Very interesting as to the important of the project - linguistically speaking

https://theconversation.com/why-would-anyone-shiver-their-timbers-heres-how-pirate-words-arrr-preserving-old-language-121493

The relevance of works cited is also of relevance to this project

1881 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue by Francis Grose - http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5402

http://talklikeapirate.com/wordpress/

http://pirate.monkeyness.com/online_pirate_translator

Definitely things to consider to add to this quiet project - the derivatives of the idea of the pirate and the language used... JarrahTree 05:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Notably the Wikipedia article about Grose neglects the relevant importance of his text -

Early lexicographer Captain Francis Grose’s Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue groans with 18th century nautical gems like “shipshape” (orderly), “junk” (pieces of old rope and, later, “pieces of salted pork”), and lashings of terms for food and drink — “belly timber”, “slush and tack” (food), “grub-spoiler” (cook), “flash the hash” (to vomit), “grog” (rum and water), “sluice the gob” (to drink) are some of the success stories. (from the 'Conversation item cited above) JarrahTree 05:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how active this place is anymore, but I thought I'd post here that I've done some long-overdue changes to pages like Air pirate, Space pirate, List of space pirates, and List of fictional pirates. I was planning to tackle the Pirates in the arts and popular culture page next. That's all! It's time for some piracy! Historyday01 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

How do I join this WikiProject? It seems interesting. FireToWater (Let's Talk!) 15:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@FireAndWaterGirl123: Just add your username to the list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Piracy/Participants.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thank you Trekker. FireToWater (Let's Talk!) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@FireAndWaterGirl123: No problem. Glad to have you onboard.★Trekker (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Have added this - Wikipedia:WikiProject Piracy/Popular pages to give a sense of what people are looking for in our article set. Some surprising results in the top few entries, notably the One Piece manga and TV series which are a little tangential to traditional piracy themes. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I'm personally not suprised to see One Piece at the top, it is the most successful manga of all time after all (and a great series, in my oppinion!) I am very shocked to not see Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) anywhere.★Trekker (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: Hmpf, greatest manga of all time: it's got nothing on Attack on Titan I tell you! Anyway, yes that is surprising re Pirates of the Caribbean: perhaps the films are just that little bit too long ago. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC).

@Euryalus: Very possible, I wonder if Disney will indeed try to reboot it anytime soon.★Trekker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: Hope not: it had already lived too long with the final pointless installments. Time to let it rest, surely. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Sadly Disney isn't too concerned with restraint when it comes making money.★Trekker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Interested in what people think about re-adding the "Importance" tab to Template:WikiProject Piracy. Was mentioned on my talkpage, thought I'd bring it here for wider input. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Mild addition - have gone ahead and re-added the tab as many of the fields seemed to already have data. But obviously consensus here is the important thing: happy to remove it again if preferred.

Was wondering if we could improve the WikiProject infobox, so made this mockup as a draft. Shamelessly lifted from the Astronomy WikiProject design. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks pretty good.★Trekker (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Numerous articles cite Baylus Brooks' book Quest for Blackbeard. This was published by Lulu Press, which means it may be self-published. Therefore, it should perhaps be added to the project's to do list to either confirm that the source is not self-published, or remove references to this source, using instead the sources which Brooks – using ample (and hopefully sufficient) inline citations in his work – references. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@AlphaMikeOmega: Thanks, and yes this probably is a self-published book given the publisher. Brooks is a genuine historian with other works published by (for example) University of North Carolina Press, but links to this Lulu book can probably be replaced with better sources. Will have a look through them over the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, if his work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, then WP:SPS allows the use of his self-published work in the same field. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Alas, piracy articles often have unreliable sourcing. There's a lot of amateur blogs, urban legends and self-published works and not much by way of hard evidence for the activities of many pirate bands. This seems especially so in the Golden Age Caribbean where even the primary sources of the day were just as likely to be operating on vague rumour. Luckily Blackbeard is an exception: there's many academic texts and no need for us to use less reliable references. So no big challenge in reviewing that book's use on other pages -- Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Jack Sparrow for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for a second opinion on what to do with Category:Ottoman pirates. It currently has only three articles, none of which appears to actually be a pirate:

• Selman Reis, described by the sources as a "corsair" but apparently mostly active trying to conquer Yemen or fighting the Portuguese who preyed on Muslim shipping in the Red Sea. From the biography he seems no more of a pirate than the average Spanish conquistador or Italian condottiere (or, maybe a more apt comparison, than Vasco da Gama).
• Mustafa Bayram, nephew of the above. The article currently says that he "sailed away and continued his life as a pirate", but that's unsourced and likely wrong; the article needs work, and the sources I'm aware of mention no acts of piracy nor call him a pirate. Active in Yemen and against the Portuguese in India.
• Sefer Reis, described in the article as a "privateer". Active against the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean. He, for one, seems to have attacked merchant ships, but given the state of affairs between the Ottomans and the Portuguese, that doesn't make him a pirate. Attacking an enemy country's merchant shipping is an accepted tactic of war, and one that the Portuguese heavily employed, too.

Beyond those three people from the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, there's only a sub-category, Category:Barbary pirates. Are there some genuine non-Barbary Ottoman pirates that should be put here? Or should the category be emptied except for its sub-category? Deleted entirely? Huon (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd certainly change the descriptor for the first two: there's insufficient material in these articles to call them pirates. Sefer Reis is a bit more arguable.

Would also support removing the "Ottoman pirate" category entirely. The Barbary pirates were real enough and operated with at least a tolerance from Ottoman rulers. But they weren't strictly "Ottoman" pirates, just local pirates the Ottomans tolerated/ignored/encouraged from time to time. I'm not aware of any notable pirates principally operating from non-Barbary Ottoman ports, that would justify retaining a separate category. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the category in view of comments above - nevertheless there are interesting probably not related items:

"Greek Pirates". Colonial Advocate, And Tasmanian Monthly Review And Register. Vol. I, , no. 4. Tasmania, Australia. 1 June 1828. p. 27. Retrieved 16 January 2023 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

"PIRATES OF BARBARY COAST". The Canberra Times. Vol. 51, , no. 14, 590. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 22 January 1977. p. 15. Retrieved 16 January 2023 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

JarrahTree 03:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Piracy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I am working on the unreferenced articles backlog drive, and noticed 1692 in piracy and, with it, the whole timeline of piracy "year" articles. I was going to go in and start sourcing the entries, but I also noticed that, frankly, the single-year articles didn't seem to have a lot on them and are cumbersome to navigate. A lot of the years are also redlinks. The decade articles like 1630s in piracy seem more useful. My inclination would be to merge the years to decades. But, this is not a key area of expertise for me and I'm not familiar with the consensus that created these year articles. Any thoughts about whether this organization of information ought to be revisited? Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: I'm inclined to agree, decade articles make more sense here.★Trekker (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)