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 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 is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
I will attempt the translation and correct the other issues as soon as I can, including references and citations also this article does have a worldwide view in respect of the effect it had on the perceived invincibility of the Spanish navy.Jkslouth (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)jkslouth[reply]
Translation completed Jkslouth (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)jkslouth[reply]
Paragraph under Azores with italics and square brackets I propose to delet as it is not in the original Spanish article and I have no way of adding references or citations as I am not the author Jkslouth (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)jkslouth[reply]
This paragraph now deleted Jkslouth (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)jkslouth[reply]
I think to a military or naval historian, this is an important article. Authors attempting the translation seem not to have worked on the article for sometime. It describes one of the first incidences in the battle for supremacy of the Atlantic which raged between the Spanish, French, British(English)and Dutch for a couple of centuries. I think the original Spanish article is clearly and consisely written, well sourced and demonstrates a balanced and impartial reporting of an important event, and I have attepted to reflect that in the English translation. I notice it has been placed in two important military categories and I will explore further categories. Jkslouth (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)jkslouth[reply]
I will start to give citations and further internal links today, but this will take some time. Please be patient.Jkslouth (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)jkslouth[reply]
Most references done 1 remaining. 1 inaccessible and to be verified (9) Jkslouth (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly checking the links on refs as some are now inaccurate. Finding new links where possible. Jkslouth (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced the introduction to more accurately reflect the original Spanish document intentions whilst maintaining conformity to En:Wiki style guide. Jkslouth (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)jkslouth[reply]
Not sure I agree with the change in capitalisation. RichFarmbrough, 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Having checked current style trends, I think I agree with you. I'm so used to book title I forget article headings are different. As you and I seem to be the only editors at the moment shall we just change it back? Jkslouth (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is the best name for this article at all. Is it really the WP:COMMONNAME? Wouldn't something like Battle of Cadiz (1587) (which currently redirects here) be more encyclopaedic? Robofish (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not being a English history major, it seems almost strange that the title of this subject has been given a colloquial naming convention. I am quite sure that looking up historical books, references, etc. would determine, as much as this fanciful title may be associated with this event, the true title is likely something along the lines of "Drakes expedition (1587)". Once again, I am not a history-phile, but this seems like a POV-type name change. Further, where is the discussion on such a controversial change? ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed at C, primarily because of a deficiency of citation in the first section. If corrected, this would be a B class. Monstrelet (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus, hence not moved. Several commenters below seem to disfavor the current title simply because it seems unconventional. While this argument is not necessarily invalid, it can easily be overcome if sources are adduced attesting to the common usage of the title, as User:victor falk has done. Any future move request regarding this article should -- in order to have a reasonable probability of success -- focus more strictly on the question of which name is used in reliable sources for the battle. Xoloz (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, shouldn't this be a technical move back to the previous title? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Either way, IPs can't move pages, and considering it's on the main page it shouldn't be done until tomorrow UTC. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. This is an incredibly odd name for the article, and I don't recall ever hearing it referred to as such in history class. That's purely anecdotal, but I think unless there is overwhelming evidence of common name, that the expedition title is more descriptive and encyclopedic.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (albeit with some reluctance, as the phrase is wonderfully poetic). But it is not clear to me that Drake's usage, and perhaps the usage of others, relates solely to this incident, or to a general strategy of harassing Spain. Perhaps someone more versed in the history of this era can help. Kablammo (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, wrong forumWP:NOTCLEANUP. If the factual correctness of any content of an article is disputed, including in its title, the proper procedure is to tag {{accuracy}}, {{disputed}}, {{unreferenced}}, or somesuch template. But an utterly cursory gbook search shows it is indeed named so. [1]. Also, this is a proper name. You don't rename the War of Jenkins' EartoSpanish-English war (1739-48) just because "Jenkin's Ear" sounds silly to you. walkvictor falktalk 21:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is the appropriate place to discuss a move to a new (or former) name, per Wikipedia:Requested moves. As to the substance: Clearly the phrase was used (and a main fault of the article is its failure to explain the circumstances of its use by Drake). But the question here is the proper title of an article about Drake's 1587 raid on Spanish shipping at Cadiz. Kablammo (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title might be nice as a book title or the title of a magazine article. But is quite out of place as an encyclopedia article. Uniform cunieform (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC) !vote by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An Encyclopedia of Battles by David Eggenberger has an entry on this battle entitled "Cadiz (English-Spanish Wars), 1587." (p. 71). Feel free to cut the bluster and prove me wrong: Find an reference work that calls this battle by the current title of the article. "The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History" and "Brassey's Encyclopedia of Land Forces and Warfare" are the go to sources for this kind of information, although neither one is online. Uniform cunieform (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may seem a tad unencylopedic but is still the name by which the action is commonly known, or at least it was when I was a kid. Garrett Mattingly's work on the Armada has a chapter title "A Beard is Singed" suggesting that most of his readers would understand this allusion anyway. Proposed alternative titles would probably leave a lot of readers momentarily wondering if this is the action referred to. You also have the problem that with no clear alternative proposed there might be a majority to move, but no consensus what to move to, so the current title could still have a plurality. PatGallacher (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to be assessing the consensus at the same time that you're voting. The closer assesses the consensus when the voting is complete. The RM is where editors give reasons to support or oppose the proposal based on the merits. Don't prejudge the result while people are still voting. Uniform cunieform (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to prejudge the consensus, I was simply making the general point that I have sometimes seen it happen on Wikipedia that you might get a majority against the existing title, but no clear consensus about what to move it to, which is why I tend to dislike these『move to ?』requests. PatGallacher (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, originally I had Drake's 1587 expedition as the suggested target, but removed it before I saved the request for some stupid reason. 206.117.89.4 (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If I still had my High School history text I could give that as a reference I guess... not the best source but better than none. It clearly says that Drake used the phrase, and in my experience the current title conforms well to WP:AT. The article overall is well above average, and the title perfect, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's more WP:CONCISE if we move it. 75.151.57.113 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is WP:CONCISE somehow no longer applicable, then? Red Slash 20:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an extremely crisp and pithy description of the whole affair. wikt:conciseness ≠ shortest possible character string length. And again, it's a proper name, and it's simply more encyclopedic to respect what the sources call it. It is a question of wikipedia's scholarly credibility, and I for one assert our fundamental educational mission rather trumps our style guide, even if it was entirely obvious and evident it was not in line with it. walkvictor falktalk 23:01, 22 May 2014 (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.
The last section, Explanation of Drake's phrase, gives a 1571 Ottoman usage as the origin of the phrase. This seems far afield from the actual subject of the article, but more importantly, we do not know if that was in fact the origin or if it was in more common usage. And the meaning given in that section looks to me like interpretation-- in other words, original research. I propose therefore to delete this section.
Other than in the title to this section, the article does not otherwise mention Drake's actual use of the phrase for this purpose (raids on the Spanish). According to some accounts, he used it in the presence of his sovereign, who gave her approval for the expedition. If someone has access to reliable sources on this, that usage should be added. Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it that it is not introduced in the wp:lede, but relegated to a section at the end of the article. This should be {{sofixit}}ed. walkvictor falktalk 13:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The end of this section stated that Drake "destroyed two or three ships of 100 tons". This seems a paltry amount, and (as it turns out) is nowhere near what the sources say. So I have fixed it. This rubbish was added four years ago, with these edits; I'm a bit surprised that it lasted here so long! Moonraker12 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this section, because it is unsupported bollocks (I notice it'd been queried before, but it's sat here for seven years, now, so it's time it went).
To clarify, there is nothing in the source given to support the claim that an Ottoman Vizier's remark to some Venetians 15 years previously was “the best-known use of the phrase”, or that Drake was alluding to it when he bragged of singeing the King of Spain's beard”, or that he was even aware of it when he made the comment. Nor is it likely that (inveterate boaster that he was) he would have publicly sought to minimize his achievement, whatever he might have said or thought privately on the matter. And the notion of affecting a man's beard, as a synonym for defiance, or a resolute attack, or a taunt, was well established in English even then (see OED "to take by the beard (n)", or "to beard (v)"; also our wiktionary entry).
And, despite the Vizier's dissembling on the matter, it is clear (from our Lepanto article at least) that the Ottoman navy's recovery was nowhere near as simple as he was suggesting, and that (in fact) Lepanto demonstrated (more and more clearly as time went on) that Ottoman sea power was past its high-water mark. By the 1580's they were already on the back foot.
So I have ditched it, and replaced it with something more approaching the true meaning of the phrase, as Drake meant it (and as it is commonly understood). I trust everyone is OK with that...Moonraker12 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done [2] walk victor falk talk 15:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
