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 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
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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:
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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]
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.
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.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
.svg)
