Talk:Portuguese conquest of Ceuta

Henry

Henry was the third son of João, not the fourth. I think it should also be discussed what other reasons Henry might have had for pushing for the capture of Ceuta, mainly his wallet. Peter Russell's book on Henry is excellent.Monikwee

Sultanate of Morroco???

A serious mistake is committed. Morroco did not exist in this epoch it is like to say that Castile was Spain in the 13th century.

In the same way it is ridiculous, the panel of campaign. In Morocco? It would be better to change it into Portuguese campaigns into the north of Africa.

Another clear contradiction is yes Ceuta is in Spain, cannot be in Morocco .... as he says the article... The article seems to be very slanted...--88.19.30.232 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Morocco did exist, it was the sultanate of Marrakesh and Fes. The English word Morocco is an Anglicization of Marrakesh. At the time Ceuta was under the political authority of the Kingdom or Sultanate that was, in actual fact, the ancestor of modern Morocco so it is entirely appropriate to use this term. Your objection seems very slanted. Anonymous 208.65.192.1 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Morocco did exist by this time. It is a common misconception among Spaniards that it didn't exist. Ceuta was under Moroccan control for a period of time, but it was more closely tied to Islamic Al Andalus. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Name Change

Ceuta has been conquered probably a good couple of dozen of times throughout history. Which conquest are we referring to here? Article should be named Portuguese conquest of Ceuta. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone disagrees if I redirect this article to Portuguese Conquest of Ceuta?

Will proceed if no one contests over coming days.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: general consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Conquest of Ceuta → Portuguese conquest of Ceuta – As has been brought up previously on the talk page, the current title is not WP:PRECISE. إيان (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Against Nope, this is the WP:Common name and there is no other notable conquest to disambiguate from. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. There are several other notable conquests of Ceuta (e.g. by Cordoba Umayyads in 931, Almoravids in 1084, Almohads in 1148, Marinids in 1309 and 1328, etc.). Helps clarity. Walrasiad (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I'd assume someone not very knowledgable on the history of this city, that is, the vast majority of world population, would first assume that the conquest was by Spain simply because that's the country it is located in. It is true there's no need for disambiguation as Spain did not get this city through war but I still think this can improve precision. Super Ψ Dro 17:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Red Slash 16:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. KevinNov3 (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Submission for review

I have removed a great deal of content which is not relevant to this specific article ie the conquest of Ceuta, not several paragraphs on the death of Queen Philippa (for example).

I have submitted this article for review by the Military History Group and happy to discuss those changes in this context. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The article pertains to a major event in Portuguese history and the user should have discussed his issues here before making such wide-ranging and arbitrary changes. They are in no any way appropriate for which the article should be restored to how it was. Wareno (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The original article contained large quantities of detail that were either irrelevant (copious account of the death of Queen Philippa), or massively over written (a long list giving the precise names and titles of those attending privy council meetings). This makes it impossible for the general reader to follow. I am happy for the review to look at the original and compare it to this version, but READABILITY is a key attribute of any article. I have simply focused the content on the actual event described, ie the Conquest of Ceuta in 1415, not its history thereafter which is covered elsewhere.

With reference to the comment above, just because it is a "major event in Portuguese history" doesn't therefore mean it needs this detail. Since making this article more accessible means more people might actually read it, I think the opposite is true.

Finally, much of the detail in the original version comes from lengthy 19th century written descriptions - a style which is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia, an online electronic enclycopedia. Robinvp11 (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion should have been had before making sweeping changes, instead of asking users what should be put back, which is the opposite of how the process should go. And articles are read when they actually have information in them. As it stands, it has far less detail than articles on individual fighter pilots and warships already reviewed by the Military History Group, or obscure 18th century aristocrats which the user above doesn't seem to have a problem with creating, 19th century sources and all. Wareno (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

What you did was absolutely horrendous, this feels more like vandalism than anything else. The article was very good as it was, it had a lot of information regarding this major episode in Portuguese history and now it simply looks like a minor event. I've read the entire article before and I strongly believe that everything in it was relevant and even spiked more interest for people to read it than now. People are drawn to bigger articles, not smaller ones. I also agree with Wareno that in order to proceed with such big edits you should discuss it first here. Revert it back. Javext (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is currently being reviewed, and you should refrain from reversing changes until that is complete. "Absolutely horrendous" might be a phrase you'd like to revisit.

First, the suggestion people read longer articles on the web flies in the face of every single piece of actual research, and indeed the entire philosophy behind how Wikipedia is designed, ie nesting articles. The Page Views for this article shows less than 2000 IN TOTAL since its creation, which includes the recent uptick due to the edits. People don't read it.

Second, what exactly is missing from this article? The original includes a long and extensive list of military officers and their titles, an extended discussion about the Queen's death etc. How is this relevant to the conquest of Ceuta?

At the moment, you're adopting a maximalist "everything is perfect" approach, rather than explaining what is missing from the edit that would add to this. MORE WORDS DOES NOT MEAN BETTER. I didn't discuss the edits in advance because the change in philosophy and approach is so great, we'd end up discussing every single sentence. And none of us has enough time for that.

We all share the same objective, which is to improve coverage of Portuguese history on Wikipedia - I want this article to be read, and it's not being read right now. Why not give the changes a chance? Robinvp11 (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s very interesting you only respond here after I reverted your edits, before that you didn’t care to respond. Anyways, where is this “review”?

Everything that was in the article was essential and contributed greatly, and why are you focusing so much on the Queen’s death, there were only 2 paragraphs (compared to the entire article its nothing) and it explains how her death was almost a reason for the expedition to be called off.

Your edits are clear vandalism, it’s clearly in bad faith. You’re nothing more than a vandal and I don’t mean it lightly, report me as you wish. There are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which are even longer than this one was and you don’t seem to care about them as well. This is a major event in Portuguese history and as such also deserves a long article full of information.

You’ve removed from the article fundamental information such as: Most of the infobox, preparations for the conquest, composition of the Portuguese fleet, a lot of information of the attack itself, the aftermath and the list goes on!

If we were to follow your “philosophy”, I say this whilst laughing, than we could reduce every article on wikipedia here to simple stubs. The same reason why Minimalism destroyed art, it’s the same reason you are destroying the article. The article was full of life and now looks horrible, stripped of vital information regarding this event.

I seriously hope you don’t get away with this, find something better to be disruptive. Javext (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This entire comment seems needlessly insulting and aggressive and as ever, says more about the author than the object. FYI, I design and deliver online learning solutions for a living, so I know what I'm talking about - what about you?

I haven't responded to you previously because you haven't asked me anything - sorry, I wasn't aware I was supposed to guess at what your objections might be (and after reading this, I'm still not clear)

Every article should be long enough to cover the topic, but not too long to put people off reading it, a concept apparently you seem unable to grasp.

If the consensus is to restore this article to Start Class, fine by me. No one's reading it. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Javext: As the consensus seems to be a preference for the original Start class article, I'll move on. However, for my professional curiosity, could you do me a favour;

...People are drawn to bigger articles, not smaller ones...

Can you point me to the research and/or article upon which you have based this statement, thanks in advance. Robinvp11 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I based my opinion on a rational thought, if people see that an article is long, then it must be important, therefore they will be drawn to it. However, to do you a favour I've decided to look deeper into that question. What I've found is somewhat what I thought, basically people are drawn to bigger articles if they perceive the event to be important and well written.

"According to the new Pew Research Center study of anonymized data from 30 news websites as measured by the web analytics company Parse.ly, there is evidence that long-form content does garner lengthier attention. Across the 117 million complete cellphone interactions with news articles studied here, longer articles, those that are 1,000 words or more, display higher levels of overall visitor engagement than shorter articles (those between 101 and 999 words)."

I'd recommend to read the rest of the study, there's also this one

Considering this is in fact an important event in Portuguese history, I believe it justifies substantial coverage and lenght.

I think that if we follow your logic of reducing articles to Stub-class, then why can't we reduce drastically in content, for example, World War 2's article? Do you think that even if more people read it (which I believe it wouldn't be the case) it would make sense? Javext (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

...I based my opinion on a rational thought, if people see that an article is long, then it must be important, therefore they will be drawn to it.. We are talking here about an ONLINE encyclopedia, and this is simply not true of web users, or Wikipedia's own research which (for example) finds 60% of users only read the Lead, which is why it matters. The stuff you've linked to does not support this argument.

You need to stop mischaracterising what I said, and have clarified at least twice before ie articles need to be long enough to cover the topic adequately, but not so long it puts people off reading them. I have never suggested reducing all articles to Stub, which is an absurdity, and in fact my objective in editing was to raise awareness of the topic on English Wikipedia. This entire discussion is moot, given the reality that the Page View tool shows NO ONE READS the article, but I am still puzzled as to why someone who thinks this event is important doesn't seem to care about that.

If you'd like to see an example of what I mean by long enough, but not too long, the Thirty Years' War is an A class article I was largely responsible for creating. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If 60% of users only read the Lead, then it does not matter if the article is long or short. What I linked does support my argument, maybe you just didn't read correctly, I advise to read again. Either that or you are in denial.

And if you had actually paid attention to Page View tool you would realise the article views started going up after the article was developed into a longer one.

I also think that continuing this debate is useless, just give up, no one here will allow you to destroy the page. Javext (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive response. Robinvp11 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You’re welcome. I love to be helpful. Javext (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The page views only started going up after the article was thoroughly developed. That's what happens when articles actually have anything to be read in them. Insisting that nobody should edit (aside from yourself) because the article "is currently being reviewed" only makes it seem that a review was requested to forcibly validate controversial changes. Some of your edits are also odd, such as replacing the infobox image because of its "low quality" when its highest resolution is 6,029 × 3,932 pixels.

As I said, you should have called for a discussion first, instead of asking that others to discuss what should be put back, and the Military History Group has positively reviewed very long articles about far less relevant subjects. I would advise the article be reviewed as it is.

In order to address your concerns, I have trimmed the infobox, the death of the queen, parts of the background section deemed less relevant, such as the distant history of Ceuta, and replaced some of the sources with newer ones where possible, which I will continue to do in the future. The rest is directly pertinent to the subject matter and it's not overwritten, but thorough. If you want you are invited to discuss what might be edited to see if users agree. Wareno (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

..The page views only started going up after the article was thoroughly developed... is factually incorrect. Nearly every single one os generated by editors, not viewers.

...Insisting that nobody should edit (aside from yourself) because the article "is currently being reviewed" only makes it seem that a review was requested to forcibly validate controversial changes...

Again, factually incorrect. The article is and has been classed as a Start article. I updated it and asked for it to be upgraded to a B - what I asked is that you provide input (ie what is missing, and why) as PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, rather than (as you've done) simply reverse every single change on the basis the original article was perfect.

If you think its so good, you should submit it yourself for Assessment and I will comment frankly on the article then. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wareno: I'd like to submit the current version of this article for assessment by the Military History Group, unless you'd prefer to do so yourself. Let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll submit it after I've improved the article further and solved a number of issues. Wareno (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

While you're working on it, Quintella and other references need to be tied to specific page numbers, not simply the whole chapter or article. Robinvp11 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I would advise against using words such as "vandalism" or "horrendous" to characterise good faith attempts to improve the article. History articles should be lased-focused on providing streamlined content specific about the topic of the article. And indeed, in addition of perhaps warranting the tag of "cruft" for some editors, the addition of content non-specific to the topic, is actually a fertile ground for POV-distortion and article capture. For as much as this is claimed to provide a comprehensive context, I am missing the understanding of the "background" of the operation in terms of cross strait military operations plus I am also missing the understanding of the "aftermath" in the context of the Portuguese presence in North Africa (Mazagão, Tangier, Casa Branca...). The latter isn't so much a call to fill those gaps but a reminder that when we talk about historical contexts, what is comprehensive for some is very narrow for others.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Missing ref

There is no "Julien 1961" reference despite a template pointing to it. (Hohum ^@) 16:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)