, the scene of pirates trying to take the treasure out of the ride was removed to the scene of Jack enjoying the treasure he presumably stole. Combined with the portrait of Captain Jack Sparrow in the entry queue (along with other pirates) and he shows up four times in the attraction.

ISTR an earlier version of one scene (in Anaheim, this would have been on your left side as you passed through the ride) where a pirate was being chased around a room by an older woman. Anyone concur? - knoodelhed 00:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

  • More or less. ISTR that it was a nearly exact recreation of an earlier scene of a pirate chasing a comely young wench around a barrel; in the latter scene the pirate was being chased around a barrel by a rather rotund woman, perhaps in a bridal gown? - Nunh-huh 00:52, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes! The lattter. - knoodelhed 00:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

What the helk...


Someone please revert theses changes....the entire section has been deleted!

I understand that some of the changes were reverted back in the latest version (i.e., the pirates are again chasing the women). Also, I believe the first drop was shortened in the 80s.

2006-07-05

Do we really need the "Haunted Ride" section? It seems a little vacuous. (Not to mention difficult to confirm)

  • Why not? It is one of the more well known 'hauntings' at the park and an interesting fact. If you talk to anyone who operates the ride they will confirm this. --Napnet 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New Website

There's a new website for the Pirates of the Caribbean Attraction. http://destinations.disney.go.com/parksandresorts/pirates/index Jonyyeh 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


edits needed to the page re; movie II

"A sequel, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, is planned for release in 2006"

this should be updated.

Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise proposal

I was wondering whether of not an article on the film series/theme ride would be in order? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the current arrangement works, but if a change is required, a more ideal solution would be to let this page (Pirates of the Caribbean) describing the franchise, with links to the ride and movies. In other words, the current page would be moved to Pirates of the Caribbean (ride) or similar, and the current page location be used to describe the franchise. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Old topic, but I still think this would be a good idea. It would also enable the removal of the games and movies from the article. Tiggerjay 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary move

I think the move was highly unnecessary, especially because there has been very little discussion on moving the article. We can't move it back now, because the Wikipedian who moved it re-created the article Pirates of the Caribbean as a simple redirect page to the disambiguation. Unless there is a way to move it back to the page titled "Pirates of the Caribbean" without going through the deletion process (because I know there are probably techniques of editing on Wikipedia of which I am unaware), this just makes it more complicated. I highly object to this move. --Lyght 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

me too. Deror 14:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think specifying this entry as the "theme park ride" negates any attempt to establish the attraction as the original Pirates of the Caribbean. Since Wikipedia is a leading source of information on the internet, and most people today are unaware that a "theme park ride" (though in Disney terms it should be referred to as an "attraction") or Pirates even exists, let alone that it predates the film by 35 years, this entry should enforce that concept. Justin The Claw 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ride "Lore"

Would some "lore" about the ride be appropriate? While I have never worked on this ride (or been a Magic Kingdom cast member for that matter), I have heard from several friends (some who have worked attractions at Disney World) about a Ghost (George), and I actually surfed by here looking for some more info on it. How would one document something like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.46.218 (talk • contribs) .

I worked at the Disneyland version and never really heard any lore about it. The more interesting and fun stories are some of the behind-the-scenes stories that, while fascinating and "juicy" are probably not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. --PirateJohn (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've heard lore about this attraction, having temporarily worked on the one in France. (ie I heard ghost lore about the one in Florida). Most interesting fact is that the cm toilet is behind the big ship, so we had to crawl on our hands and knees to get there when the ride was in progress TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Tokyo or Paris?

I know both the disneyland and world rides were updated with stuff from the movie but does anyone know if the Paris or Tokyo versions were modified?

At the time of this writing, nope. 71.231.56.40 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Tokyo version has just been updated to include Jack Sparrow. As of yet, the Paris version has not. Also worthy of note is that the Paris version reverses the order of the village and grotto scenes. --PkerUNO 09:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the only major change that happened in the history of the ride in France is the gates becoming hydroulic, and the launch positions. Occasionally the cat on the barrel disappears or moves. Paris is the only POTC ride to happen in chronological order, although it is sometimes said that the "lift" section is the guests going back in time. TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Development

Anyone who has been to the version at disneyland california knows that it has a pretty impressive scale and is well concealed. I would be interested to see more information about its construction if anyone has some. Thanks. 71.142.176.101 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Sandy 03-24-07

Fair use rationale for Image:Jackhiding.jpg

Image:Jackhiding.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Should we mention a burning menorah in a burning house as possible anti-sentismMarioman12 (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure why not? As soon as you show some kind of hard evidence. Has the UFO finished its testing for tonight? --blm07 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just there, and there is indeed a Menorah arranged in the corner of a window, on its side (as if it were part of a broke window pane) in a burning building.

ever considered it might just be a candlestick? just because its at disneyland doesnt automatically mean anti-semitism 69.108.92.233 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ride Capacity

The ride capacity of the Disneyland version seems very high. When I worked on the attraction in 2005, the optimum ride capacity was about 3100, and on a good day we'd average about 2900, but it says 3400 in this article. Did the changes made to the attraction in 2005-6 affect the ride capacity? I don't see how it would have. --PirateJohn (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Best Version

You've got to be serious, isn't this WP:AWW??? How long ago was this added? Tiggerjay (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lengths

In the section with details on the Disneyland version, lengths of the various chutes, etc., are given. But the U.S. lengths (ft.) don't match up to the metric lengths (m) that are given in parenthesis. Does anyone know where this information was found, and which lengths--if any--are correct? For one thing, the second drop cannot be just 8 feet long. 11.3 m (37.07 ft.) seems more likely. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mttbme corrected the lengths of the drops. A look at the current information suggests that the length of the lift back to the landing might not be correct though. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

in popular culture?

there've been dozens of references to the ride in popular culture. if a sizeable list can be attained, what do you all think of an "in popular culture" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.92.233 (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think only significant (as established via third-party sourcing) references should be included, if any. Doniago (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

The below material has been unsourced for several months. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with appropriate sourcing. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire section on the lines at POTC at Disneyland is unsourced. I added this "Then the line was redesigned to snake back along the side of the ride building, solving the problem of the line blocking traffic in New Oreleans Square, but causing guest complaints that the new queue was so out of view that it hid the true length of the line." in late June to make the article more accurate. I worked on POTC and the Jungle Cruise among other rised at Disneyland 1975 to 1985. The queue area of which I speak still exists between JC and POTC. The decision to make lines more visible also effected Space Mountain in the same time. They stopped queuing guests on top in the open area and let the line spill into Tomorrowland so guests could see how long the line really was. This was all before the redesign using the ramps, previously the ride was entered using the moving sidewalk. But back to POTC. Either remove the entire unsourced section on lines, or add mine that adds to what really happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.77.123 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, I restored the Paris section. While some material could be trimmed as unsourced, completely removing it is a severe mistake, as it implies there's no such thing as a Paris version. Other facts about the ride, such as what part of the park it is in and its exterior appearance are the sort that fall under WP:BLUE, considering that Disneyland Paris is the most visited theme park in Europe. oknazevad (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just curious - if you're re-adding material that was removed due to lacking sources...why not provide some sources? It's Disneyland Paris; I don't think they should be too hard to come by. Doniago (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I must object to removing the ride description entirely, and even to the tagging of it. Including it is no different than including a plot summary in an article about a film or novel. Just like those, the work itself, in this case the ride, serves as the only source needed for the plot; no other source for a basic plot description is needed. oknazevad (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe it's quite the same thing. Plots of movies, etc. don't change over time. As evidenced, the ride has changed over time. DonIago (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_(attraction)/Archive_1&oldid=1089785744"