Snippets of Jack

OK thanks

Also, make sure that Wikipedia does have an article on the subject before making the Wikipedia template.

(i.e. Skip Henderson doesn't have a Wikipedia article)

Thanks I didn't realize that.

Apology accepted. Thanks for informing us of the things we did wrong even when we didn't actually do it.

Ok, to explain the latest revert:

1. To add to the capitalization discussion above, it can be viewed that two-worded titles should be capitalized. But again, there are exceptions, such as "Early life" sections.
2. Ian Mercer's article bears the "Inuse" template. It should be explanatory there.

Hope this explains much.

Okay, I understand the Ian Mercer issue about not editting that page. My apologies. However, I'm not understading why titles of sections should not be capitalized. Don't we want this page to look professional? Perhaps we are both referring to different formats.

However, I'm not understading why titles of sections should not be capitalized. Don't we want this page to look professional? Perhaps we are both referring to different formats.

To be quite honest, I don't know how to explain it in a way I haven't already. There are points where we can captialize our section titles, and there are times where we cannot. As I said above, there are exceptions to either way...chief among them are leaving "Early life", "Behind the scenes", and "Notes and references". IMO, the best way to know if something needs to be capitalized or not is how it is capitalized or lower-cased in any official material. For instance, writing "The Wrath of Calypso" rather than "The wrath of Calypso" because it was written that way in a section from The Complete Visual Guide.

I hope I'm making more sense now. If not, well...at least I tried.

Can you please site your format for me? I've been following MLA Format. If you can give me this format I'll work to abide by it. Not savvy.

I regret to say this, but I already explained it the best that I could above. I'm sorry. :/

I'm not asking for your explanation. I'm asking for a formal explanation. It just looked better capitalized and I thought that titles are always capitalized. But for the sake of keeping each page uniform, I'll comply.

A formal explanation is not the same as our explanation. Otherwise, we wouldn't capitalize most of our objects and such. For the case of our section's titles, I'm only trying to do the best I think should be done...semi-following how other well-organized wikis do theirs(e.g. Star Wars Wiki and Harry Potter Wiki).

O.K. I had just seen them capitalized around the wiki on different pages, including Captain Teague's Profile.

-Do something Jack would today!

The way a Wiki user's profile is made does not have to follow what is done in our main articles. Every user is free to do whatever they want with their pages...as long as it's appropriate of course(like the big no-nos, duplicate images and cursing, unless if quoting a character from movie or some material).

Keep to the Code!

Consider it kept!  :)

ok i wasnt sure about that one. i will remember that in the future.

Okey-Dokey

By the way can you put Category:Imageless to real-world actors?

Depends. If it's an actor who played a major and/or supporting character(e.g. Geoffrey Rush or Robbie Kay), then yes the category would be needed for the actor. But if it's an actor who played a lesser known role(like any of the British or Spanish), then it depends if they're well-known or not...the same can be said for those who portray background characters.

i do hope i don't annoy anyone on this site, i'm just trying to figure things ou and not make as many mistakes. thanks for all the help you've given me throughout the months i've been on this awesome site.

Don't worry, that's why we admins are here: aside from fixing this Wiki, we try to help new users. It only gets bad if someone keeps ignoring the rules and breaking them...but that's not the case here - as you didn't know about the category thing.

Thank you for promoting my blog! Starting a blog is pretty easy on the site i use. Blogspot.com is connected with gmail.com and all you are required to have is a gmail account. I hope this helps!

Your welcome,

AND...

THANK U THANK U THANK U THANKU U THANKU THANK U THANK U!

Tell me when you get your blog set up! I'd love to follow it!

I got one! It's call The New 212. My friends are checking out your blog, I tod them to look at it. They say they like it and that they are gonna pass it on.

Great! could you post a link so I can find it. I seem to have trouble when I search it.

-Do something Jack would today

http://melspuppies.blogspot.com/

I'll go fight my worst enemy. Hopefully you will do something greater.

you should follow my blog! and invite all your friends to as well!(: good luck with your bog!

Snippets Of Jack

- Do something Jack would do today!

I'm trying.

I see. But isn't that a little rude? Not to consider people male or female just because their not pirates? Could you please explain to me why?

To clearly separate real-world actors articles from POTC characters articles.

Isn't that what the "real-world actors" category is for?

Yes, and that's why it's the only category we're putting on the real-world actors articles.

But don't you want to separate the male real world actors and the female ones?

If I may be so bold as to interject my professional opinion...The way I see it, all film actor-related articles only need one category: "real-world actors". As my learned colleague so naively suggests... categories that are most affiliated with our in-universe articles(yes, including "Males" or "Females"), aren't really needed for actor articles. Look at how other Wikis treat their actors/actresses with categories(particularly in popular Harry Potter and Star Wars Wikis)...they do it that way, so I say we keep doing the same. Not saying we should do everything other Wikis do, but I'm say we do what we do now regarding the actors' categories.
But on a brighter note, I appreciate the enthusiasm to do such things, which brings me to what I kinda put off for some time...and now seems like the opportune moment to bring it up.

Now, this is something I noticed as we came into including screenshots from deleted scenes(which are right now, included with non-deleted scene screenshots). What do you guys think about separating the categorizing screenshots according to films?...if you need examples of what I mean, look at this SW Wiki image and this HP Wiki image(I'm only suggesting giving images categories like say, "Images from On Stranger Tides" for OST screencaps). Reason for proposing this is so it'd make things easier to go through screenshots. Sure we got galleries, but what if one were to go through "Category:Film-screenshots"? I'll tell ya, they'd have a headache by the time they're close to finding their needed image.
What say you two?

I think thats a great idea! It would make it much eaiser to navigate the galleries!

I think we should do the same kind of thing for the Quote pages as well.

Oh sorry! i was just fixxing missplelling and such, she said she thanked us on her page, but she had our name spelled improperly, and then i spotted some others. My apoligies to Melspuppies8282.

No worries. This is just an FYI. ;)

Is there a list of rules somewhere? i feel like i keep breaking them!

Everything should be in the "few useful links for newcomers" that was given to you weeks ago. ;)

just making sure there wasn't anything else. you have spent a great deal of time making this site great and i just want to do the same.

Well, to be honest, I didn't climb aboard this Wiki until April 2010. But yea, I was here when all the extra Wiki tech-related stuff came along and I played a large role in putting things together. So yea, I suppose I was of great service for the past 2 years, trying to make this site have the most reliable of POTC info of any site(well, aside from the Disney website of course).

But anyway, thanks for your support! :)

And except for ours , of course.

I suppose...but I meant like information sites. Ours has sources and stuff, some of which were given graciously by certain folks.

Just sayin'.

yes ours deffinily isnt an info site, but we love doing it!

Indeed, and it is a good site. I read most of the blogs upon learning of it...particular the duel blog, as recently made a blog on it(topping it by giving your site credit, of course, as that's what inspired me writing it). ;)