Talk:Algarve

Spanish Algarve

This page should actually read "Portuguese Algarve," as the original Moorish Kingdom of Algarve was partitioned between Spain and Portugal, and the two even fought over the title of "King of the Algarve." See http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&expIds=17259,18167,26442,27868&xhr=t&q=Spanish+Algarve&cp=12&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=Spanish+Alga&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=a54b69a33f3366d3

I suspect the Spanish Algarve is larger than the Portuguese.... There is also a need to create a page on the Spanish Algarve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.37.247 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the real NUTS division of Portugal, which does not have a comparable NUTS division in Spain. This is in comparison to any existent regional context that may have existed in the past. Although there may have existed a Portuguese and Spanish Algarve as a histo-cultural area, this namespace refers to current socio-political entity created within the framework of the European Union. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

there is no such thing as Spanish Algarve, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Praia da Luz Is a village location in the algarve that has not yet made town status. whilst being in the media for the Madeline McCann dissapearence , it should not be merged with any history of the Algarve.it is a case that perhaps received more media attention that any other, for a missing child, whilst I respect the sensativity of the case,The algarve does not need to be listed for such a case, due to the longterm affects this could have on tourism for the country, the same way WikipediA does not nor should cover murders of tourist, that have taken place over the many years unless it was noted in the media as a civil unrest that caused such avents that they be recorded as part of the countries History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.126.85 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (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)

1666 version

Olhao version

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)

I added a version with a real source cite in wikimedia commons: Atlas Contractus, Amsterdam 1666. --Roksanna (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A very different version (other colours, other field positions, other Moors) was taken in Olhao. --Roksanna (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Autonomy

The article about an alleged governor of the Algarve during the Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves really needs evidence. I suggest it to remove it. Both the Portuguese and the Spanish versions of Wikipedia's Reino do Algarve (Kingdom of the Algarve) mention the opposite: There was no real autonomy in the Algarve. The country name "Portugal and the Algarves" was a title for the king to stress that the Algarve was part of Portugal, due to some Castilian claims over the region. However, if I am wrong, could any of you show me evidence of Algarve's autonomy?

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 modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Algarve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222064122/http://www.portugalglobal.pt/PT/InvestirPortugal/PorquePortugal/Paginas/RegioesMultifacetadas.aspx to http://www.portugalglobal.pt/PT/InvestirPortugal/PorquePortugal/Paginas/RegioesMultifacetadas.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Algarve → The Algarve – Just like The Bronx, it seems to be most commonly referred to with the "The". Unreal7 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose not sure this is the same as The Bronx In ictu oculi (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This case is more parallel to "the Ukraine" and "the Camargue". While a "the" is fairly common in sources it is not used at all consistently (often even in the same publication). It is thus very distinct from cases like the Hague and the Bronx which almost never occur in RS without a "the" except in adjectival usage. The usage here – fairly common – doesn't equate to WP:COMMONNAME when WP:THE directly militates against it; it has to be an overwhelmingly preferred usage. Otherwise, for example, almost every single university article would be moved to "The University of Whatever" and "The Whatever University" (except those with a leading biographical or geographical name as the very first word, like Johns Hopkins University or Oxford University), and same with most articles on government agencies, non-profit organizations, many companies, numerous products, etc. They all show the same usage pattern of commonly being prefixed with "the" in various sentence constructions but also commonly found without it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish's comment. --Ptko (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplicated definite article

As many Portuguese friends have pointed out (and one or two Arabic speakers!), it is unnecessary to add 'The' in front of Algarve, as the Al part means the same thing - and 'The The West' would be a ridiculous name for a region. So, I'm happy to edit this article to remove the error, but I think it might be wise to check here first whether that would appear overly pedantic. We could of course add a brief explanatory note that in some other countries (especially the UK) a redundant additional definite article is often added in colloquial speech. Is that a constructive contribution?Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your Portuguese friends have misled you. A definitive article is always used in Portuguese. The Algarve is O Algarve. While the region's name origin in fact does come from the Arabic for "the west" (Al-Gharb), "Al" is in no way a definitive article in Portuguese. There is no redundancy in saying The Algarve as the name is Portuguese, albeit of Arabic origin, and has no literal definition in Portuguese as it is purely a proper name (therefor no one is ever saying "the the west"). I am from Portugal and literally any portuguese will refer to the region as o Algarve, I have no idea what your friends are talking about. Similarly, the views of Arabic speakers in the matter are not germane. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that highly informative reply, Cristiano. The Portuguese definite article can cause confusion when supplanted into English - hence the tendency of British travel firms to still refer to Porto as 'Oporto', but I take your point. It might, conceivably, be a result of most of my Portuguese contacts coming from the north of the country - but you've persuaded me that we don't need to make a change to this article. 'Much appreciated.Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

“The Algarve”

The region is called "Algarve," not "The Algarve." When translating from Romance languages into English, the article is normally dropped, especially for proper nouns. We don't translate "la France" as "the France." The article needs to be corrected to reflect this. 98.156.119.111 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)