Historically Incorrect Ships Edit

I do not know if anybody is as OCD as me, but the ships in POTCO are so historically INCORRECT! 

Not saying they must be corrected on this wiki, or that anything must be done about it, but the movies were much better in timeline accuracy than that! Thay should try basing the game on the movies more. Pirates AVOIDED attacking RN ships, privateers targeted enemy MERCHANT ships, Frigates did NOT look like that, brigs had TWO masts, galleons were OUTDATED by the 1700's, etc...

Just a topic to think and talk about. Please to not shun me for being rude against Disney, becasue I do not wish to be, the game's inaccuracy just bothers me. It is actually pretty fun playing it, that much I have to say.

Smeagol630 (talk) 18:05, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

"It is actually pretty fun playing it, that much I have to say." - That explains everything. POTC is full of historical innacuracies and still fun. UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 06:49, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Automated transfer of Problem Report #9290 Edit

The following message was left by Anonymous via PR #9290 on 2008-05-13 17:14:21 UTC

Half the info/articles on this page have nothing to do with POTC (Pirates Of The Caribbean Online) 90% of screenshots are from movie & not the game. This would be a good wiki if not for having mixed content.

This page features a picture of the Black Pearl from PotC videogame, not from POTCO. You might want to change that, guys :)

Done. ;) CJSFan 23:57, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

How should the "Organizations" section be arranged? In what order should it be arranged? Also, should the British, French and Spanish empires be mentioned as organizations? - Lord Midhav 15:36, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

??? Someone reply!

I think the "Organizations" section
 would be organized in bullets, for example:

This is how I think we should do it(except put the more important groups up top). Unfortunately, I don't know which group is more important(for I haven't played the game). Other than that, this is how I think the section should be organized. CJSFanBlack Pearl 18:10, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Order of importance eh? Thanks. - Lord Midhav 18:14, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, mate. ;) CJSFanBlack Pearl 18:28, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

New Template? Edit

Since POTCO is closed, I was wondering how we should deal with this. Is the information that only appears in the game still relevant? Is the game being non-canon a high possibility? Of course I'm excluding information that appeared elsewhere(i.e. Queen Anne's Revenge or Sword of Triton)...but I mean articles like Jolly Roger as well as the various ships, locations and numerous individuals known throughout the game. Until there is a definite say on the matter(which I doubt at the moment), I say we use a new template clarifying how the game's info should be handled. Not sure if it should appear as is(or if improvements should be made?) but I believe this should be a must, given the circumstances. What say you all? -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 03:14, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Guys. Haven't been for a while. There's an outdated template, yes? If not, I think that's what POTCO material should be marked as. Most other wikis have one of those, just haven't seen it here yet. Smeagol630 (talk) 03:18, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. Though there are some doubts about the accuracy of some of POTCO's lores (such as this), there are no clear evidences in other POTC materials about the POTCO characters, ships, locations, etc. being non-canon. So, I think the template should be placed only in the Jolly Roger article, and the text in the template should be changed from "As such, the factual accuracy of this article is disputed or even non-canon!" to "The factual accuracy of some parts of this article is disputed because they contradict the established POTC canon!"--UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 11:11, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
@Smeagol, Don't think a template saying POTCO info is "outdated" be correct, mainly because there has yet to be confirmation on what is canon or not(other than the obvious "movies over all" bit).
@Uskok, I partially agree with your proposal. However, while Roger is the main affectee on the matter, there are more articles that may need such a template(i.e. Barbossa's Grotto or LaShafe). As for the template's text, how does this sound?
"As such, the factual accuracy of this article is disputed."
May be a bit strong to say non-canon, but can't rule anything out at the moment...but I will say it'd be redundant to say it contradicts established canon, especially since there are technical contradictions in the prequel books that can only be explained via speculation. Hence why I think it may be best for most, if not all, POTCO articles to bear this template. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 03:56, October 2, 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you convinced me.--UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 16:59, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Plot Hole Edit

It's about the Pirate's Code. In the game Barbossa says that it is against the Pirate Code to shoot anything that isn't undead, Including Royal Guards and EITC soilders. How is that a rule? It would be incredibly stupid of the Brethren Court, and we see pirates shoot non-undead people throughout the franchise. Of course their Pirates, so they would just Hang the Code an ignore, but Captain Teague, the keeper of the code, shoots a living person. It has never been mentioned before, and it comes out of nowhere. The only reason it is here is so Internet Trolls wouldn't be able to go blast everything in sight. So does anyone have an explination? --Ethan.walling.33 (talk) 04:05, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

POTCO was an online game that even little kids would want to play. So they decided to have the player kill cursed pirates or whatever rather than people so that parents won't give negative feedback about it. Some parents are very protective on what content their children are allowed to watch and/or play. I suppose that's the reason, so that everyone's happy. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 17:36, February 2, 2014 (UTC)
I see, but it still is a plot hole. This (And the fact that Jolly Roger and Jolly Roger's Army hve never been ever mentioned anywhere else)  makes me seriously doubt the canon of the game. Ethan.walling.33 (talk) 02:39, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
You can find plot holes in almost every POTC material. For example, in COTBP, why was Barbossa surprised to see Jack cursed during the duel on Isla de Muerta? He saw Jack taking the cursed coins from the chest, so the curse upon Jack shouldn't be a surprise to him. It would make more sense if Jack took some of the piled doubloons near the chest and threw them back on the ground, while secretly stealing one of the cursed coins. Therefore, the plot holes are inevitable.--UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 07:06, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
Right. It'd probably be hard to explain plot-wise why you can't kill unlike what's seen in the movies. Granted, Jack didn't kill any Royal Navy or EITC soldier in his fighting, but not every pirate is like Jack. It's contradictory, that's pretty much all there is to it.
Semi off-topic, the COTBP bit could be considered a plot hole, as everyone saw the coins taken from the chest. However, Barbossa did say that the crew took the coins and traded them, etc etc before dealing with the maybe they thought Jack had to have used the coin in a selfish-like way before the crew would believe him to be cursed. Of course this is just speculation in my part, particularly of how to explain why Barbossa was shocked. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 09:51, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
From what i understand about COTBP, They never saw Jack pick out of the chest per say, it could be interperted that he never took them the full way out and he palmed the last one before taking it out. But that's just speculation that should be taken with a grain of salt.Ethan.walling.33 (talk) 14:54, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
Either or. The movie made it clear that Barbossa was surprised so it has to be some trick to Jack's...trickery. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 23:14, February 3, 2014 (UTC)