Talk:Exclusive economic zone of Portugal

edits
"The common understanding for such agreement was that an equidistant line would be drawn halfway Madeira and the Canary islands." Biased weasel words. That's not the common understanding, that's the Spanish understanding.

"Portugal argued that the Savage islands, two small islets closer to the Canaries than to Madeira archipelago, were indeed part of the latter." Misleading. It's not on geographical grounds that Portugal exercises sovereignty over the Savage islands - and thus to that chunk of the EEZ (the given Spanish source itself naturally points out that the Portuguese sovereignty over the Savage Islands isn't questionable). Miguelrj (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exclusive economic zone of Portugal. 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/20061229231026/http://seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx to http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229231026/http://seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx to http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx

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) 03:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exclusive economic zone of Portugal. 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/20080223055330/http://tercud.ulusofona.pt/Publicacoes/2005/LeitaoN_CarvalhoL_Text.pdf to http://tercud.ulusofona.pt/Publicacoes/2005/LeitaoN_CarvalhoL_Text.pdf

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) 05:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

– The EEZ is a rather narrow scope on which to base these articles. Most of the material that can be expected to be covered in these articles will concern maritime boundaries and international disputes, which probably don't only concern the EEZ but also involve claims of baselines, territorial seas, the continental shelf, etc. It will be more natural to name the articles in a way that reflects the wider scope. Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclusive economic zone of Portugal → Maritime claims of Portugal
 * Exclusive economic zone of Australia → Maritime claims of Australia
 * Exclusive economic zone of Indonesia → Maritime claims of Indonesia
 * Exclusive economic zone of Japan → Maritime claims of Japan
 * Exclusive economic zone of Malaysia → Maritime claims of Malaysia
 * Exclusive economic zone of New Zealand → Maritime claims of New Zealand
 * Exclusive economic zone of North Korea → Maritime claims of North Korea
 * Exclusive economic zone of the Philippines → Maritime claims of the Philippines
 * Exclusive economic zone of Poland → Maritime claims of Poland
 * Exclusive economic zone of Somalia → Maritime claims of Somalia
 * Exclusive economic zone of Thailand → Maritime claims of Thailand
 * Exclusive economic zone of Vietnam → Maritime claims of Vietnam
 * Not supported I have never heard of "Maritime claims of <>" as a specific thing. As far as I can tell as per, for example, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Exclusive economic zone, the "thing" is defined as EEZ, not as MCO<>. As long as source material defines the thing as an EEZ we should keep page titles and content accordingly.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The suggested names are descriptive titles (as per the WP:Article titles policy). Per my original argument, these articles should cover more than just the EEZ, but since "Territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of Foo" would be far too clunky for an article title, I've proposed "maritime claims" as a descriptive title to cover all of them. I'll gladly consider alternative terms to the same effect. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Against All of the stated items are covered in the article fall one way or another under the country's EEZ or their claims to a larger EEZ. This is an unnecessary title change which would also remove these articles from the title norm shared by all countries on wiki. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last bit, I believe all countries' articles have been nominated in this discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "claims" suggest that the maritime territory in these countries are disputed in its entirely. Would "Territorial waters of Foo do" instead?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Territorial waters (or sea) refers to a different thing entirely. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2020 (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.

Remove resolved dispute?
Should we remove the section about a dispute that was resolved in 2009, reduce its size, or reword it? I did minimal changes when updating to show that Spain dropped the objection, but don't think it's the right long-term choice LbPirate (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)