This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other
Piracy-related articles, lay aboard
the project page and sign on for a berth.PiracyWikipedia:WikiProject PiracyTemplate:WikiProject PiracyPiracy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the
Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the
welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to
Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
A fact from Capture of the sloop Anne appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 June 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved. See a lot of friction and opposition below to the proposed title, though it does have some merit. Other proposed titles may be better, so there is no prejudice against a future proposal for a different article name. At first, informal discussion on this page to try to determine which of the alternative titles might garner consensus is suggested. Have a Great Day and
Happy Publishing! (
nac by
page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.
put'r there04:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section (example)
Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong (example)
Clearly, the ship name is introduced for the first time in the article title, and so per the guideline, should not have the definite article "the" preceding it.
Also, it has become common practice, perhaps even an accepted norm, to not have the definite article "the" precede a ship name, anywhere in an article, and when found, to have it removed. So I propose this article be moved to a correct title as per both the guideline and common practice. Thank you -
wolf02:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Newm30: -
OSE is not a substantive argument. It's like saying; "since those other pages are making a mistake, we should not fix this mistake". Further, you are aware that there are also articles that have such titles without the definite article "the" in the title? Does OSE apply to those as well? Regardless, I would prefer that you, that we all in fact, follow the guidelines cited, as opposed to using an essay to decide. I'm not aware of this editor you speak of, but while I discuss this on
this user talk page, as well as on
this project talk page, I do not recall arbitration being mentioned. And, surely, this would not be required either. -
wolf03:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Thewolfchild: - While I understand where you are coming from, IMO the requirement for ships naming convention stating don't create an article called "The Ship Anne", these articles are different than what I believe this convention is seeking. I think you are misinterpreting the naming convention IMO. There is a distinct difference between Capture of Rome, and Capture of the Anne, etc. While I said arbitration, I do not mean the Wiki Arbritation process, just merely we need further consultation with ship experts to see whether we need to vary the ship naming convention for clarity on this specific issue. I have concerns that "Capture of Anne" does not articulate that the article is based on a "object" rather than say for a town or a person. The other way we could deal with it is to include within a ship based article on Anne (XXXX ship). Putting my thoughts forward, for consideration by our ships experts @
Davidships:, @
Euryalus: and @
Mjroots:. Regards
Newm30 (
talk)
07:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Newm30: btw - you need only to put "Capture of HMS" or "Sinking of HMS" into the search box and the dozens and dozens of results that pop up without "the" before the prefix show that all the pages titled; "...the RMS Titanic" are wrong and need to be corrected. Also, not crazy about the pinging. Some might call it canvassing. I won't... unless all of them oppose. -
wolf20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
No "Tanty" here, "mate"... just posting some comments. The canvassing was bad enough, please don't add some aspersions as well. Thanks -
wolf04:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I apologise if you think I was canvassing to support my POV, howver I did not, I only asked those who in my opinion have expert knowledge. Regards
Newm30 (
talk)
07:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Bah that's ok, it's not like I'm filing a formal compaint or anything. Anyway, I'm a little surprised at this initial turn-out. There are sooo many editors that are opposed to the def. art. "the" before ships names - you see it removed often - yet I get this particular half-dozen editors who see it differently. Strange, but... oh well. -
wolf09:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The suggested title "Capture of Anne" strongly suggest to me that "Anne" is a person so famous that she is known by a mononym (Madonna, Liberace, Bjork, Kylie). "Capture of the Anne" indicates that Anne is an object, not a person. It may well be that there is a better title, but the suggested one is not it. Possibly "1825 capture of the Ana/Anne" or "Capture of the Ana/Anne, 1825" would be a better fit, but is there really a need to disambiguate? Probably not, which brings us back to the current title.
Mjroots (
talk)
07:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - thanks for the ping, it's an interesting question. Will come back with a view shortly, but thought I'd mention in passing that ironically the article itself is full of definite articles before ship names. Have removed a few and given one section a mild copyedit, will do the others later. --
Euryalus (
talk)
11:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Euryalus: - I had gone through and removed all the definite articles ("the") preceding ship names I could find... it was all reverted back in. fyi -
wolf04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I think Wolfs interpretation of policy is correct but Capture of the Anne sounds far more natural. To satisfy both viewpoints maybe if we named the article Capture of the sloop Anne?
Lyndaship (
talk)
11:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
"Ridiculous"...? Is that why we have numerous editors removing "the" before ships names in numerous articles? Because it sounds "ridiculous"? What a "ridiculous" comment to make... -
wolf19:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
It entirely depends on the context. "Capture of Anne" would clearly suggest the capture of a person named Anne. Anne who, would be the natural question? --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I think that this is a textbook example of why
WP:SHIPNAME wisely has "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong". It is full of ambiguity without the article and, to me, just sounds strange. I support the omission of the article as the default case, but even an italicised Anne doesn't really quite get there. I wouldn't describe this as a "mess" that needs to be sidestepped - the point of the story is that the ship was captured, the date would be useful as a dab if several Annes turn out to have been captured; indeed, better for this article might be
Capture of Roberto Cofresí. (Incidentally,
Capture of the El Mosquito redirects here but without any explanation of why).
Davidships (
talk)
02:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Just a comment; we have numerous ship articles about "Capture of HMS something" or "Sinking of HMS or other", without the definite article "the" preceding the ship prefix. And even though the prefix is there, how does that make such a difference to the opposers? We're still talking about a ship. Another curiosity; we have articles such as "
Sacking of Rome and "
Capture of Guam". These aren't people, they're places, but still have names without definite articles preceding. There are ships with those same names, why would "Sacking of Rome" be acceptable, but not "Sinking of Rome"? Or why is "Capture of Guam" ok but "Capture of Guam" isn't? I believe having "the" precede the name sounds quite clunky, eg; "
Capture of Saddam Hussein" or "Capture of the Saddam Hussein"...? Ugh. "Capture of the Anme is equally so. As I said above, there is a reason why we have a guideline for this, and why it has also become an accepted practice. -
wolf04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Because that's the way people talk about ships. We don't generally use the definite article if the ship has a prefix. We don't usually say "the HMS Warspite" (although we would say "the Warspite" if the prefix wasn't used). We do, however, say "the Anne"! The English language is not consistent and you can't force it to be because you think it's strange for it not to be. Other languages are far more consistent, which is why we sometimes have constructions which sound very odd to the ears of native English-speakers cropping up in Wikipedia article titles when other languages are translated too literally. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
And people usually talk the way they think; informally. We're writing an encyclopaedia here, and the writing is, as it should be, a little more formal. Having "the" precede a name in writing is just bad form. -
wolf06:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Waffle I oppose use of "the" on pages, but the notion this would lead to confusion (as if "Capture of
Madonna") has merit. So maybe it's not the best idea... That said, defending it by ref to "the RMS Titanic" or like pages, IMO, is a weak reed: those should be moved. Can the confusion be addressed by adding the navy prefix? Or by
Capture of the sloop ''Anne''? (Which raises the question of a non-sloop Anne...)
Havey Dentflip ya for it06:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Suggest either a move to "Capture of the sloop Anne" or "Action of March 2, 1825". My reasoning is that we do not use the before a company's name, such as "the Nike moved their headquarters today" or "the Wal-Mart claimed that their sales had increased today," or "the shopping at the Wal-Mart" to make it more related to the topic at hand. The same is applicable to the ship. Besides, capture of the Anne has as much clarity as Capture of Anne. What is Anne? A ship, a person, a company? Action of March 2 describes a battle and capture of sloop Anne tells the reader its about a ship.
Llammakey (
talk)
15:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
No, we don't, because that's not how the English language works. We do, however, often use a direct article before the names of ships (surely you're not saying you've never heard anyone say "the Titanic", for instance? It's probably more common than just saying "Titanic".). That's just how it is in the real world. English is not a one-size-fits-all language. See my comments above. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
We also use contractions, made-up language such as chilaxing and curse words in everyday life. That does not mean we have to do that here. That's a straw man argument. Bad grammar is bad grammar.
Llammakey (
talk)
16:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd agree, it's not bad grammar. Using "the" before ship names, however, is contrary to usual professional usage (AFAIK), making it colloquial, rather than formal, which, IMO, makes it unencyclopedic. In the same way, we should not describe a vacation as "chillaxing", no matter what the current common usage is: it doesn't meet the standard of use. This, IMO, is a case where we should be aiming for the highest possible quality, not a "most common name" one.
TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura12:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We do not use the definite article before ships with and "HMS prefix (or similar) and that would mean, for example, "the Her Majesty's Ship Eagle". So that is not a reason. For other prefixes (and remember that prefixes are not part of the name), usage is inconsistent, both in Wikipedia and the world at large. Here, use of the definite article serves to avoid confusion. But "Capture of sloop Anne" or "Capture of Danish sloop Anne" would also work for the title.
Kablammo (
talk)
18:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose The proposal seems like the capture of a person called Anne. I would prefer "Action of..." or alternatively, "Capture of the sloop Anne". Dropping the definite article from the middle of titles in the way suggested above seems to me to be poor grammar. The is generally deprecated as the first word of article titles per
WP:THE which also applies to section headings per
MOS:HEADINGS, but I've never seen any guidance indicating that we deprecate it in front of an adjective or noun in the middle of an article title. Happy to be corrected.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
00:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 5 December 2018
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. There has been unanimous support for the proposed move after seven days of discussion. As discussed in the last RM, the goal of this proposal was to bring this article's title in compliance with
WP:NC-SHIP. I believe that there is a consensus that this is the best way to facilitate that compliance. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
RGloucester —
☎04:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
El Mosquito
In passing, I mentioned above "Incidentally,
Capture of the El Mosquito redirects here but without any explanation of why". As that had been the previous name of the same article it is strange that El Mosquito is not mentioned at all, even as a footnote. At the 2015 page move by
Caribbean H.Q. it was noted "While widespread since the 19th century, "El Mosquito" may be anachronistic." Mention was included up to 21 Oct 2017, then inexplicably deleted by the same editor in a "c/u" (clean up?)
here. I can add something back in, with a reference.
Davidships (
talk)
13:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There is an ongoing dispute over whether the definite article should, should not, or may be included before a ship's name. I hope we can agree that we don't need two definite articles, even if one, El, is in a different language.
Kablammo (
talk)
19:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
It's simple, I came across additional sources including official documents pertaining to the construction and appropriation of the vessel. "El Mosquito" is a name used in popular tales and legends in Puerto Rico, but not anywhere else... And that was because it was used to establish a dichotomy between eagle/mosquito. No Spanish or American sources use it, so I copyedited the prose to reflect that. -
Caribbean~H.Q.01:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)reply
when?
When did this action take place: March 2 or 5? The article was originally at
Action of 2 March 1825 and that's what the introduction and infobox say, but the "San José y las Animas's trap and naval engagement" section says March 5. All the sources are offline, so I can't verify myself, but
Piracy in the West Indies and its suppression p. 131 says it was March 4 instead. Something else to consider: in
Roberto Cofresí, it says his last successful capture was on March 5. So if we assume that this action took place on March 5, are we saying that he did that in the morning and got caught in the afternoon? If that's true, it seems a little odd that there is no connection made between the two events (e.g., no wording that says, "Later that same day..."). Because that article doesn't put a date on the naval battle, as a reader, I infer that it took place some days after Cofresí's last hijacking. Unfortunately, it seems that most people who were involved in the creation of this article are no longer active, but I can ping some people who were involved on the Cofresí article:
User:Marine 69-71,
M G Tuffen,
Dimadick,
Miniapolis. Thanks. —howcheng {
chat}17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)reply