Talk:Mamluk–Portuguese conflicts

Neologism
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)
 * 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."
 * "He cooperates with the Mamluks of Egypt in a naval war with the Portuguese."
 * "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"
 * "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)


 * 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)


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

Result parameter
@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)


 * @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)
 * It would be good if you correct them. And yes, usinh see aftermath would be fine. Imperial  [AFCND]  14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the ping. I doubt that I can - explain this better. You are spot on, Template:Infobox military conflict 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)
 * 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)