Talk:Algarve

Link

I have little experience with Wikipedia, so maybe someone else who is more knowledgeable can correct the following bug: The link to Lagos does not lead to Lagos/Portugal but to Lagos/Nigeria.) - ... already done

Merge with Faro?

I suppose this article should be merged with Faro (district) since the region is now called Faro after it's capital like in other Iberian regions.

When I was in school Portugal had 11 regions (caled "Provícias") and 18 districts caled "distritos". Algarve is a província and Faro a district. A region was not the same thing as a district. What has changed and where can I get + info about it ?. Take a look at pt:Algarve and pt:Distrito de Faro. My opinion is that, in this subject, we should wait for the Portuguese language Wikipedia to change first. --OsvaldoGago 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly against such merger. The Algarve and the district of Faro do have the same area, but they're different concepts. The Algarve is a region, the district of Faro is an administrative entity. Besides, if the articles were to be meged, which would be main article and which would redirect? I can't imagine Wikipedia without an article about the Algarve, and it would be awkward for the district of Faro to lose its article when all the other Portuguese districts have their own articles.--Húsönd 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Al'Garb Al'Andalus into this article

Although Al'Garb Al'Andalus is a history stub, there does not seem to be much to say about it, other than that the name was used. I'm suggesting a merger with Algarve. Copying the current paragraph to some other article on the history of Portugal might also be a good option. FilipeS 14:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. On second thoughts, the topics of each article are quite different. FilipeS 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann

Not too sure what this has to do with Tourism in the Algarve. I notice that there is already a reference to this under Praia da Luz and as such I doubt the relevance of it here. I'm removing it for the time being, if Wiki users desperately want it back then I suggest it be retitled "Notable events" or merged with the History section. VTSPOWER 10:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the Praia da Luz mention is needed since this village is inextricably linked in international media reports with the disappearance. However, the connection with this article is too remote. TerriersFan 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Algarves

I think a separate page for the Kingdom of the Algarves (and later of either sides of the sea...) would be great, with a template in the style of the one seen in Portuguese Malacca and Kingdom of Portugal.Câmara (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

where does this image come from? waht is the origin of this coat of arms? it should be wither source or removed, as it seems to me as a possible hoax--BBird (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

Coat of Arms of the historical Kingdom of the Algarve.

It wasn't me that added it, but I saw it in some maps of the XVIIth century, that, if I record correctly, were dutch-made. The title of the maps was something like "Portugalliae & Algarbii" and the coat-of-arms of Portugal and Algarve were shown (the algarvian coat-of-arms was shown next to algarve, without possible confusion). Here is one example: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3800/776/1600/1705-1739.jpg .

Please note that sometimes the coat-of-arms does not have an arab-dressed-like man but a black man with a "rambo-like" stripe, sometimes red, sometimes white (the link I indicated has the black man). I saw all these variations. I would like to know when this coat-of-arms was made, and if it is as old as the portuguese conquest of Algarve in 1249.Câmara (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was at a lecture given at the Municipal Library in Lagoa in March by the head of the heraldry club in the Algarve, and he showed this coat of arms (and explained it) as part of his lecture on the making of coats of arms. It is valid. I will try to find the notice of the lecture and get in touch with the lecturer so that we can add an appropriate reference. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found the lecture notice -- no e-mail contact -- but the shield on it (slightly different) is for the Heraldic Society. I made a rough sketch of the shield for the King of the Algarve (or Kingdom -- "King" may be my abbreviation) which more or less matches the design under discussion. I did not note the background colours. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now communicated with the heraldry expert in the Algarve, and he points out that the early crests of the kingdom are different from the one posted above.

• the Moor is in profile and has a different head-dress (like a "sweat-band")
• the colours in the quarters are different

• this 1638 image shows the Moor on white backgrounds and the Portuguese king on red backgrounds.
• a 1649 version shows the reverse — Moor on red and king on white backgrounds
• another 1639 version shows a variant — Moor on white but Portuguese king on blue
  
• and a 1622 map of Iberia shows the Moor on red and the king on blue!
  

I note a reference to something which might (or might not!) settle this: Francisco de Simas Alves de Azevedo, " O Brasão de Armas de Reino de Algave e algumas das suas fontes cartográaficas", Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa (June 1984). Perhaps I can find this and see what it says. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the Alves de Azevedo article, and it adds little. It refers to Armando de Matos, Evolução Historica das Armas Nacionais Portuguesas (Porto, 1939), pp. 121-122, but de Matos also has little to offer, again citing early maps, which seem to be the only source of these arms. When used alone they appear to be a version of what I posted from the 1638 map; when incorporated into a larger coat of arms for the king, the same elements are used. I suppose what we need is a proper creation of the arms, similar in style to the 1638 version, but of the quality of the modern fictional one above. Who does these? Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They were made by Commons User:Brian Boru (who is also a registered user here, as User:Brian Boru, and also at the Portuguese wikipedia, amongst others, as Usuário:Andreas Herzog). The Ogre (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference?

Praia da Marinha, Lagoa was classified as one of the 100 most beautiful and well preserved beaches of the world.

Where is this from?--Catpochi (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this, as no ref has been provided. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links

For some reason someone decided that all external links should be removed, even two links which have been in this article for years. I'm referring to the www.visitalgarve.pt, the official tourism site for the Algarve, www.allgarve.pt, the official summer events website, and the www.algarvedigital.pt, a public entity which controls technology development in the Algarve, is responsible for the internet connection and websites of all Algarve municipities and has a generic portal for the Algarve which is of great value to anyone learning about this Portuguese region.

I urge the editors removing those links to discuss them with other editors before doing so, it shows ignorance and lack of respect. Any of those sites are withing the external links guideline as they are official websites for the Algarve from official government entities.

Let's please stop the e-peen contest to see who has got the biggest one and discuss it as we should. There is no reason to remove those links. At most I could see that visitalgarve.pt and allgarve.pt are a bit similar as both are aimed for tourism and maybe one (allgarve.pt) could be removed. But visitalgarve.pt and algarvedigital.pt are absolutely relevant and important for this article.

If you want to remove those links then use real and direct arguments instead of just claiming they are not within policies, which would be untrue.

And please refrain from removing those links while this is being discussed, if they survived so many years untouched a few more days or weeks won't make a difference. --Xaman79 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your approach is that of a spammer I'm afraid. You make no contribution other than the placement of links. It is clear to me that not all the links you place are within policy. In replacing the links despite the warnings on your talk page you risk being blocked from editing.

In practice reference to policy is a very real argument - the fact that you are not prepared to see it that way is a pity. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally - you were asked to take this to discussion and not put back the links without agreement.

I have followed each link - I do not see any of them as being encyclopaedic, we are not a tourism directory.

Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How you classify my approach is irrelevant, you're just an editor as me, you're not the authority here. So if you wish to remove those links use real arguments, you can't just come here and remove links which have been in this article for years because you feel like it, and you may be blocked from editing if you continue to do so,m you have been asked to leave the links alone while this is being discussed. I wait your arguments, if you have any. --Xaman79 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I reviewed each link & removed them I gave a valid argument. This can be seen here. You seem to think this is a tourist directory when it is an encyclopaedia. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are flawed, one of the links is not tourism related, and Algarve is well known for being the biggest tourist location in Portugal and one of the biggest in Europe, thus a link to a tourism portal is important (as I said before, maybe one of the two tourism links could be removed, but one needs to stay as it's important and relevant to the article itself). Shows your ignorance to the subject, thus you shouldn't be editing in the first place or you should ask before removing links. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I suggest we reach a common ground and remove the allgarve.pt link, as one tourism link should be enough and keep visitalgarve.pt and algarvedigital.pt on the links. I find this reasonable. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you acknowledge the fact that you want a tourism link in an encyclopaedia which is exactly my point. You seem to be interested in Wikipedia solely for the purpose of link placement. As such you should be blocked in my view.

All the links are tourism related - they are not the sort of links required in an encyclopaedia.

I have passed this over to others as a case of edit warring. We will leave it to them for now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, what you think of me is irrelevant and not of my concern, you are failing to show arguments and only your pride seems to be preventing this to have a solution. You'll be surprised that those links were originally added by a Wikipedia admin, so you should be blocked if you continue with your selfish actions and ignorant behavior. You are turning this into a personal war and such as no place in Wikipedia. Those links are legitimate and should remain in this article. We shall let an admin decide on this, as it's obvious a consensus can't be reached with you. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the Hawaii externals links and you'll notice that they also include a link to their official tourism website. Here it shouldn't be any different, regardless of what you think of me, if I'm right then those links should be included, period. Your personal opinion of me is irrelevant if my arguments are valid, which is what it counts. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)