Talk:Arab–Byzantine wars

There is this entry for the "Byzantine-Arab Wars" and there is a separate entry entitled "Byzantine-Arab Wars (780-1180)". It would be better to combine these two entries. LAWinans (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

Support. Merge here from unWP:TERSE alternative. — LlywelynII 12:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support, but as a sidenote, there is actually scope for the other article, if it were reduced in time to cover the so-called "Byzantine offensive" from ca. 863 until ca. 1050. I plan to do that eventually, in parallel to a further periodization of the Arab-Byzantine conflict before that, but until then I agree that the article doesn't offer much to stand as a separate entry, plus the fact that the cut-off point at 1180 is entirely arbitrary and counter-factual, Manuel's expedition against Egypt was part of the Crusades, not of the Arab-Byzantine wars which ended with the arrival of the Seljuks in the mid-11th century. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Here's my plea for Constantine to give this merge proposal another look: any chance that you could bring your expertise to bear on this one, as it is now the very last of the October 2012 merge proposals left to be cleared? Others would also be welcome to give it a go (it's rather far from my expertise). Klbrain (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems that this page makes the Arab victories look better, but Egypt and Lybia is in North Africa so why doesn't it just say North Africa 2A02:587:B404:7B00:F098:8DA2:D30F:DB9B (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The "Result" in the infobox is a mess and has been being arbitrarily edited several times recently. The guidelines at Template:Infobox military conflict state this for the "Result" parameter:
"optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

If this article really does cover a many different wars over four centuries (a little vague to be honest), it doesn't seem reasonable to try and state any single result. The results should be stated for individual wars/battles at their respective articles instead, while this remains an overview article. Based on the guideline cited above, I'm WP:BOLD removing the result and recommending letting the article speak for itself rather than using this optional parameter of the infobox. But feel free to revert and discuss further if that seems like the wrong solution. R Prazeres (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

On a similar note, since this article covers many wars over four centuries, I doesn't make sense to include a list of commanders. Again, the Template:Infobox military conflict guideline recommends: optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." The current list includes as many as 40 names in one column; not helpful and not serving the purpose of an infobox. None of them were commanders for the whole four centuries, obviously, and the criteria for which ones to include even in a limited list are likely to be opaque to any reader. Same as above, I'm WP:BOLD-removing this list. Feel free to further discuss. R Prazeres (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

And lastly, I've removed the casualties section, which was even more mysterious: what is the purpose of a haphazard selection of casualty figures from specific battles? They're obviously not a tally of four centuries of conflict, and many of the locations/battles mentioned there aren't even mentioned in the article itself, so they don't serve as a summary. Again, all stuff that should be covered in the main articles on those specific battles; the sources that were used here could be used there instead (if not already). For future reference, the pre-reduction version of the infobox can still be seen here. R Prazeres (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

because of the GA review, just like at Talk:Napoleon, this article must be downgraded to B-class. 48JCL TALK 20:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [reply ]