Talk:Mamluk–Portuguese conflicts

Military history: Maritime / Early Modern B‑class

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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Portugal Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Egypt Start‑class Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

A fact from Mamluk–Portuguese conflicts appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 September 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Portuguese–Mamluk naval war was an attempt by the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt to stop the expansion of the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean in the early 16th century?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/September.

Wikipedia

Neologism[edit]

If the title of this article cannot be found in a reliable source, then it should be changed. Currently it implies that this is a standard name for this conflict, which it does not seem to be. Srnec (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a question of Wikipedia title nomenclature not necessarily being found exactly elsewhere, but in the literature the 1505-1517 conflict between the Mamluks and the Portuguese is reported in detail, and indeed is described as a war between the two powers...

"The war against the Portuguese, being mainly a naval war, was entirely alien to the Mamluk and little to his taste." [1]
"He cooperates with the Mamluks of Egypt in a naval war with the Portuguese." [2]
"To secure a base for his naval war against the Portuguese, the Sultan dispatched several expeditions to keep the coast of Arabia under his control" [3]

"Conflict" would probably be more neutral, but doesn't bring much return on Google Books... any ideas? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the current title, but if we want to avoid the appearance of an official "name" and use a descriptive title, how about "Portuguese-Mamluk war/conflict in the Indian Ocean"? Constantine ✍ 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with an article about this war between Portugal and the Mamluks. I don't care if we call it a "war". I care that we not imply that anybody else in the world should know what you mean when you say "Portuguese-Mamluk War" in the same way that they should when you say "Russo-Japanese War". The terms are of a different type: one is a term of art, a widely used term naming a specific event, while the other is just a term of convenience we invented here. It is descriptively accurate, but with capital letters, as the title of an article, misleading. You will not find what you are looking for in any other work of reference if you try for "Portuguese-Mamluk War". That is my point. Wikipedia cannot invent names like this.

How about Portuguese–Mamluk naval war, with dates if we want? Srnec (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly valid point, and good suggestion I think. I made the move. Thanks Srnec! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result parameter[edit]

@Javext, see Template:Infobox military conflict. The temple parameters only allowes "X" victory, "Y" victory, Stalemate or inconclusive. In some cases, we can also use "see aftermath". @Gog the Mild can explain this better. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado All right then what should we do in other conflict pages who used the same method for the result as I did?

For this one in particular, i think "see aftermath" would be fine Javext (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you correct them. And yes, usinh see aftermath would be fine. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImperialAficionado and thanks for the ping. I doubt that I can - explain this better. You are spot on, Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." "See Aftermath" with an in-article link is also acceptable. I would have thought that "Portuguese victory" would work best, but it doesn't matter what any of us think, what do the reliable sources say?

Also:

I have changed part of the "results" text to go under "territory", where it seems better suited. Feel free to edit or amend it.
Aftermath contains three hands :-) , perhaps some different phrasing? It also makes no mention of the Portuguese, which seems odd.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for your assistance. Btw, neither I am sure about the result of this conflicts. I just spotted the value on the result parameter. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]