Jump to content

Talk:Flor de la Mar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

subst:RMtalk|Flor de la mar|name was spelled wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.95.99 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who can change headline from Frol de la mar to Flor de la mar? Flor de la mare ist the name of the ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.49.39 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2011

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Page moved to correct spelling. Dohn joe (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frol de la mar → Flor de la mar – Frol... ist wrong

Actually, it's not wrong - well, not wrong here. It's wrong as reported by contemporaries & chroniclers, whom typically spelled it "Frol",e.g. Albuquerque, Barros, Correia, Couto. However, I don't oppose the move. Just because our ancestors can't spell, doesn't mean we have to continue mispelling. Walrasiad (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update

[edit]

The Frol de la mar did not sink in 1511, i have an Italian merchants eyewitness account that states it left Malacca on the 20th of january 1512 and sank 6 days later, so january 26th 1512 would be the date, also all of my archaic spellings of the ship read Frol not Flor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paggeau (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no one is alive from 1512 so you don'r have an eye witness 179.42.245.25 (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is correct, the flor struck the shoals on the 26th of January 1512 and sank on the 27th. surinder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.128.101 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2014

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flor de la Mar → Frol de la Mar – Although I supported the original move from Frol de la Mar to Flor de la Mar, I am requesting a reversal of the move now. The spelling Frol de la Mar, although apparently a misspelling, is the common name of this ship. It is spelled this way in practically all Portuguese chronicles of the time (e.g. ,e.g. Albuquerque, Barros, Correia, Couto) and my research since indicates that most secondary sources spell it this way as well. Moreover, all children's books I have come across on the Portuguese discoveries insist on spelling it Frol, indicating to me this is not merely scholarly preciseness, but the affectionate and widely-accepted spelling for this famous ship. Changing it from Frol to Flor was a mistake, akin to "correcting" the spelling of "Beatles" to "Beetles". The current article title is not even a full "correction" but a bastardization of the correct and misspelled terms (the original Portuguese would have been Flor do Mar, not Flor de la Mar, "de la" is as much a spelling "mistake" as "Frol"). The original move did not have much of any discussion and really had no basis beyond a intuitive jarring discomfort with "Frol", and really just ignored the sources. So I propose a return to the common Frol de la Mar, the spelling by which this ship is commonly known and referred to. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Walrasiad (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The naming in the original Portuguese sources counts for little. What matters is the English-language WP:COMMONNAME. (That's why our article on Portugal's capital city is at Lisbon, not Lisboa).
    I tried a Google Books search:
  1. Flor de la Mar" -wikipedia 45,300 results
  2. "Frol de la Mar" -wikipedia 6,240 results
I checked only the first 20 results in each, but they appeared to be 100% relevant. So it would appear that the English-language common name in reliable sources is "Flor de la Mar". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 45,000 references to this? You are turning up imaginary ghosthits. Go to the last page on your search, and you will find your own search actually yields up:
  1. 64 for Flor
  2. 34 for Frol
Outweighed, yes, but not nearly as crazy. Yes, I see that several English writers opt for Flor (although many are old, there are a few recent ones). I guess that same discomfort weighed with them. Nonetheless, enough (including more recent scholarly ones) go with Frol. If it wasn't turning up Frol so relentlessly in Portuguese literature, and being taught this way today to children, I'd have less concern. Walrasiad (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, there are often ghost hits. But a 2:1 margin is still fairly clear.
And WP:COMMONNAME is quite explicit that usage is determined by reliable English-language sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it isn't moved, seems like a redirect should be created. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry I'd tend to agree with BrownHairedGirl. The point is English speakers will have enough difficulty already with the "correct" name. When a cute misspelling is introduced (and I'm not denying that this Olde Worlde Portuguese makes sense in Portuguese) it's making life too difficult. English sources give the "correct" Portuguese spelling for the same reason I guess Portuguese sources correct strange Olde Worlde spellings and misspellings from English history. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flor de la Mar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for new information on the Flor de la Mar page

[edit]

I am very interested in the subject of the Flor de la Mar and have followed an individual by the name of Rick Langrehr who was involved in a search for the Flor de la Mar in 2020. I made a post about the find 2 and a half years ago and it was up on this page until today. User:ScottishFinnishRadish and User:MrOllie feel that the links I have used are not credible and repeatedly delete my post.

Yes the link is to a google site which hosts a short documentary hosted on youtube as well as showcasing a magazine called Western and Easter treasures. https://www.wetreasures.com/

They are arguing that we don't use links to youtube pages.

Though based on the supporting source of the magazine, (which they also argue is not credible) I feel having a primary and secondary corroborating sources should be enough to make mention of the coin having been discovered.

The person who found it, Rick Langrehr has posted working with the History channel's oak island team on their social media and I see no reason why his finding should be discounted. I am looking for some other editors to give their thoughts on the matter,

Again this was a post listed on this page for 2 and a half years but now seems to be a problem. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you first added mention of this in September 2020. But the fact that it took someone else a while to notice that you had added an event of nearly zero importance based on unreliable sources does not mean that this error cannot ever be fixed. MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're only here to boost Langrehr ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing your other claims of a link to what he is working on, I have withdrawn those. So let's focus on the validity and noteworthiness of citing magazine articles.
your comment "A magazine for metal detector enthusiasts isn't the 'reputable publisher' that Wikipedia's policies envision," seems to indicate that you are a final authority on the matter. Which you are not.
as well your comment "Show me three reviews in independent sources to show that it is noteworthy, and we can discuss it," is another example of how this has escalated to an ego issue.
shall I continue
I am asking that the original coin statements and links, or replaced with a direct YouTube link if not a personal site, be reposted. Or we look at the next steps for arbitration on the matter. Mamabear1331 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are trolling at this point. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The links you are adding all clearly violate WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that you are speaking with multiple other people, right? I wrote one of the comments you just quoted, and ScottishFinnishRadish wrote the other. Look at the signatures after the original comments. - MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Ollie I am aware. I welcome you to participate in the conversation at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#The Flor de la Mar discussion Mamabear1331 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to discuss the same issue in two places simultaneously, but I do hope someone there is able to explain why your sources are unreliable in a way that you are willing to accept and understand. MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if others agree that the magazine is a credible source?
In the other page I am offering a re-write and different link, But you don't like talking in two places at once so you likely missed that. Mamabear1331 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
allow me to fill you in.
I see that the Amazon link was removed as part of a general cleanup, but the warning still stands for adding self-published Google sites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
   Fair enough, that is why I am asking if I link to the Magazine page https://www.wetreasures.com/
   is that ok? I'm not trying to do anything that violates the guidelines, that is what I have been asking this entire time. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
   If I wrote it as,
   In the 2020 August edition of Western and Eastern Treasures magazine, an article appears regarding a silver tanka coin being found off the coast of Sumatra in a search for the Flor de la Mar by explorer Rick Langrehr. along with the link https://www.wetreasures.com/
   Is everyone ok with that link and phrasing? Mamabear1331 (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Mamabear1331 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer not to respond to hypotheticals. MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else has any objections to the new phrasing then I will repost with the magazine listing rather than a Google site or youtube link to appease Ollie and the Radish Mamabear1331 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given there are no guidelines that measure a professional publication's "wiki endorsed credibility" on this site. As such, the new link and phrasing should not be disagreeable to anyone. Mamabear1331 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know I object, I have told you multiple times that that magazine is not a reliable source. Even if it were reliable (it isn't, once again) it would be unusable because it is written by Langrehr - it is a primary source, not the independent coverage we should have here. MrOllie (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, finding a coin that isn't proven to be from the wreck isn't really noteworthy. Also, per WP:DUE, coverage in a single niche magazine isn't significant enough for coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is in context to the following
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view.
By simply citing the magazine published an article I am not presenting it as a majority view but as the very simple fact that a magazine published the article.
You say it shouldn't be niche, but the world of the Flor de la Mar IS NICHE. Just because National Geographic hasn't pulled up a cannon with Flor de la Mar written on it doesn't mean the information isn't of interest to the reader. Once again, that is your opinion, not the entire world's. Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is full of first hand accounts, not independant coverage, but as long as someone is citing a book published by a "major publisher," in your opinion, first hand written books don't matter. Kevin Rushby for example once again. Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt that is true, but if it is, the presence of other stuff that isn't policy compliant is a reason to fix that, not to add more badly sourced stuff. Rushby is a well-known journalist (currently travel writer for the Guardian) who was writing for a very well known publisher. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again well known measured by what? Your omnipotent view point? Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian's editorial staff. Also, the Rushby cite isn't being used to support a claim that he personally made an archaeological find. MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet somehow him sitting on a container ship and going no further than Sainte Marie is "Note worthy." Again in your opinion. Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to dictate what is well known? A publication that has existed since 1966 may be to low brow to someone who has nothing better to to then argue a 2 and a half year old post for 9 hours, but may be "well known" in other circles. My issue here is your arrogance thinking you can dictate and speak for Wiki Policy all on your own. The article is of interest to me, and others I am sure. You are not the gate keeper to what is or is not "well known." Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DRN Closure statement, for reference. MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who wrote the article in the metal detecting magazine? Was it Langrehr? Lyndaship (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lyndaship, yes. MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just as Kevin Rushby of the Guardian had an editorial staff for his articles so to would Langrehr have with the magazine publication. Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was Lyndaship. Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again there is also a short film documenting the find, but because it is on a youtube link I'm told it is invalid.
Even a publisher of a "Magazine" would have to check sources. I don't think it should be discounted based on mass publications sold. This is from the magazines site, Every month they strive to inform, educate, and entertain the metal detecting/treasure hunting community. This is achieved, in great part, thanks to their talented and dedicated team of Contributing Editors and freelancers. Their contributors are among the most respected, informed, active, and accomplished writers in the treasure hunting field. Mamabear1331 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this has got to fail to be worthy of inclusion. A video and an article created by the alleged finder speculating that the coin is actually from this shipwreck without any independent discussion, opinion or support. Lyndaship (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Find independent 3rd party coverage and it will be worthy. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flor_de_la_Mar&oldid=1248313237"