![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was Page moved to correct spelling. Dohn joe ( talk) 22:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Frol de la mar → Flor de la mar – Frol... ist wrong
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was Page moved to correct spelling. Dohn joe ( talk) 22:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Frol de la mar → Flor de la mar – Frol... ist wrong
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
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)