From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Portugal (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Volcanoes (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Africa / Madeira (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Africa/Madeira work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Islands (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Madeira is in Europe[edit]

Officially, Madeira is part of Europe, the locals think so, the government thinks so. Everyone thinks so. In reality, any island belongs to any continent. This article is a real stub with very few information about the islands. Pedro 20:05, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I Agree! Nobody in Madeira would ever say that the islands are in Africa! I also agree with the article being insuficiently devellopped. The Ogre 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that everyone says, Madeira is in Europe. BUT: I don't agree that Madeira should be - from the grographical point of view - a part of Europe, too. Geographically, it is part of Africa - if you like it or not! Just take a look at the world map! Let's assume, Turkey would become a member of the European Union; then - geographically - it would still be a part of Asia (beside the 3% of its area being in Europe)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I just came back from a trip to Madeira; I asked several natives about the continental membership of their island; they all said, that Madeira belongs geographically to Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This discussion leads nowhere! And by the way, I've lived in Madeira and go there often (last year I went there about 5 times), and I totally disagree with that the "natives" would say that Madeira belongs geographically, or otherwise, to Africa! The Ogre 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Madeira is closer to the African coast than to the European coast. In that sense, it can be said that it belongs geographically to Africa (at least, to the extent that any island can be said to belong to a continent; but then I think people generally agree that Corsica belongs to Europe). Geologically, the Madeira archipelago also lies on the African tectonic plate. Culturally and politically, of course, things are very different. FilipeS 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I changed the text in that tone, saying that "thus, it belongs politically and culturaly to Europe, even if it can be considered to be a geographical part of the African Plate." The Ogre 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt we (Madeirenses) are Europeans. I think the problem lies in the word "belong". You could say Madeira is located closer to the African coast, like the article of Canary Islands. Ordep 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I took away this sentence “(…)even if it can be considered to be a geographical part of the African Plate.” because it IS part of the African plate and there are no doubts about it.
Everyone considers that “Madeirenses” are Europeans. The issue here is not about people but about the geographic and geological position of the archipelago. Geological sciences couldn't care less about political or cultural borders. The fact is that Madeira and the archipelago with the same name lies on the African plate, therefore it belongs the African continent - this designation is valid as far as Geological Sciences are concerned. Actually that will not change in the near future (“near” it means in the next million of years :D). This doesn't mean that madeirenses aren't Europeans – to be or not part of a plate ONLY means that the ground on which they stand/live is part of what geologists call Africa. This is a point that can’t be argued. Cheers. Septrya (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually it can, quite easily. The continents and the tectonic plates are not the same thing. For instance, the North American plate not only extends east across the Atlantic to meet the Eurasian plate in Iceland (Would you claim that Reykjavik is in North America?), it also extends northwest well into Siberia (Would you claim that Siberia is in North America?). And neither Arabia nor India is on the Eurasian plate, but those regions are accepted as being part of Asia/Eurasia. So using plate boundaries to define what continent a landmass belongs to is very problematic. The more usual geological basis for defining what continent (if any) an island belongs to is to define the perimeter of a continent by the extent of its continental shelf. This is why Taiwan is part of Asia and Ireland is part of Europe. By that standard, Madeira is part of neither Africa NOR Europe. (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this discussion at all. What's the problem with saying that culturally Madeira considers itself to be European even though geographically it has closer links to Africa? And while you're at it, why not show a map of where it is relative to Africa--a significant omission IMO for a common sense understanding of Madeira--Jobowo (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said in the spanish and portuguese discussion, Madeira is not geographically part of Africa or Europe,because it's geological formation is COMPLETELY different than the continents. This islands are volcanic and are derived from a Hot Spot, so do not even have Continental Platform (for example, nobody says that Hawaii, that is located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and it's geolocally similar to Madeira, is part of America or Asia). However, because Madeira has always been inhabited for europeans (not just continental portuguese people, but also flemish, british, italian and nordic people, like for example, Columbus, who married and have a son here) who brought their culture, we can, culturally, consider Madeira as a european location. Also, we need to think that the idea of "Europe" as continent is also subjective, based in cultural values (because the real continent is Eurasia), so this classification is very subjective. I apologize for my English. It's not too good. Maycoll F. Vieira (16 November 2008)

Official Coat of Arms of Madeira[edit]

Source Image

Grammatical Corrections to 'Funchal' paragragph[edit]

Today I changed the wording of two sentences to remove errors in the English grammar. One had 'almost more than five-century-old' and the other was 'almost unique'. I hope I am not being too pedantic but just pedantic enough.

Item pulled because of style[edit]

I pulled an edit out of the History section because of its very unencyclopedic tone. The ideas expressed may well belong in the article, but they need to be writtern in an encyclopedic style. The edit was: oops - and we forgot to mention the slave trade, catholic pursecuction of protestants, witches and jews. Oh, and it needs to be sourced. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese Regional Legislative elections[edit]

I note we have this article: Portuguese Regional Legislative election, 2000, and one for 1996; but not for 2004.

Why are none of them linked to from here? -- Mais oui! 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Population going down?[edit]

I have twenty+ year old encylopedia that list the population at 257,000.

Yes, it seems so. Ordep 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

VERY Poor content[edit]

I propose to classify this article as a stub. Though it is rich in touristic content (almost a promotional piece), it is extremely poor in historic content. For instance: the article on the Ottoman Empire directs to this article, when mentioning that the Ottomans temporarily conquered the Madeira Islands. This -- definetely a very interesting historical fact about the island -- is not even addresses in this article. 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, feel free to improve it. However, and I've already corrected it, the Ottoman Empire never conquered the Madeira Islands, temporarily or otherwise, they raided it. Cheers! The Ogre 22:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Purple Islands[edit]

The article correctly refers that the islands were known by the Romans as the Purple Islands, but it doesn't refer the origin of that designation. If someone find the reason, please place it there. It would be a good addition to the article.

--Bluedenim Hugo's personal flag.png 16:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a plant growing in Madeira islands at ancient times which was extensively exploited as a dye: it coloured cloth red, qed, purple islands. (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No population prior to Algarve settlement?[edit]

Was the island completely uninhabited when the Algarve farmers moved there? It would seem strange, especially with the mention of Genovese sailors that nobody settled before? - Gennarous (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The islands were completely uninhabited. And the presence of Genovese sailors is dubious. By the way, when you say Algarve farmers, notice that the huge bulk of settlers im Madeira were from the north of the country (which had excess population), not the south. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Source I've found seems to say Algarve, do you have a source for the sttlers from the north? Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gennarous. I've reverted your revert - what was written is complete OR and your "sources" are not credible - they are a personal website and a travel website. You see, blondness is found quite frequently (with varying degrees of blondness) in native continental Portuguese (namely in the northe of the country, where there was a significantive Germanic Suevi population). The Algarve colonisers reference is an old mistake, since 16th century author Gaspar Frutuoso, in his book Saudades da Terra, mentions some initial people from the Algarve - however proper, modern academic historiography (as can be found in the madeiran history journal Islenha) has done extensive statistical research in the origin of first settlers, and the biggest chunk was from Minho. I'll soon expand the section on demographics, with proper academic sources, and I'm also contemplating starting an article called History of Madeira. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Listing of notable people from Madeira[edit]

The only thing holding this article back from reaching "Featured article" is the list of people section which should be branched off and made into its own article. Link to that article can then be posted in the "Culture" section of this article. Also, a few more citations needed. Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Go ahead, bebold! The Ogre (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Non objective (POVed) use of image in infobox[edit]

Since Europe is not identical to EU, it is somehow biased to put the image Madeira location (PT and EU).jpg as a as a representative of geographic location in reference to Europe. The current image emphasizes position of Portugal in EU (and thus of Madeira in EU), instead of Europe. All the best. -- (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A political organisation such as the European Union has little to do with the geographical location of Madeira. Denvesletigeren (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No such village in Madeira[edit]

"A small village in Madeira Called 'Mere Ne Puddi' Is described as Heaven on earth in the summer, but Hell on earth in the winter, It is filled with beautiful Valleys."

There is no village in Madeira with that name, name that is not even Portuguese. What is the source of this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bormanico (talkcontribs) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Madeira 1617[edit]

I just saw an entry in wikipedia on the ottoman empire history which states that madeira was temporarly owned by the ottoman empire (1617). Can anyone confirm? If true i guess it shoud be added to the history of madeira. Ana Duncan march 2009

No, it is not true, the Ottomans never owned Madeira. What happened in 1617 is already in the article. It says: "In 1617 Algerian Barbary corsairs, having long enslaved Christians along the Mediterranean coasts, captured 1,200 men and women in Porto Santo. (Sources: Fernando Augusto da Silva & Carlos Azevedo de Menezes, "Porto Santo", Elucidário Madeirense, vol. 3 (O-Z), Funchal, DRAC, p. 124; Robert Davis (2004), Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800", p.7.). These pirates, under the Ottoman flag, only raided the island of Porto Santo. That's it. The Ogre (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Parish list[edit]

If anyone thinks it would be useful to have a list of freguesias separate from List of parishes of Portugal, I have created one here using this script. I found this page which provides links to excellent parish maps for the island. I have created this crude and copyvio composite parish map. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Morrocan claims?[edit]

Will it have to be given back like those little Spanish towns on the coast of Morroco will be, eventually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there are no Morrocam claims, and the Morrocans (or any others other than the Porttuguese) have never "owned" Madeira. The Ogre (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Madeira Island articlespace[edit]

I propose creating a separate article space on the island of Madeira, that would include the information on just that item. This would be comparable to what exists with the islands of the Azores, for example. Each island in that article space has information on the island (for example Terceira), then individual articles on the municipalities (for example, Angra do Heroísmo and Praia da Vitória) and parishes (such as Altares). By accomplishing a similar scheme, it would reduce the length of this article, and allow the addition of more text on the regional institutions. For example geography related context in the Madeira namespace would discuss the archipelago, while individual "island" pages would elaborate this context. It seems strange to have articles on the Savage Islands, Porto Santo and Desertas Islands, but no unique article on Madeira Island. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 floods and mudslides[edit]

It seems that there are no mention of 2010 Madeira floods and mudslides. Tovk909 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because it (mudslides and torrencial rainfall) are almost a semi-annual event. They recently received another round of mudslides and torrencial storms recently. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Mostly Catholic?andycjp (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The Ogre (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Madeira climate[edit]

I did some changes that I think that are pertinent and for that I did simply followed IM data. Madeira hasn´t only Csb climate according to Koppen Geiger. And the Funchal weather table data is incorrect. There´s also new climatological series ( 1970-2000), by the way. The 1980-2010, is only used for who has acess to IM data, for this case. I did used IM references. Only raw official data. Many of it are posted in the official I can direct people to there, if interested or you may contact the IM services, directly. Interesting to see, that Ponta do Sol is clearly warmer than Funchal and there are even warmer places than Ponta do Sol, in the southern coast of the main island. In the highest mountains of Madeira, completetly different climates do exist, some are of an hyperhumid subtype and with much lower temperatures than the lowlands. I hope that my contribution was useful. More to come.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The main article picture[edit] hopeless. It's just fireworks. This is not appropriate for a a geographical article. Propose it is changed to something better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alun009 (talkcontribs) 13:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


Needs statistics on languages spoken. -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the article[edit]

This article is rather mediocre. I fixed several things, mostly punctuation, form and grammar. I also moved images around to improve the visual experience for the reader. Whoever contributed to this article (food, beer and fish) must have an obsession with capitalization. I removed quite a bit of it but probably not all. This article can be improved and possibly expanded. Here are a few things I want to point out.

1. The article contradicts itself regarding the date of discovery of Madeira. The introduction says 1419. The box on the top right says 1415. The discovery section even mentions 1339 as another possible date.

2. "It has a mountain ridge that extends along the centre of the island, reaching 1862 meters (6,107 ft) at its highest point (Pico Ruivo), while much lower (below 200 meters) along its eastern extent."

The paragraphs should either be in British or American English and not a mix of the two.

3. "The island was formed from a base volcanic complex, forming to two massifs:"

This sentence introduces two massifs and eventually lists three items. It just doesn't make sense. Also, the third item has a very short and poor description.

4. "around 500,000-200,000 of years"

Is that supposed to mean "years ago"?

5. In the "Diaspora" section, Portuguese are said to have emigrated to the west. Is there a reason why they never went back to Portugal or went to places like Brazil? I assume that in the old days emigrating to a country where you could speak your own language was a big deal.

6. "However, wine producers of Madeira discovered, when an unsold shipment of wine returned to the islands after a round trip, that the flavour of the wine had been transformed by exposure to heat and movement."

It's not quite clear what is the relevance of this sentence.

7. "In recent years, Madeira has had a considerable amount of success in professional basketball, with CAB Madeira having won numerous titles, especially their female team."

The sentence needs to be corrected.

8. "In 2001 the World Surfing Championships were held in Madeira at Surfspots including Paul do Mar, Ponta Pequena and Jardim do Mar (see Surfing in Madeira)."

The sentence just doesn't sound good.

9. The sentences of the "Running" section are horrible and need to be rewritten.

ICE77 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Elaboration on recent edits by User:Kevjonesin[edit]

Regarding these two edits.

Sorry y'all for not posting an explanation here yesterday. I was tiring and opted to try letting them speak for themselves through context. Noted my actions in the edit summaries but failed to expound upon them. A recent unexplained reversion seems to imply that some more details may in fact be needed.

In (→Wine: Adding/removing wikilink(s)) I adapted Wikilink markup "[[port of call]]" which yields link "port of call" to "[[Port#Port of call|port of call]]" which yields link "port of call". Please note the difference in destinations when one actually follows the two separate "port of call" links. It seemed to me that the principle of least surprise for the reader would make the second piped version in which "port of call" actually links to a subsection referencing "port of call" preferable to the original "port of call" which linked to a whole section of "Types".

It seemed fair to assume that this change likely fit the intent of the editor who originally placed the link as it seemed awkward to expect readers to scroll through irrelevant examples where a direct link could be provided. It seemed like a minor self-explanatory edit to me. One would only have to assume good faith and take a moment to actually follow the two Wikilink versions to see how adapting the markup works if they were curious—and hadn't already inferred by looking at the markup code.

Incidentally, it took me awhile to figure out that the piped link version, [[Port#Port of call|port of call]], is case sensitive when linking a subsection of a section. Something to remember.

Anyway, (→Geography: added archipelago map and small copy edit) was actually a bit more involved and included multiple changes to the article so I probably should have elaborated on it here in the first place.

I added a map of the Madeira archipelago—which I'd found in another article—to the "Geography" section as I'd ... ah, I just noticed that it's actually redundant to one tucked in the infobox by the lede ... hmm, I kinda' think it serves a purpose to have a map of the islands placed near the section "Islands and islets" but if the redundancy annoys other editors I understand and will defer if someone chooses to remove it. I use old modestly sized CRT monitors so have a limited viewing field and hence appreciate having the image and text nearby.

Hmm, I think I'll just go ahead and remove the redundant map. Strikes me as the sort of thing that'll eventually flip out someone's sense of OCD if left as is. Perhaps if another labeled overview is found it might better serve the purpose.

I added "archipelago 280 km south-southeast of Madeira Island" (as per Savage Islands article) to the "Savage Islands" bulleted entry under "Islands and islets" to give an indication to readers that they are geographically distinct from the previously listed islands of the main Madeira archipelago.

Also, I changed the order of the island images to the right to match the order they are listed in the text.

I actually came to this article as a reader and had not originally intended to edit. But a few things caught my attention and I thought I'd take a little time to smooth the way for those to follow.

And that's all folks. That's my story, morning glories. The news for youse. Have a ball, y'all ... :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The duplication of the map was reason for revert, but the rollback function is a "mass destruction" device and reverted all edits. At the time, I was going to send a message, but ran into a personal issue and did not have time. I apologize for the revert. All other changes are perfectly acceptable to me, just didn0t want there to be a redundancy issue with the map. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
"Give a man a hammer and every problem starts to look like a nail."
Zeorymer, I looked through your list of recent contributions. You may want to (re?)familiarize yourself with the limitations—and potential penalties—mentioned in Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback and Help:Reverting#Rollback. Their relevant talk-pages have some discussions which may help clarify even further.
I suspect I would have been somewhat irked even if you had left me a talk page message. As with the same amount of effort—or less—you could have simply removed the image with a normal edit and provided an edit summary pointing out the redundancy. Rather than choosing to use a ""mass destruction" device" and leave it for others to clean up afterwards.
If it was just me, I'd be happy to call it a mutual 'oops' for now. But as it looks like others have been similarly affected, I'll ask you to please give some extra consideration to how going 'gung-ho' with power tools affects your fellow editors.
Hopefully we'll both find ourselves in better form in the future. :  }
--Kevjonesin (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No links from other languages?[edit]

Is there a reason there are no links from German, Russian, French etc articles on Madeira to this English article? (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

New photo added to wikimedia commons[edit]

The following photo of Ponta de São Lourenço Madeira, Portugal was recently added to wikimedia commons. I know there is already a significant amount of pictures on this page so I wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on whether or not to add the photo? Let me know what you think! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 04:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ponta de São Lourenço north north east.jpg
While I agree that there is a significant amount of pictures, I must say that photo is stunning. I believe it should be added. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in Madeira[edit]

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Madeira!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil, Tourism in Hawaii and Tourism in Germany. :) Use proper sources! Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)