Talk:Sid Meier's Pirates!

message: This used to be called "Pirates game". Putting Sid's name in front makes it identical to the forthcoming (2004) game. I suggest we either
*accept the new name to cover both and give the article two or three main headings accordingly; or
*rename this one "Pirates! (computer game)" in the current style.
 Robin Patterson 20:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Game name

message: I don't think that's a reference to the movie, as the other pirates say the same thing ("fear the dread pirate William Kidd!"). That one is probably a coincidence. Dehumanizer 08:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Bride? 

message: The Pirates Gold (1993) section mentions something called "Sun sighting."  What the heck was that?  Is it in the 2004 version? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:39, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
*It's an old sea navigation process, something to do with a sextant, probably.  It was in the 1987 version, apparently, but it's not in any version since.  --Alexwcovington 21:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun sighting?

message: I played the 1987 version of the game for the Apple II as a kid.  At the beginning of the game, you chose which historical time period you wished to play in.  Many of these were in the seventeenth century, as the article states, but several (including the default scenario) were in the eighteenth and there were a couple sixteenth century century as well.  I've made a minor alteration to this effect.
Overall, it's a solid article for an old favorite of mine.
67.165.49.173 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seventeenth Century" 

message: The external link at the bottom of the page to download Pirates Gold! for Windows links to Pictionary. It cannot be corrected because it says the link it blacklisted, however.  Tha*Lunat!k 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what you're talking about (blacklisted?).  The link took me to the correct article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops, you mean the external link to download Pirates! Gold.  Yeah, the URL was for Pictionary.  I just removed it, since it's illegal. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Pirates Gold! 

message: My memory might be fooling me but I seem to recall that there were similarities in the gameplay of Ozark Softscape's classics Seven Cities of Gold and Heart of Africa, e.g. the land map play. Now I read in the article on Ozark that Ozark did business with Microprose. Is there any evidence that would speak in favour of my conjecture? --Marc van Woerkom 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unless you can find a reference, it is just that, conjecture.  And original research is banned in Wikipedia articles... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Pirates!'' been inspired by ''Seven Cities of Gold'' and ''Heart of Africa''? 

message: From what I've seen, all versions of the Pirates! game claim quite casually that St. Augustine was originally founded by the French. Even the most recent (2004) release describes it in the manual with: "Originally a French colony, in 1565 Spain captures St. Augustine, massacring the Frenchmen and establishing their own fortress and garrison in its place." Is this worth mentioning in the article as an enduring game error? Or, is every credible source I've looked through actually incorrect in asserting that St. Augustine was built by the Spanish in 1565, over the site of a Native American village, with no prior French presence? -BaronGrackle (69.149.179.197 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat complicated.  There was a pre-existing French settlement near to St. Augustine, at Fort Caroline, but it was about 40 miles north.  When the Spanish arrived and established the St. Augustine settlement, they slaughtered the French at Ft. Caroline.  Further French forces were located about 15 miles south of St. Augustine, at Matanzas Inlet, and nearly all of them were also captured and executed by the Spanish.  http://www.nps.gov/foma/historyculture/the_massacre.htm  The specific details of the manual description are untrue, though broadly speaking it's kind of what happened.  I think if the game error is mentioned some of this would have to be accounted for. 69.237.198.66 16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Augustine's origins

message: I've been playing an open source vesion of the game but I can't find it anymore. Does anybody know the open source version, I would love to play it again  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.8.240 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: open source Pirates

message: Speaking of IP, that reminds me. Having not actually played the game, and not inclined to thoroughly explore every detail of every version of this game, I ask players, does the game even make any mention of slavery? Seems that at a glance, this historical fact, probably the most pervasive force of the time, is completely ignored by the game.
--75.111.44.124 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sid Meier's Pirates!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=14093&tab=review
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I propose that portions of this article relating to the Pirates! Gold remake be split into a separate page called Pirates! Gold. This was once a separate article over a decade ago, unsourced and small and looking like this, so it was rightly merged into this article, and over time a few items about Gold were added to the Reception section here.  In addition to that material, I found evidence of several other reviews in English, and even more non-English reviews so I restored the article with its previous text, added bits from this article, and added more pieces that I found from my own searches as seen in this version. Before arguing that remakes should not have their own articles, please be aware that :Category:Video game remakes currently has 336 articles. Given that this remake was so widely reviewed that a sizeable article can be easily constructed using the reviews I found, I cannot imagine how anyone could argue that this fails the WP:GNG, so I feel that it is an unnecessary hoop to jump through to require a split discussion, but since this was reverted I am inviting people to comment on just what about this topic makes it unworthy of a split, especially when none of the new content or sources were merged into this article. 2601:249:8B80:4050:41C4:6D95:5D42:947E (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would create a draft and submit it using the Articles for creation process. I have no sense for whether it should be split or not so creating a well-sourced draft that passes GNG would significantly help me and others decide either way. For what it's worth, reviews are not the only, or even primary way that a video game is determined to be notable. See WP:NME and WP:MOSVG for more info (WP:VG does not have its own notability guideline). Axem Titanium (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oof, sorry, I don't remember the discussion. I do see that this has 13kb of text (more if you count differently, and WP:ARTICLESIZE has <40kb as "Length alone does not justify division". But the article seem long enough to split, to me. I guess it depends on how different "Pirates! Gold" is from "Sid Meier's Pirates!". If someone interested in one is likely to interested in the other, maybe you don't want to split. It looks so, as it seems to be the same game but with a different name? We don't have separate articles for "Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum" and "RingCentral Coliseum"; they're the same thing. But maybe this case is different; I don't want to make a strong suggestion, I haven't studied the matter. Herostratus (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not having all the free time I'd like to have so I won't participate in this, but if others make this "Pirates! Gold" article comes back with all the necessary sources, then there shouldn't be any problem. Kintaro (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

text: If there is a lengthy article about the remake then I guess it would be okay. But who is going to write this article? Alternatively, if the remake is more notable then why not have an article for it and merge this article's content into the new article? (Or just rename/repurpose this one.) I am not very invested in what happens, either way. ➧datumizer  ☎  02:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, everybody! Since there was no objection to working on this as a draft so that a proper split could potentially happen, I will be requesting a move of the edit history to a draft page. 2601:249:8B80:4050:FDCF:44F6:2142:124C (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: AfC reviewer here: The draft looks good, I tagged the redirect with G6. Noah 💬 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a case for G6.  G6 is non-contentious housekeeping when there is a minor history associated with the redirect.  The history isn't minor if there was previously an article that was cut down.  I also see that there were recent attempts to expand the redirect back into an article, but that they have been reverted by User:Onel5969, so pinging User:Onel5969 into this discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: At any rate, and anyway, in the future this redirect might become an article on its own. I created a draft in one of my sandboxes, over there: User:Kintaro/Kintaro sandbox. Dear Wikipedians, feel free to edit my sandbox until it is accepted this draft becomes an article that simply replaces the redirect. Please note the colon immediately before the word "Category" in the categories source code. This prevents the draft from appearing in the categories. Those colons should be removed only if the draft becomes an article on its own. Kintaro (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kintaro. There are a number of non-English sources noted there, and someone else might have an easier time interpreting some of them then I would. 2601:249:8B80:4050:61F9:B39F:FE63:9EBF (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal