Template:Did you know nominations/El Piñal


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

El Piñal

 * ... that the Spanish abandoned El Piñal, their trading port in China, after they were attacked by Portuguese Macau?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Uspallata chinchilla rat

Created by Underbar dk (talk). Nominated by Zanhe (talk) at 05:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Long enough and new enough. Generally within policy, no copyvio issue found, written in neutral manner, with citations. Spot checked one of the citations (Sousa Pinto) and it seems in line with the article. One paragraph in "background" is missing citation, please update. The size of the settlement is missing, how many Spaniards settled the port? (e.g. during initial establishment, or when it was finally evacuated), please include this in the article. QPQ looks okay. Regarding the hook, the article did not actually say that the settlement was attacked, only blockaded. Could you clarify? HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added a cite to the paragraph. I have not been able to find any figures saying how many Spaniards were settled at the port at Pinal's establishment, though the number cannot be higher than the capacity of a 16th century Spanish carrack, since Zamudio only brought one ship. We also don't know how many people were left when the Spanish were chased away - but we know Luis Pérez Dasmariñas brought 120 men to Pinhal after encountering a storm, adding to the number Zamudio left behind in Pinhal. Whether the Portuguese actually attacked Pinhal is debatable: Sousa Pinto says the Portuguese did not attack Pinhal since it would enrage Chinese authorities closeby, and only attacked the Spanish at Lampacau (further away). _dk (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources differ on whether El Piñal itself was attacked or not, see my discussion with on Talk:El Piñal. Therefore the hook only says the Spanish (I've changed "Spain" to the Spanish) were attacked (either at El Piñal or Lampacau), but the result was the same: they abandoned El Piñal. -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * : Well if they attack could have taken place when they were in Lampacau, saying that "abandoned El Piñal .. after they were attacked" wouldn't make sense or would be misleading. I suggest updating the blurb, e.g. "after meeting hostilities from the Portuguese" or "after opposition from the Portuguese". Better suggestions welcome. It seems undisputed that there were hostile response such as a blockade against El Piñal itself (CMIIW). Also,, if you have source on the number and type of ship that originally populated the settlement, could you mention that in the article? HaEr48 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the Portuguese waited for the Spanish ships to leave El Pinal and attacked them at the more remote Lampacau (in order not to upset the Chinese), resulting in Spain's abandonment of El Pinal. To me that makes perfect sense and is not misleading at all. -Zanhe (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * About the hook, I have no real preference one way or another, "after meeting hostilities from the Portuguese" would avoid potentially misleading the reader to assume they were attacked in El Pinal (even though the hook does not say this), but "attacked" is clearer about what kind of hostility the Spanish encountered. I will be on the lookout for sources that mention the numbers or the type of ship involved. _dk (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If they already left El Piñal when attacked, why would you say "they abandoned El Piñal after they were attacked"? HaEr48 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Though one can make an argument about what constitute "abandonment", there is no need to belabour this point if we just switch to "after meeting hostilities from the Portuguese" as suggested. Would you agree to this, ? _dk (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That's fine, enough ink has been spilled over this. Let's go with ALT1:
 * ALT1 ... that Spain abandoned El Piñal, its trading port in China, after encountering hostilities from the Portuguese? -Zanhe (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go now. I also changed "meeting" to "encountering" in the hook, I hope that's okay. Feel free to undo if not. would be nice if you could add the number/type of ship before the DYK is run (I thought you had it in hand because you said one carrack). HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was (educated) speculation. _dk (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)