Talk:Portugal–United Kingdom relations

Portugal Mid‑importance

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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portugal–United Kingdom relations. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/portugal/?profile=intRelations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I put forth a proposition to merge the page Anglo-Portuguese alliance into this page. Many of the same topics are covered and the same infobox is used. 1.618033 golden^{sqᴉɹʇuoɔ} 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

agree. very good idea. Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very similar articles - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 05:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The alliance has distinct notability of its own. The way to solve the duplication problem is to remove from the alliance article, that has strayed off topic, as much of the detail as possible that should be in the relations article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The alliance is distinct from simple Portugal-UK relations and should remain a separate topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I IV A Y I (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A treaty and alliance of such long, almost immemorial, history, is not to be treated lightly. Clean up the article if there is a need, and leave it standing. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is a military alliance, so it only encompasses a specific part of the Portugal-UK relations. Clean up both articles if you think they have strayed off-topic, but a significant and lasting alliance such as this one merits its own article. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While undoubtedly intertwined, in fact the articles each treat on one of the polar opposites of statecraft, namely force vs diplomacy, even though the bulk of the forceful interactions were collaborative and not adversarial. While I believe the proposal to merge was a good means of focusing the attention of editors to both articles on their close association and the need to be mindful of their respective scopes, ultimately a merger would result in a page of unnecessary breadth which would be more difficult to contribute to. My counter-proposal is that both pages add a hatnote acknowledging the other's existence and suggesting that readers interested in the broader topic of their shared history would benefit from reading both. RogueScholar (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]