Talk:Portugal–United Kingdom relations

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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)
 * agree. very good idea. Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)