Talk:Capture of the sloop Anne

Requested move 28 November 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. 

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 there 04:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Capture of the Anne → Capture of Anne – Purpose of this request is to remove the definite article "the" from the current title, per Naming conventions (ships), specifically the section; Using ship names in articles, which states 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 - wolf  02:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC) - On another note, do you propose to change all the "Battle of the XXXXX" articles too? Newm30 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We need consistency here as there are other articles such as Sinking of the RMS Titanic,Passengers of the RMS Titanic, Wreck of the RMS Titanic, Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Petrel amongst others. As suggested by another editor, whom you have discussed on their talk page, we may need to push this higher for arbitration. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - 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. - wolf  03:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - 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, and . Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. - wolf  20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Stop trying to throw a tanty mate. Look at the opinions and see if we can come to some agreement. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Two of the three you pinged here have opposed. This is not cool. - wolf  04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No "Tanty" here, "mate"... just posting some comments. The canvassing was bad enough, please don't add some aspersions as well. Thanks - wolf  04:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop with WP:POV railroad. You have been warned. Newm30 (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. - wolf  09:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhh... wut? I'm not sure what or why you're asking that. - wolf  09:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * - I had gone through and removed all the definite articles ("the") preceding ship names I could find... it was all reverted back in. fyi - wolf  04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ...or "The Capture of Anne" - wolf 19:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Conventions or not, we have to apply common sense too, and the proposed title sounds ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "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... - wolf  19:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So what. - wolf  06:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and SNOW close. Seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion - why not sidestep the whole mess and name it Action of March 2, 1825? This is a common format for naval battles that don't have formal names. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. I'd strike this RM in favour of a name change like that. - wolf  20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no "mess", since the current title is clear and concise. I'd oppose a move to "Action of March 2, 1825". Srnec (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a "mess" if the use of the definite article before a ship's name makes one groan... Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. - wolf  04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. - wolf  06:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 Dent  flip ya for it  06:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It's in no way bad grammar. It's standard English. What makes you think it's bad grammar? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)\
 * 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.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  12:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed, ship names are proper nouns and so should not have the definite article before them. Support alternate RM to The capture of sloop Anne per  Havey Dent  and Llammakey as that both avoids the issue of the definite article with ship names and provides information about what sort of thing Anne was. - Nick Thorne talk  04:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose I agree with Kablammo. -Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Capture of the Anne → Capture of the sloop Anne – See previous RM - wolf  15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The quote marks seem unnecessary. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can disregard those. Apparently the RM template doesn't recognize italics markup. - wolf  19:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments in the previous RM. - Nick Thorne talk 00:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments in the earlier RM. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Newm30 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sounds right and doesn't offend any conventions Lyndaship (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Has everyone in the previous move request been notified? It would be good practice. Srnec (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral for me, no move necessary, but I have no objection to this one ( - no, they weren't) Davidships (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - more descriptive title for such a common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llammakey (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Kablammo (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 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)
 * To add to your research, this article was created in 2010 as and renamed within a year to  with . So the "El Mosquito" name was its stable title until the 2015 page move you mentioned above. Looks like a good idea to at least mention El Mosquito with a reference, since at present, the redirect is technically a Redirect to article without mention.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  08:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I was wondering if that would come up... - wolf 22:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. - Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb e a n ~ H. Q.  01:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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:, , ,. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I copyedited the Cofresi article so long ago that I don't remember. All the best,  Mini  apolis  19:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow-up, a year later. I found a letter by Sloat that gives the date of the capture as the 5th. — howcheng  {chat} 17:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)