Template talk:Portuguese overseas empire

(Template size)
don't you guys think this template is too big? __earth (Talk) 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the template show only on clicking the show button...but something seems to be wrong. It now shows only when you click twice! Could somebody fix that? -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu _ Joseph 10:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say not so much big as too dense; are the dates really necessary...? If so, might they be sorted into bands/eras to form a column between the regions (in bold) and places...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Have reformatted template in effort to keep template size controllable and reduce density via aligning dates. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Update

Kudos on the new design. I happened across it and I think it's fantastic. Absolutely one of the best templates out there. If we have a Featured templates page I'd nominate it in a heartbeat.&mdash;Perceval 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as i see it, this is too big a template. As such there are many Indian places which at some point of time were ruled by some or the other kingdoms. Are we going to include the details of all such kingdoms in each of the respective places’ articles? In some articles, these templates are even bigger than the article itself. Isn’t it enough if we just mention the kingdom which ruled the city? Kesangh (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai and Salsette are same...
Mumbai and Salsette Island are same.. could be merged.. please check both and ammend template...Chirag 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

End of E. Timor?
The t/p currently has the end of Portuguese control in E. Timor as 1975 (the date Indonesia invaded) instead of 2002 (the date of independence). Which is correct? - Thanks, Hoshie 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe 1999 as East Timor was de jure Portuguese from 1975 to 1999, although the note must say it was invaded by Indonesia in that period. From 1999 to 2002 it was of the United Nations, not Portugal, I think.Câmara 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Was it really de jure Portuguese? De facto control has to turn into de jure control at some point in time (and would generally be considered to be retroactive to the point of first control by Indonesia).  I can't imagine that East Timor was considered to be de jure part of Portugal in, say, 1994, even if the United Nations considered its nominal status to be that of a "non-self-governing territory under Portuguese administration." (quote is from the East Timor article, but is there a source to back it up?) And if the UN did not continue to pass resolutions to the effect that it should be returned, then there should be no real basis in international law that it continued to be a part of Portugal.  Lexicon (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was like you said "non self-governing territory under Portuguese administration", and Portugal nor any country I know have recognized Indonesian occupation, but I can't exactly say how it was.Câmara 08:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * De facto and de jure status don't necessarily match. The United States and several other countries (including my own: Denmark) never recognized the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic states, and in the Danish case, this lack of recognition included a refusal to conduct official meetings on Baltic soil or the posting of consular missions there. A more famous example is Cyprus: All nations save Turkey don't recognize the TRNC but consider the territory part of the Republic of Cyprus. Valentinian T / C 08:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland, Labrador, and Nova Scotia?!
There were Portuguese fishermen in these places, and Labrador is named for a Portuguese explorer, but I hardly can imagine that any of these places could even in the slightest bit be considered to be part of a "Portuguese Empire". I don't believe that there has ever been any evidence of Portuguese settlement in these areas. It's a bit presumptuous to put them on a template for the Portuguese Empire. Lexicon (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See the "Portuguese Empire" discussion page.Câmara 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already done so, and still take issue with the presumption that these places could even in the slightest be considered part of a Portuguese Empire. Lexicon (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Like probably you have read, it's exactly like Brazil in the 1500-1530's. The question is: do you need a settlement/colony to have possession of a land?Câmara 08:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Possession is settlement. If you have no control over the land, then it is obviously not possessed by you. Lexicon (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why, for exmple, Juan de Nova Island is French? Nobody lives there.Câmara 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are weather station crew there. But small useless little islands are a little different from claiming huge chunks of land as part of your Empire.  If you land a man at Nova Scotia, I'll grant that maybe you can claim that small area he's walked around as part of the Empire, but not the whole of the (now) province.  If there's no control over the land, then there can be no valid claim to ownership of it. Lexicon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Portuguese Empire only later tried to control all the main land of its possessions, like Brazil or Angola. In the beginning they only claimed the coast. For example Brazil only in the 1530's started to be colonized and explored inland, although it was claimed in 1500. The control thing is complex. Surely there are huge amounts of non habited regions in Siberia, but that doesn't prevent it to be Russian. It is Russian because it is recognized to be so. Portugal only was capable to hold the land possessions of the empire because of the Treaty of Tordesillas, who gave Portugal the de jure recognition of the lands on its side. Challenging that treaty was challenging not only Portugal, but also Spain and the Pope, that's why most European nations used piracy and not an "official" rejection of it until some time.Câmara 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But
 * a) Portugal didn't even control the coast of these places
 * b) There was no treaty which said they belonged to Portugal
 * c) Russia really does has fairly effective control over Siberia in addition to de jure recognition
 * Lexicon (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * a) We don't know. Portuguese presence may have been strong because of the Portuguese names that survived until today. Anyway, I point again to Brazil: from 1500 to 1530 Portugal did not have control of the coast either, and it was Portuguese.
 * b) Yes it was: the Treaty of Tordesillas.
 * c) I'm not pointing to the whole Siberia: I mean the isolated forests of Siberia. Nobody ever went or live there. Or isolated deserts of Algeria, or cold deserts of Greenland, or some parts of the Amazonian forest. I'm thinking of isolated lands were nobody lives there.Câmara 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * c) I'm not pointing to the whole Siberia: I mean the isolated forests of Siberia. Nobody ever went or live there. Or isolated deserts of Algeria, or cold deserts of Greenland, or some parts of the Amazonian forest. I'm thinking of isolated lands were nobody lives there.Câmara 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * a) Unless I'm mistaken, there are few Portuguese names that have remained. There are the obvious, like Labrador, but as far as I'm aware, there are a couple other minor place names, but that's about it.  As for pointing out Portugal not having control over the coast of Brazil by a certain date, then, well, I'd argue that it should be removed from the places in the Portuguese Empire until such time as they did control the area.
 * b) Okay, that treaty, which hardly would hold up as international law today, seems to give these places to Spain, not Portugal, so it can't be used to support Portugal's claim.
 * c) No, even isolated areas of Siberia are "controlled" by Russia, since Russia can prevent others from entering those lands.
 * BTW, this map shows some pink on Greenland as well. I guess it's part of the Portuguese Empire too. Lexicon (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * a) Portuguese nomenclature, at least in Newfoundland, is well alive: in the North Coast almost everything was named by Portuguese explorers. See the maps I posted in the Portuguese Empire discussion page and if you translate from Portuguese you'll see most names are alive today, translated to English or French. Brazil was claimed by Portugal and was within its Tordesillas side. If you eliminate the de jure recognition, then why nobody seized the Portuguese lands? They were man-free, resource-rich.
 * b) The Pope was a kind of international law. That's why other nations used piracy in the beginning. Only later they defended the mare librum in opposition to the mare clausum, specially the protestant countries and Francis I of France. And if you see again the maps I putted in that page, you'll see half Nova Scotia, Labrador and Newfoundland in the Portuguese side. Cartography was not so exact as today, so errors were made. Of course the Portuguese cartographers tried to put everything the more to the east they could, to fall within the Portuguese side. And also look how the Portuguese shield was also shown.
 * c) Well, and the Algerian-Libyan border in some spots? Surely is not defended. And in case of need, Portuguese were the first to arrive, from Azores. But this is "virtual control". But as the Portuguese empire was so big, and Portugal so small, some possessions were abandoned, the ones that were less wealthy.
 * What's the problem with Greenland? It was a frozen Brazil. Labrador claimed it to Portugal. Portugal had good relations with Denmark and would not claim a Danish land.
 * Note that I only think these were Portuguese possessions in the beginning of the XVI century.Câmara 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't find your interpretation of the treaty correct. There is no way that Newfoundland, Labrador, and Nova Scotia were considered to be on the Portuguese side (and even if they were considered to be, they weren't, so when it came down to eventually figuring out the proper line of longitude, Portugal would have lost out). The map with the pink shows that the coasts of these areas were explored by the Portuguese and nothing more.  The historical map is useless at the present resolution—I haven't a clue what that piece of land above is supposed to be.  Anything that isn't red on the modern map should be removed from the Empire template. Exploration does not equal Empire.  Until someone took that land from its inhabitants (yes, it had inhabitants before the Portuguese, Spanish, French, and English came along), it cannot be considered in any way to be part of the empires of any of those nations. Lexicon (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as the cartography in the XVI century said, they were in the Portuguese side, so it is not important if they are really on that side, as we know on the XXI century. I was not talking about the map on the Portuguese Empire page, I was talking about the maps on the Portuguese Empire Discussion page. Obviously the pink-red map is a modern composition.Câmara 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect template
This template was linked in many articles, including former Portuguese Empire islands and areas. This is totally incorrect because the title of the template says: Portuguese Empire. It gives a false impression to common readers, whom are the readers of why we are editing in Wikipedia, that the article they are reading at is currently belonging to the Portuguese Empire. I suggest to rename the template, although I prefer to link those little stubby islands with a link to Portuguese Empire in the See Also section. For the record, I am not against the template. The template layout is interesting although it is a bit too big to fill half space of a small article. Only that the inclusion of this template makes a factual error that we should avoid. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In glancing through the various lists, it seems that very few of them are still in the empire (Azores and Madeira were the only ones I found). I notice both Dutch colonies and French overseas empire divide into sections for former and current colonies, while Territories of the British Empire uses small caps to designate those that are still in the empire. They don't really give an indication in the title that the states may have been former territories. Would you suggest a title like "Current and former Portuguese Empire"? (It's clear enough if one actually looks at the contents, and can see that the dates of nearly all territories were relatively short.) Whatever is chosen, it would probably be best to make it apply to all of these former/current colonies the same, of whatever empire. Rigadoun (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes there are dates for readers to look the template in detail, but at a glance (esp. when the template is in collapsed state) it looks like the article currently belongs to the empire. Particularly for a small size articles which the template then fills half of the article's space. I'd argue to not to use this template for former colonies, as then one island might have a lot of Empire templates from the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British and even more if there are ancient empire templates in the future. It is more appropriate to use only wikilink in the See Also section. This is also the same case for Dutch colonies not being included in Ceylon, Mauritius, etc. (although editors of some former Dutch colony's articles do not argue to include this template), but the template is used in more appropriate articles: Dutch India, Dutch East Indies, Netherlands New Guinea and even there's a specialized article about Taiwan under the Dutch (not yet included). I'm sure it is also the case for the other French overseas empire and Territories of the British Empire that you mentioned above. However, if the template editors insist to include all islands and areas, then the title surely needs to be changed to avoid factual errors. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there might be some confusion in this discussion. The Portuguese Empire no longer exists! Therefore all the territories listed are former territories. Continental Portugal, Madeira and the Azores are Portugal - not colonies. The Ogre (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

more to add
i think some factories and forts are missing in the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.198.59 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Madagascar
I've removed Madagascar from this list. The Portuguese were an insignificant player in the island's history and including Madagascar here is misleading. Let's please discuss this before adding it back in. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1496–1550 dates are impossible, as the first European did not set foot on the island until 1500.
 * The Portuguese built a trading post/fortress on the coast, which does not constitute colonizing the island or making it part of their empire. Several other European countries did the same (especially France) but none of these was long-lived and none managed to capture land and rule local communities until the French military incursion in 1895 that forced the collapse of the Merina monarchy.