Talk:Municipalities of Portugal

Most of the text seems out of place in what should simply be a listing of the concelhos/municípios. It should be moved to the History of Portugal and Olivença articles.

Brooklyn Nellie 04:21, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

I dont see it like that, I see it as information about municipalities and i'm preparing some more. There's no Portuguese History, only an introduction to the Municipal History of Portugal.

Pedro

---

Dear Nricardo please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). This is not Portuguese wikipedia. I'm Portuguese and I also use accents, they are really useful, but english speaking people dont usually use it. So respect them. That's why, i created the list, without accents.

Pedro

---

Did you miss the part that said "Languages like Spanish or French should need no transliteration"? I assume Portuguese, being a Romance language, falls into that category. The only Portuguese cities that have common English names are Lisbon and Oporto.

BrooklynNellie

---

VENICE

VENICE is the correct English spelling of the Italian city with canals. Why do you insist on making correct items incorrect?

Brooklyn Nellie

---

In Italian, Venice is Venezia. In Portuguese Veneza. What's the point there? There are some specific accents in Portuguese that doesnt exist nether in French nor Spanish. I don't insist, i just want people to read it without difficulty. They don't know how to pronounce it! I'll read it and search for sources about that. If you find that's better to put accentuation so be it.

Pedro

---

The point is, you misspelled Venice. I corrected it, along with the names of the concelhos. You then reverted my changes, including the absolutely incorrect spelling of Venice. Brooklyn Nellie 23:50, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Please see the articles on départements of France ([[D%E9partement]]) and Autonomous communities of Spain (Autonomous_communities_of_Spain). You will see in both that native accentuation is used. Brooklyn Nellie 00:01, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

Ok. In a few days, I'll make a new and different listening with Portuguese accentuation.

Pedro

Merger discussion

I have proposed that the article List of Municipalities of Portugal be merged into this one. The information is virtually the same, although List of Municipalities of Portugal is far more complete. Nevertheless, I think that in the case of a merger, Municipalities of Portugal should become the main article. I also suggest creating standards for this kind of articles (as you can see in Category:Lists_of_municipalities, there are just too many variations).--Húsönd 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey for the merger

• Support as proposer.--Húsönd 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. These kinds of articles may begin as lists, but have the potential to become articles that include lists. Also, "Xs of Y", where X = a type of subdivision and Y = a country or territory, seems to be the standard format for articles on national administrative subdivisions. Regards, David Kernow 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC), abstaining 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - First, this is a featured list, it was chosen as the best Wikipedia has to offer. When it was chosen to featured status it was just like it is now, merging featured content is not a good policy. Second, we have a broader article about the concept of municipality in Portugal, which needs do be developed, then we have the list. Concentrate your efforts in the development of that article instead of merging a wonderful 90Kb article into it. That would ruin both articles. 84.90.44.3 16:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the List of Municipalities article is featured and has great quality. A merged article would pretty much resemble the List of Municipalities article, with some additional info that the main Municipalities article would add. I do not intend to cause any damage to the quality of the List of Municipalities article, on the contrary. And I reckon that the new article could become featured one soon enough. I just think that the two articles are similar enough to justify merging.--Húsönd 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-viewing the articles again, perhaps moving some of the material from the current Municipalities of Portugal to the current List of municipalities of Portugal and then renaming the latter Municipalities of Portugal might work more effectively, i.e. a non-wholesale reverse merge...?  Regards, David 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, that is pretty much the result that I had in mind. But, can an article be renamed to one that already exists? Wouldn't that require the other article to vanish first? Regards--Húsönd 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd copy the contents of both* to an editor outside Wikipedia, work on a merged version there, then replace the current List of municipalities of Portugal with the merged version (and Edit summary: "Merged material from Municipalities of Portugal" or the like) and then request a page move from List of municipalities of Portugal to Municipalities of Portugal. That way I believe the integrity of the pages' histories should be maintained.
*Although I'd say the table in Municipalities of Portugal#List of municipalities is redundant, i.e. I'd only work on merging information in Municipalities of Portugal's text with List of municipalities of Portugal before requesting the latter is renamed to the former. I'd look at trying this myself now, but have demands elsewhere for the time being.
Best wishes, David Kernow 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll follow your advice. Thanks for your help. Regards --Húsönd 13:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I second everything written by 84.90.44.3 on 16:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC). I'll also add, a bit redundantly, that, in terms of Wikipedia common practice, a list is a list and an article is an article (in strict sense). A list may have just a how-to-read header and remit to the article, which in turn be fully narrative as it should be. Also, the fact that the list is over 90K is an automatic recommendation in WP terms that it NOT be merged with another article, taking it above the 30K recommended limit. --maf 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The articles unnecessarily share common information (each has its own list). Fusing the info into a single article would not create a much bigger article than the List one. The merger is part of an attempt to standardize all the articles containing lists of municipalities. I thought that the merger could be a good idea, but perhaps this needs further discussion. I have just created a discussion for the standardization of the lists of municipalities here. Please feel free to join the discussion. --Húsönd 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted this edit: "12:49, 22 August 2006 PedroPVZ" that redirected this article to the List of Municipalities of Portugal. This survey is not closed, thank you for respecting it while it is open. I will now go to the other discussion you opened. --maf 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I second maf. Joaopais 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• merge I've created this one, but the list of municipalities is way better. I've redirected, but someone removed. --Pedro 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've made a REDIRECTConcelho and kept what was important in the article for the concelhos themselfs.
  • I believe you should have done a MOVE in order to take this discussion page along. (I did a similar mistake this morning before finding the appropriate policy.) But see my comment on the move at the Talk:Concelho page.--maf 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Improve the overall quality of Portugal-related geographical articles

A project to improve the overall quality of Portugal-related geographical articles, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#Geography - Municipalities TrueColour (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) TrueColour (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Municipality and city / town are different things

From User_talk:TrueColour

• Why are you moving Portuguese city and town articles to "something municipality"? Even if a municipality contains other towns or parishes out of the cities or towns, those are just "honorary status", they dont have any administrative relevance, every municipality is governed by a town hall or city hall. Using the same order of ideas, every article about every city in the world should have a ... municipality article. it doesnt make sense. only parishes have administrative relevance, but can be in or out of the city borders, because Portuguese law does not state limits to cities, just municipalities, so the city limits changes with development.-Pedro (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Municipalities_of_Portugal#Improve_the_overall_quality_of_Portugal-related_geographical_articles. Main reason is the articles are all not in a very good state and they lag behind other WPs. We need organisation. City/town is NOT the same as municipality. Look on a map with municipality borders to find out that municipalities are much larger often than cities. Sometimes the reverse is true. Municipalities are the longest lasting(?) divisions in Portugal, they deserve clear addressing and articles. See Category:Municipalities by country to find other countries that exactly have what you propose: A distinction between Municipality and city. But not all countries need that, because in some that is the same entity. TrueColour (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• yes. cities and municipalities are not the same thing. but you can't force a distinction, that is not enforced in real life. The issue is that a city doesnt have official borders, municipalities do. Most city limits you see are purely statistical or for urbanization porpoises, so represents the end of the urban area. The municipality is the reflection of the city/town (coat of arms, flag, city hall, downtown). So the population you see for cities, was just an effort by wikipedians for that distinction, that we know it exists, because there are some large municipalities with large number of inhabitants, where the city is tiny and with little population, but presented as larger cities, especially in foreign sources. So it has informative porpoises only, not administrative.

The municipal structure can be developed in the "geography subsection" (parishes, towns, villages and such) and in the "political subsection" with the civil parishes. Furthermore, the structure of a given municipality can be very distinct from the next one. You redirect Resende to Resende Municipality. I dont know where you saw "Resende Municipality" in a map, I never saw that. It is Resende (period). People from there wont like to see it presented like that, because they will feel that you changed their town's name. The problem with the portuguese articles is someone willing to write about it, just that. The structure was fine or better, perfect. Because you can deal with the natural diversity of municipal structures. --Pedro (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the town is at Resende, Portugal it has 2900 inhabitants. The municipality is at Resende Municipality, Portugal, it has 11,978 inhabitants. The name of the town is not "Resende, Portugal" and not "Resende Municipality, Portugal". It is simply "Resende". These former are only page titles in the English Wikipedia. The distinction is there in real live and you can see it by looking at a map, maybe Google Earth with municipality boundaries would do the job. TrueColour (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I forgot to say to you, that the city borders can change fast, are not official, because a city doesnt have that, it goes as fast as the urbanization goes, so saying resende has 2600 inhabitants is not something with administration porpoises, but purely INFORMATIVE on the urban core of the municipality.
• Sorry, but Google Earth's outdated maps are good for museums only. City and municipality are too different things, yes, but these can be treated in one article only, like it is in PT.wikipedia, and was in EN.wikipedia. -~~
  • that something can be treated in one article doesn'T mean it is good. One can treat whole Portugal in one article by that logic. The municipality borders don't change so much. And that city boundaries change faster may be true, but they still not coincide with the municipalities in 99% of the cases. TrueColour (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• No. You have the parish articles, where you can talk about specific villages/group of villages or even parishes with town/city status within the municipality, and one can also create articles for the villages (hamlets) themselves, known in Portugal as "Localidades" or "Lugares", that can number hundreds in one municipality only. there is also diversity in the civil parishes themselves. can be city districts, can have town or city status (new thing), can be a village or a group of villages. -Pedro (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This was already explained to TrueColour. A) Nobody disputes that municipality is different than its respective seat town/city, but splitting the concepts is not only unnecessary but also inconvenient and even damaging - Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. B) Should we really need to use two different articles to separate material on the municipality and the seat, we can always expand the article on the respective civil parish. TrueColour's edits need to be reverted asap. Húsönd 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've returned after some years away just to say that I'm outraged by this move, given that in most cases including references to the city and to the municipality in the same article while explaining the difference is fairly easy Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mário (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Having no separate articles for the main city and for the municipality is bad for references. Of course you can have it in one, you can also have all Portuguese municipalities in one single article and explain the differences. Or have New York and New York City in one article. But there are purposes where it is better to have different articles for the different entities. Some municipalities do not contain any city, some contain several. The structure is more clear if these entities are treated in separate articles. TrueColour (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Article naming

Some research from Category:Municipalities by country. Below are the eleven sets of articles that use a type specifier for all articles. Nine use uppercase without brackets:

• Category:Municipalities of Bolivia - Somename Municipality
• Category:Municipalities of Bulgaria - Somename Municipality
• Category:Municipalities of Denmark - Somename Municipality
• Category:Municipalities of Estonia - Somename Parish
• Category:Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia - Somename Municipality
• Category:Municipalities of the Marshall Islands - Somename Atoll
• Category:Municipalities of South Africa - Somename District/Local Municipality
• Category:Municipalities of Sweden - Somename Municipality
• Category:Municipalities of Venezuela - Somename Municipality

two use different formats

• Category:Municipalities of Mexico - Somename (municipality)
• Category:Municipalities of Latvia - Somename municipality

TrueColour (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Municipalities 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/20141022091934/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/cons_leg/Constitution_VII_revisao_definitive.pdf to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/cons_leg/Constitution_VII_revisao_definitive.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shapesofportugal.com/sop/divisoes/

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)