Talk:Belém Tower

Role In Portuguese Maritime Discoveries
The intro mentions that "[Belem Tower] is an UNESCO World Heritage Site (along with the nearby Jerónimos Monastery) because of the significant role it played in the Portuguese maritime discoveries of the era of the Age of Discoveries."

However, exactly what this role is is left unmentioned in the rest of the article. Could anyone add a bit more on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.142.175 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Belem Tower
I thought Belem Tower was a coastal fort, meant to guard that entrance to the capital, but the article says it is a lighthouse. Can anyone explain this to me, since all the information and research I've done points to my point mentioned above?--Ciga 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) I've seen no light on the top[ of the Belem Tower, it was a fort.CristianChirita It was used as a lighthouse, in 1865. You can find the information here: http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/web_torre_belem/frameset.html Drakron 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was originally a fort, used as a lighthouse as well in 1865 and for a short period (during the Estado Novo regime, I believe) a beacon was placed on the fort to assist navigation. The original editor incorrectly identified it as a lighthouse. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the gallery of images go to the Commons ?
What do you thing of moving this gallery to the Commons page ?

--OsvaldoGago 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Maybe you should vote at: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries

I don't understand this point of view, is not enough space for hosting the pictures, are the pictures not related to the article, can someone picture, the Belem tower, in words, better then in images? CristianChirita 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All the images should be in Torre de Belém page in the commons. In my opinion you should upload the photos there, they deserve to be in the commons. If you think like a regular reader you may conclude that they wouldn't like an enciclopedia with an excessive number of images in every article. A page in the commons is the best place to put a lot of free (in the sense of freedom) images about a certain subject. --OsvaldoGago 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion, my opinion is that the regular reader want a lot of images in every article. The regular reader who has a minim minimorum level of english need images in order to understand the article. I as you wrote an article aboute the manueline window without picturing the image. This will transform Wikipedia in Vanity media. Feel free to describe the interior of Belem tower in words, it is pointless, but it is for the regular user sake. ( By the way is any research showing that regular user does not want to many pictures in articles?)CristianChirita


 * Good examples of image integration in pages of monuments include:
 * Eiffel Tower -> Eiffel Tower in the Commons
 * Colosseum -> Colosseum in the Commons
 * Museo del Prado -> Museo del Prado in the Commons
 * Notre_Dame -> Notre_Dame in the Commons
 * Can you show me English Wikipedia pages of famous monuments where your sugested way of disposing images is sucessfuly used ? --OsvaldoGago 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Another subject: By the way I noticed you put the name "Chirita" on some of those images (like this one or this one). Did you know that this is against the Image use policy (rules of thumb) (an official policy) ? (Quote: ...Don't put credits in images themselves...) The credits of images should go on image pages, not in images themselves. But this is something I believe you did't know and that you will fix easilly :-) --OsvaldoGago 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Plese delete the images that disturb you you have this right, you have the right to act.I've put the pictures in the article, hoping that in some day some one will have a better picture and a better comment. At least i've tried.

Any policy is subject to changes, and if not .. then it is only censorship :) anyway my policy is different, and anyone has the right to change the page I've uploaded or to delete the page.

"after the Great Earthquake of 1755 shifted the course of the river" This is a Hoax, legend and stupid idea. Prove (documentation) this afirmation, please. (Luigimalatesta)

File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 31, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-05-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Material
There is something wrong in the infobox in the material section. It shows only that it is made of wood. Alts (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Just missing the qualifiers in the code. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Belém Tower. 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/20110717090116/http://www.visitportugal.com/NR/exeres/9B1FEFC5-B5A7-46DB-8072-69E87F1D9E1F%2Cframeless.htm to http://www.visitportugal.com/NR/exeres/9B1FEFC5-B5A7-46DB-8072-69E87F1D9E1F%2Cframeless.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107074304/http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/mundial/portugal/110/ to http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/mundial/portugal/110/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220000054/http://www.ippar.pt/english/monumentos/castelo_belem.html to http://www.ippar.pt/english/monumentos/castelo_belem.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928111426/http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/hist_intro.html to http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/hist_intro.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928112947/http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/cons_prog_interv.html to http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/cons_prog_interv.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223153456/http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/terravista/guincho/1421/bandeira/pt_real.htm to http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/terravista/guincho/1421/bandeira/pt_real.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928115029/http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_09.html to http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_09.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928115740/http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_02.html to http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_02.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928115351/http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_08.html to http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_08.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928115137/http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_03.html to http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/english/web_torre_belem/visi_03.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Replacement photo
I'm not convinced that is an improvement. The new photo is from much the same angle as the photo in the infobox except more distant, and its merits are artistic rather than documentary. Subjectively, I preferred the old photo, which showed the building in greater detail and from a different aspect.

What do others think? Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You can change it back to how it was before, I was just trying to improve the quality of some photos, if you think this is not an improvement at all, you can change it. I have no problem with that. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the old photo is definitely superior—the light is brighter and shows the tower to better advantage. Carlstak (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've changed it back. Thanks both. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)