Talk:Lisbon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lisbon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I think the demographics section needs references. Especially this sentence: It's expected that the population of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area will increase to some 4,5 million by 2015 and more than 5 million by 2020. It's the fastest increasing region in Portugal.. By 2020 Lisbon will concentrate 50% of the Portuguese population? (I think the population will not increase very much from the current 10,500,000). Where does this come from? I agree that a paragraph about demographics should be included, but with coherent and verifiable data. Afonso Silva 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, a softer reference to specific numbers should include the idea that this is only an estimate, and in no way the most accepted projection.--Pedrojpinto 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lisbon (...) is the capital and largest city of Portugal.

List of capitals and larger cities by country lists Lisbon as only the second largest city in Portugal. I truly believe Lisbon's bigger than Porto, as stated in this artice, although as I'm not sure, I'll not edit that list. jοτομικρόν | Talk 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As a Portuguese, I can assure you that Lisbon is considerably larger than Porto. That was changed in the other article. Afonso Silva 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a recent discussion in Portugal, but a somewhat pointless one. The fact is that if a generous criteria for building clusters of urban areas was applied to Northwestern Portugal, then the Porto Urban Agglomeration would be the biggest urban area in Portugal; this would, however, mean that cities like Braga or Guimarães would be considered functional parts of the Porto agglomeration. Even though there is some proximity and normal economical co-dependence, anyone who's ever crossed the region will recognize there are some very sharp breaks in the urban continuum, that lead to the conclusion that Porto should be considered as separate urban entity from what is also known as the "Minho conurbation". There is a very interesting book on the subject, published by DGOTDU (a portuguese governmental agency on regional and urban development) called "As Regiões Metropolitanas Portuguesas no Contexto Ibérico", in which the two portuguese metropolitan areas are given, for i think the first time, an objective and unbiased evaluation of total population, using two european methodolgies (NUREC and GEMACA) and the one used by the US Census Bureau (CPSV) for the american metropolitan areas. The results are (i also show the results for Madrid and Barcelona, for context)

• • • • NUREC - Lisbon 2,261,458 ; Porto 1,282,283 ; Madrid 4,314,778 ; Barcelona 3,195,918
      • GEMACA - Lisbon 2,463,142 ; Porto 1,547,961 ; - ; -
      • CPSV - Lisbon 2,871,350 ; Porto 2,195717 ; Madrid 5,010,747 ; Barcelona 4,348,272

--Pedrojpinto 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The following was moved from "Talk:Prehistoric Iberia".

The article Prehistoric Iberia states the following:

The myth of a Phoenician foundation of the city as far back as 1300 BC, under the name Alis Ubbo ("Safe Harbour") is unreal.

However, the wiki article on Lisbon states:

Archeological findings show that a Phoenician trading post existed in the place that, since 1200 B.C., has occupied the centre of the city. The magnificent natural harbour provided by the estuary of the river Tagus made it the ideal spot for a settlement to provide foodstuffs to Phoenician ships travelling to the tin islands (modern Isles of Scilly) and Cornwall. The new city was named Alis Ubbo or "safe harbor" in Phoenician.

Olavius 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the reputed Portuguese historian José Mattoso (vide Mattoso, José (dir.), História de Portugal. Primeiro Volume: Antes de Portugal, Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1992 - in Portuguese) there were no Phoenician colonies, settlements or trading post in Portugal, other than the one in Algarve (namely in Tavira). So I believed the story about the Phoenician foundation of Lisbon should be regarded as myth. Even if the Phoenicians did maintain comercial activities with the rest of the modern Portuguese territory (other than the Algarve), and that is why one can find Phoenician pottery and such. At best Lisbon was an ancient autocthonous settlement (what the Romans called an Oppidum) that maintained comercial relations with the Phoenicians. I'll correct the articleon Lisbon. Thank you. The Ogre 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add an external link about a photo essay with captions on the old Lisbon's districs of Alfama and Castelo.

http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/AlfamaCastelo/AlfamaCastelo_01.html

Feel free to revert and discuss. Panex 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You do mention elevador da Gloria in your article, so I figured it might be relevant with a link to a traveller's tale about Gloria, "Lisbon's Own Queen". Keep it if you like. There are no commercial interests behind my initiative. Scribbleman (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are Terje Raa . Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself and your articles. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Scribbleman consist entirely of promoting Terje Raa / bootsnall.com / travellady.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Terje Raa/bootsnall.com/travellady.com related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote yourself, right? --Hu12 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that in the list of people born in Lisbon has an error Egas Moniz did not born in Lisbon but in Estarreja Aveiro district and he only moved to Lisbon and died there not born.Just making it clearJorgeonfire (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to trim the history section as it takes up almost half the article. I created History of Lisbon so any new material should be deposited there. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have merged two different sections containing very similar/same information. Some of Lisbon monuments were included under "Culture and Sights" section, whereas other were under "Tourist attractions". As a result, the two sections were incomplete and I merged them, slightly altered the structure and included some monuments that were previously omitted. Hitesh1977 (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This article seems very well written and highly informative. However, I found a few dubious claims being made, especially at the start of the article. Given that I am only objectively and totally sure of the problem with the third point below, I only changed that one. However, I believe points 1 and 2 need serious consideration from the authors or some knowledgeable people about these topics to verify their truthfulness. Exaggerated and weakly substantiated claims might hurt the credibility (and usefulness) of an otherwise excellent article.

The points are:

1. Limits of Lisbon Agglomeration: "3.34 million people live in the broader agglomeration of Lisbon Metropolitan Region (includes cities ranging from Leiria to Setúbal)." --> Considering a territory which includes Leiria (which is 150 Km away from Lisbon) as part of the urban definition of Lisbon seems a bit too generous, thus I would remove this figure... Nevertheless, as this is a relatively subjective decision I opted not to do it myself and leave it to the consideration of the author, or other authors more involved in the maintenance of this article. At the minimum, I believe readers who do not know Portugal should be able to understand better the claim being made and the distance between, say, Lisbon and Leiria, e.g. you can check it here: [[1]].

2. Economic Role and Ranking in Iberian Peninsula: "Due to its economic output, standard of living, and market size, the Grande Lisboa (Greater Lisbon) subregion is considered the second most important financial and economic center of the Iberian Peninsula." --> This statement does not seem true. I checked the source and could not figure out the connection between the source and the claim. In any case, as it is a referenced claim, I did not remove it. If this is true, given that it is a somewhat controversial (or at least surprising) statement (given the two large metropolitan areas of Barcelona and Madrid in Spain), I would suggest the author to be more specific in terms of the reference (page number, table, exact figure...). I also checked some sources myself that seem to cast serious doubt on this claim. In particular, in the website of the Association of Municipalities of Lisbon (http://www.amp.pt/) you can find a document from João Ferrão, a Geographer and Researcher from University of Lisbon (and also Secretary of State for Territory issues), entitled "Para uma área metropolitana de Lisboa COSMOPOLITA E RESPONSÁVEL" (Toward a Cosmopolitan and Responsible Lisbon Metropolitan Area: http://www.aml.pt/webstatic/actividades/smig/atlas/_docs/atlas_15.pdf), which seems to refute this claim. The document is in Portuguese, yet you can easily check in the first table on p.318 (Quadro XIV. 1 - Comparação das Regiões Metropolitanas Ibéricas com base em indicadores de dimensão) that Lisbon is the 3rd metropolitan area in most indicators like Number of Companies (Empresas), Number of Large Companies (Grandes Empresas), and PIB per capita (4th column of table 2 - Quadro XIV. 2 - in page 319). The only indicator where Lisbon is actually ranks second in the peninsula is in terms of air traffic related to the transportation of commodities, an indicator that measures the volume of commodities transported by plane in tons... Therefore, unless the author is able to provide a stronger reference or indicator to support the claim being made, I believe this sentence should be removed.

3. Wealth: "The Lisbon region is the wealthiest region in Portugal and it is well above the European Union's GDP per capita average – it produces 45% of the Portuguese GDP." --> Lisbon is indeed the wealthiest region in Portugal. Yet, this figure is an overstatement. On the website of INE - Portuguese Institute of Statistics (http://www.ine.pt/) - you can find the official data which shows that, in 2007, Lisbon's share of the GDP was about 37%, not 45%. Specifically, Lisbon's GDP in 2007 was EUR 59,722 million while the total GDP of Portugal was EUR 163,119 million.

You can find these figures in the follwing table at INE's website: http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&indOcorrCod=0001052&Contexto=bd&selTab=tab2. To see the data for Lisbon you need to click on 'Change selection conditions', then, on the left bar, on 'Geographic localization (NUTS - 2002)', and then drill down in the selection in the main window (Portugal>Continente>Lisboa).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.208.131 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC) 

Another major public university, eventhough its name doesn't start by the word "university" is ISCTE (Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa). This institution is important for many reasons, for instance it is one of the oldest institutions offering undergraduate and graduate Business programs; its organization is different from the other universities, being a kind of experimental project.

A common mistake is saying that the Universidade Católica Portuguesa is a private Portuguese university. It is not private and it is not Portuguese. Its law status is "public foreign university": it "belongs" to Vatican which is a person of public law. I don't have a documental prof of this, I only can state that a friend of mine holding a PhD in law and who also was both an undergraduate and graduate student in UCP told me that.

Finally, it probably is not considered as a major university but Universidade Aberta might deserve a mention in this section: its headquarters are in Lisbon and it is one of the few or the only one university in Portugal that teaches their students by correspondence and using such media as open chanel tv educative broadcasts (usually in RTP2). It is also an important producer of text books that encompass many different fields and that are used by students from other institutions (for instance, from the Goethe-Institut Lissabon).

Ricardo, from Lisbon

ISCTE is not a university.

89.180.29.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Hi y'all, I rearranged all the images in the history section, added new descriptions to them and replaced some for better ones. This section of the article was cluttered with images, which had no meaning in respect to the section of the article they stood in. This is not a travel guide, but an article! Also, a lot of the same images were multiple times present in the article or, for instance, you had three pictures of the Torre de Belem in the article. I've taken care of this. Hope you guys like, what I've done. Gr. --17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Fredtheanimal put a note directly into the article asking for a cleanup of the History-Contemporary events section. That's the wrong thing to do, so I reverted it, however I did take a look and made a bunch of changes [2], which I'll try to explain here. I removed a few things altogether which were either non-notable and/or mentioned elsewhere already. And I moved a few items to either the Culture or Sports sections. Basically, I feel that the History section should be reserved for truly historic events, i.e. things that would go into scholarly books about general history. Notable events are different than historic events in a way, historic events affect the course of history, i.e. they cause changes elsewhere. Really big rock festivals are notable, but they very rarely change the course of history.

I'm not familiar with the way that regular editors here wish to structure this article, so of course please feel free to review and revert anything I've done wrong. The Contemporary events sub-section just looked like a collection of miscellany added by various editors over time, without any great regard to sourcing.

One more thing: the Sports section, to me, is a little confusing. It seems heavily concentrated on football, which I do understand. But maybe it could be split up a little better to separate national leagues from euro leagues? And like many other city articles, it is lacking in discussion of amateur sport and amateur leagues. I've always felt that these give a better picture of what a city is all about, rather than just the three most-famous clubs. Just a note...

Oh, even one more thing: Culture could be sub-sectioned in more ways than the city districts. But I know even less about Lisbon culture than I do about football, so I put the rock festivals into Culture!

Hope my changes were beneficial! Franamax (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.193.74 (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

From other sources in wikipedia, I note that the 25th of April bridge was constructed by the same company (American Bridge Company) as the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge, NOT the Golden Gate Bridge, as in this article. This makes sense since the former has cross-bracing. However, the colour is certainly similar to that of the latter (International Orange), rather than the former, which is silverish. I suggest that the maintainers please correct. --Muchado (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon was considered by World Travel Awards 2009 as:

- Europe's Leading City Break Destination
- Europe's Leading Cruise Destination
- Europe's Leading Destination

You can verify this information on the World Travel Awards official website: http://www.worldtravelawards.com/winners2009-8 I think its a information that could be add in the Lisbon article. 81.84.183.74 (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Under partner cities, Budapest is mentioned twice... I don't have any wiki experience so I'll leave it to someone else to fix --Eror11 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is merely a suggestion, but shouldn't we have more pictures at the top of the article, instead of the city flags (or maybe have them smaller) to make the article more like those of the other capitals of european countries (like London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid and Amsterdam?). W2ch00 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have taken the liberty to add photographs to the article, as I believe they will give a much better idea of what the city is like: namely in the "Transports" and "Parque das Nações". This is not muddle or making Wikipedia a photo server, but merely adding another dimension of description to what is a very comples and 3 dimensional topic (cities). In fact, it would be great if one could add videos with respective thumnails :). In that regards, I have the somewhat adantage of having been born and bread in Lisbon, so I know the city I live in very well indeed.

Regards to everyone, Moon in Scorpio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon in Scorpio (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to come up with a new main picture for this article, as the one we got now is clearly inadequate. We're supposed to have something that comes up as a symbol of the city, not a hundred pictures crammed together in a mosaic (there's even repeated stuff there!). Wikipedia is not a gallery, we have too many pictures in this article as a matter of fact. We got Commons to serve as a picture repository. I think the main picture should be replaced with a single picture of e.g. Lisbon's downtown, or the castle, or Belém Tower. Húsönd 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur, the montage would not be the type of picture I would use in this article. When I recently updated the Geobox, I was tempted to replace it, but did not. I would suggest something like the picture of Eduardo VII Park, the Lisbon City Hall, OR Padrão dos Descobrimentos (showing the 25 April Bridge), yet not the Belem Tower, since it is already used for the UNESCO designation; the picture needs to be an ex-libris and cultural icon for Lisbon. Visually, when you mention "Lisbon", what is the first thing one thinks (i.e. landscape or architectural symbol)? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest something like the picture of Los Angeles also London, only 4-5 (on 1) pictures of most characteristic places in the city or panorama or skyline of Lisbon (if it is on the Commons). Subtropical-man (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not oppose a mosaic, as long as it contains a reasonable number of pictures, i.e. 5 at most. That said, I think that mosaics were not a very good idea anyway. Readers would sometimes like to enlarge a picture that belongs to a mosaic, but clicking on it will lead to the mosaic, not to the separate picture and that's frustrating. A single, good quality picture of Lisbon's skyline or a distinctive landmark of the city, would in my opinion be the best option for the article. Húsönd 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently the Portuguese government has cancelled the High speed rail projects to Spain, so Lisbon is not going to be linked to Madrid & the rest of Europe in 2013, and I doubt Lisbon could be considered a high speed rail hub compared to Paris, Madrid, Brussels or London.

Portugal suspende a linha de alta velocidade Lisboa-Madrid

Suspenso TGV entre Lisboa e Madrid

TGV Lisboa-Madrid deve ser suspenso

31.96.221.240 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Suebi took Lisbon first time in or around 448 but lost it in 456 when a Visigothic intervention restored the Roman administration. In 469 the Suebi took Lisbon again. However, it seems the city came under Visigothic rule even before the final incorporation of the Suebi kingdom (585). So when exactly Lisbon did fall in Visigothic hands? --Roksanna (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It says here that Lisbon's Patron Saint is Saint Anthony of Padua, this is a common mistake. Lisbon's Patron Saint is Saint Vincent. The Portuguese Wiki article is correct. I'd appreciate it if someone could edit this since I have limited experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.116.190 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the article to reflect that Lisbon is the westernmost capital on mainland Europe, as opposed to all of Europe. Many people forget that Iceland is part of Europe, and Reykjavík is about 12° further west than Lisbon (21°56' W vs 9°11' W). I said Lisbon was the second westernmost capital, but technically this is still not correct. If you don't distinguish it as a national capital, other provincial, territory or autonomous regional capitals may also count; the [Canary Islands], part of Spain, come to mind. --Farnkerl 04:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC).

If you consider the islands, then the Portugeuse islands of Azores, still considered as "european", are the westernmost territory of Europe. --BBird 01:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Bold text

Yes, but the capital is not in Azores, so, Reykjavik is still the westernmost capital. Afonso Silva 00:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

....but if you read the (anyway old) original comment, it was referring to the Canary Islands, clearly east from the Azores... --BBird 15:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, Iceland is located in North America. Part of that island is indeed in the North American tectonic plate. Also, there's a much shorter distance between Iceland and Greenland (part of North America) then between Iceland and Britain or Norway. If one considers that the continent an island belongs to is the one with the shortest distance by sea, Iceland is a nordic speaking country in North America. Joao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing the word "important" with the word "significant" is not a grammatical correction. Grammar is a different discipline. Please write correct summaries to your contributions. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Lisbon Monatage.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The notable persons section is just too large. I propose that it is just limited to the name, liftime, and one simple sentence on the person. This section is taking too much space on the article and cluttering it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should "thin the herd". I offer the following, since I don't believe there really is an issue of this section being "too large": concur with the suggestion (limiting to name, date references and notability of the citizens), but also that only those born and died in Lisbon should be included (with verifiable citations or cross-references to Wikipedia articles with cited proof). I also offer that, many tend to throw into this section people who "lived" in Lisbon, which may have created bloat. I refer to the example of the situation in the Coimbra city article, which includes people who were born, died, lived or "involved" in the affairs of the town. Regarding your comment on "cluttering" the article: I don't see it. The section, in list format, does not create confusion and provides context for notability (per Wikipedia guidelines). Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I Agree and/or I understand, I did expand the article, as well as some names I added to Porto and other district capitals. It was hard to put a summary in one line, hence the expansion of space. They are all born in Lisbon here, all (this was accurate, at least is certain in most cases or presumed by historians in others - You can link all of them) with only one exception: João da Nova. There are not even mentioned some notable figures of Liberalism, Art and of the colonial world etc., for example, and I'm talking about important figures in history according to the opinion, historians and the general idea. Kings, Queens and Princes born in Lisbon, being Lisbon the capital and so on (the greater part of them in the case throughout history) were not included in this list (but included in some other Portuguese cities or villages in the Anglophone wikipedia; inconsistent criteria or not depends?!)... Maybe the existence of this section has to be reviewed in all cities. There were citizens or temporary residents born outside longer tied to a city or even more culturally "important" for it than some also considered notable born there, depending on each case. --LuzoGraal (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The second lead paragraph is stuffed with unimportant and dubious "facts", a clear case of statistical puffery. I propose that it be trimmed, and the dead weight of superfluous information be moved to other appropriate sections of the article, if it is supported. Carlstak (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is one of great importance to many differant subjects and yet it is in complete dissarray. While the content may be well done, the structure of the article is no way near the par that it should be, in order to equate to the Madrid, London, and Paris articles. It is scatered, withough organization, and lacks continuity. I would like to restructure the article, alongside any who will help, into being an article of good organization. I would start off by giving it the proper infobox of a settlement, as every respectable city on wikipedia uses. From there I will give organization through tables and charts to the dissaray of freguesias and sister cities. After that I will, I have not decided, but this structure is needed. We must bring this article to the level of expectance that wikipedia has for its articles. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

While there may be contextual errors and internal disorganization, the article is setup and structured to meet the conventions of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portuguese geography. There is no disarray, as the content is divided into the appropriate sections and Geobox format established in that community. While I support a re-write on many of the sections to allow it to flow, the need to diverge from the established format/structure in that community is not supported. Can you specify what structural "errors" exist?. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you do a rewrite in your sandbox and submit it for review, Cristiano. The article as it stands now is not that badly written. Carlstak (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is what I am doing, Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the previous leading picture (which was of terrible quality) with a much better one, showing some of the most iconic places of the city. Unfortunately, one particular user acts (again!)as if he is the owner of article. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. In this situation, user Cristiano Tomás is right. Picture in infobox is main picture of article. If you want change of picture, first: discuss; second: consensus. In particular, that your new image has drawbacks, for example: two panoramas next to each other and this view, who needs pictures of roofs of buildings? Subtropical-man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, the perfect picture should consist of pictures:

• panorama of whole city (for example [3])
• Praça do Comércio (for example [4] or [5] or [6])
• Belém Tower (for example [7] or [8] or [9])
• Jerónimos Monastery (for example [10])
• Parque das Nações (for example [11] or [12] or [13])

Subtropical-man (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue of main photo seems to be a recurring trend very often. Is there a way to reconcile the image quality issue with the mosaic format that has been suggested? Although, Wikipedia is fluid and temporary, we can at least get some consensus from the main editors? Sorry, just my two-cents. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. This article sounds more like a marketing text from a tourist brochure than an unbiased Wikipedia article. As I recently visited Lisbon, I was looking for some information on the changes in economy and demographics which have left most buildings of the city in a poor state of repair (at least externally), many of them even totally abandoned since decades and still standing only thanks to the crudely installed steel beam framework. It is a city of amazing contrasts, where you can find the Gucci flagship store on one side of the street and an abandoned alley on the other side where the buildings look more like ruins in war-torn Mostar, totally overgrown by weeds and gaping holes or bricks where there once were windows. In many ways the overall look of the city reminded me of Latvian port city Liepaja which I visited in 1998 in all its post-Soviet glory. But apparently Lisbon is as rich and prospering as any European capital. /213.113.126.74 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This section is full of non sequiturs. I fixed the one, two need analysis.

• "The reconquest of Portugal and re-establishment of Christianity is one of the most significant events in Lisbon's history, described in the chronicle Expugnatione Lyxbonensi, telling that the local bishop was killed by the crusaders and that its residents were praying to the Virgin Mary." --- What is the connection?

• As spoken Arabic lost its place in the everyday life of the city, many of the remaining Muslim residents were converted to Roman Catholicism by force, or were expelled, and the mosques were either destroyed or converted into churches." So, because Arabic is no longer spoken, people convert???? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Both isssues fixed. Carlstak (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff. It it was originally your work, then great, you would know what you did - both times - and therefore got it right; if it was someone else's work, it now works from a language point of view, but would that be what the original editor wanted to say? It is still a bit odd - why would there be a bishop in a Muslim Lisbon and why would the attacking Christians kill the bishop (a Christian)? Shouldn't we rather leave out the Bishop? It is anecdotal and unsourced anyway. What do you think? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As memory serves me, during the Islamic occupation of the Iberian peninsula, much like other areas controlled by Islamic forces, they permitted the Christians to live and follow their own faith. The primary obligation of occupying forces was that the peoples under their dominion should follow their laws. Also, in the case of Lisbon, during the Reconquista, after Christian forces sacked the city the Christians who did not battle or resist Muslims, and then lived under their rule, were considered to be traitors to the "true faith". During the occupation, the bishop of Lisbon remained, to serve the Christian faithful. But, when the city was recaptured by the Christian forces he, as well as those Christians who hadn't fought the Muslims, were considered traitors, murdered and/or persecuted by the conquering forces. So it is possible to be a bishop in Muslim Lisbon. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

True. You are right. There was a mozarab Bishop. Just a point, if you permit me: All Christians and Muslims were to be fully respected - and they were, but not all, unfortunately (as I describe below). And Christians beyond respected, remaining so. The Moors were left for the suburbs (saloios) or departed. As the agreement stipulated.

The agreement Portuguese-European Cruzaders-Moors stipulated that the looting was promised only to foreigner cruzaders, which (some also enter first in the city or by stages or areas, each group (in the framework of the surrender agreement rules) should be with order and based on rules of entry at private homes and property. the locals should allow that, positioning themselves in accordance with the agreed.

And all did so, except a group of Flemish and German soldiers (at the wrong time, entering before the others, and only by themselves), who violated the treaty and killed various Moors and Christians, including the Christian bishop, which greatly angered and outraged King D. Afonso Henriques, the Portuguese and all the other Crusaders of various nationalities, outraged by such deaths, either of Christians or Moors (they did not expect such savage act). Also describing now, only by memory, the Chronicle of Osberno (correct me, please, if necessary). I have the chronicle (a modern translation) Have many details. With so many centuries! Amazing report! But I read some time ago.--LuzoGraal (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ZEORYMER and LuzoGraal. Good stuff. I knew that Christians, Muslims and Jews all lived hrmoniously together - before and after the Reconquista (until the Inquisitioin madness), but I was not aware that the Crusaders would kill fellow Christians to punish them for not fighting the Muslims. Perhaps that needs to be worked into the text, otherwise I am sure that quite a few readers will be equally puzzled. LuzoGraal, perhaps there are some interesting angles in your sources that you could still bring in? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rui Gabriel Correia, And thank you also for the encouragement. Sorry, I've been a little busy and I just now returned. About this subject, I need a more careful reading. After rereading some things (diagonal) I have to change the information about what we both leave here by memory. It was a peaceful, negotiated surrender after a months siege. Yes there was a death , the bishop of Lisbon ( Bishop of long age, Mozarab or an Northern left decades before, during the first occupation of the city ​​by King of Leon), and the abuse of some women, perpretated by some Flemish and Colonese. They returned to the order after these crimes, apologizing again (see below for an earlier mutiny among the Crusaders themselves), and the peaceful and orderly occupation began, as agreed.

Several were killed during the siege, especially among the besieged, more by disease (also by disease and epidemics among the last ones, the Moors, after the delivery of the city). After the battle the very tragic irony is that apparently (?!), was the Christian Bishop the only one murdered by some Crusaders after the surrender.

The letter of the English crusader is a stunning document, by himself, by the speeches of the bishop of Porto and the Archbishop of Braga, and by the reporters on the spot. From the sermon of the Bishop of Porto, D. Pedro, to the Crusaders (with the appeal of D. Afonso Henriques), to the speech and appeal of the Archbishop of Braga, D. João, to the Moors before the siege. The archbishop of Braga, before the siege, next to the walls , calls the Moors for the recognition of the Christian determination, that the Moors and Moabites occupied a city (Lisbon) who must return to christian hands, to the rightful king and to the kingdom of Lusitania(sic) to which it belongs. The Moors were free to get either keeping their religion freely, or converting to Christianity, as its also appeals (free choice). Indeed in his message, the Archbishop recognizes that many were already born and were natural of the city. It is a message of an ultimatum that precedes a conquest or an occupation, of a time of crusades (and of that time in part), but with a tolerance (large for those times) that covers all argumentative aspects of our own present 21the century ideas of tolerance, to some extent, and much ahead of his time (Comparing with the greater Eclesiastic intolerance of the sixteenth century, you can do the evaluation. The archbishop of Braga knew vastly the classical and Christian history of the Peninsula (and of the Islamic presence), and of Lisbon in particular, mentioning the first Christian martyrs of Lisbon and the classical historical figures of the peninsular hagiography and politics. The Archbishop of Braga and the Bishop of Porto demonstrate both great erudition.

There is something depressing or uplifting : People like the English Cruzader, the Bishop of Porto and the Archbishop of Braga, nine hundred years away, in Theology, exagese and biblical knowledge, speculation and philosophical thought and debate, moral thought and justice, would win (they would crush) for comparison, and by K.O. on the first round (rsrs), many (if not the majority) of modern preachers, priests and even senior clerics, whatever their religious Confession. But we already know that the 12th century was an early first "Renaissance", and even across the high and lower Middle Ages, among some elites, intelectuals and monasteries. We can mention renowned historians on the revision (in the good sense of the word) of such concepts about those times, at least until certain point (on what Christian Europe concerns, even on its previous high Middle Age. Middle Ages were of initiation, rediscovery and light, especially from the twelfth century on. About the "Dark" Ages, maybe only the dark side of the Force in Star Wars, if I am allowed to parody.

Worthy speech of the Archbishop of Braga and response also worthy of the Moors, there cited. Great dignity on both sides.

The English Crusader also puts emphasis on the idea that Lisbon is a turning point in the Christian Reconquest of Hispania, in the interpretation of Divine signs and folk tradition, taken in Galicia (signs to their passage and notice of them by the locals), and the celestial events on their arrival at Tagus river.

It is also quite partial to the idea of giving honor, dignity and civilizational tolerance to his fellow English and Normans in comparison to his idea of greed and materialism of some Flemish and some German. Maybe " neutral" on the Franks. The effect of reporting almost any event or the riot between the Crusaders and against the King, the Moors and other crusaders, by some Germans and Flemish (not all of them), while negotiating the surrender of the city - and before, about the first meeting of all Crusaders with the king, is also superb (as real reports).

Apart exhilarating chronicles (many apocryphal and formal) on King Afonso Henriques, the English Crusader approach us, even for rare moments, of the first king of Portugal (treating him only as king), personally - in person - is my idea . The Crusader gives us an idea of his intelligence and honor .

The defense that the King makes of his honor and word (to the Moors and to the Crusaders), threatening to abandon the siege, before the mutiny of some German- Flemish Crusaders during the negotiations with the Moors, the apologies of their leaders (Flemish and German) who call them to reason, and later of themselves to he king, and the conclusion that everything will be done according to the word of the King are eloquent. The king withdraws his troops from the siege, just getting some Portuguese commanders and men of trust, to ensure that the spoils are only for Crusaders and in n the next day the King announces his decision that the surrender and the delivery the city shall be and will be as the Moors asked.

Having resisted before the surrender, the Moorish population has to leave, and in large crowds leaves the city by its 3 major gates.

Later, the King walked by the city and by the highest battlements and towers of the highest Castle, today the castle of São Jorge. --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The Sermon of Porto, written (Porto, then, yet, for the Crusaders, Portugalam or Portugala, (Porto / Porto and Gaia)) given by Bishop Pedro, was copied by the English Crusader on the trip by sea from Porto to Lisbon. The Bishop of Porto also came to Lisbon in the fleet (historical fact), and everything indicates, in the ship of the famous and enigmatic author of this amazing document. Then they joined the Portuguese at Lisbon (where they were for many days), D. Afonso Henriques, the Archbishop of Braga, all their bishops and prelates of the diocese of Braga, the army men and military orders. The letter indicates the presence of them all in Lisbon.

Some of those same northern Europeans had been in a previous siege to Lisbon in 1142, as the letter indicates.

There were, everything indicates, men from Scotland to England, Normandy, France, Britany, the Netherlands (here mainly Flemish), Germans, mainly from the north - and Koln for example and Danish. And great nobility and chief heads of all these nationalities.

High concentrations of Western European figures in the same place at the same time, by the way - and in what would be the most successful event of the 2nd Crusade, of many different expeditions (1147), under the patronage of the great Bernard of Claraval, cousin of D. Afonso Henriques, and spiritual father of the Templars. Begins to be understandable why this Order was in Portugal (on "the edge of the world", then) since 1126 (6 or 7 years after its fundation in Jerusalém and three years before his papal officialization in France, Troyes.

Some ideas, by memory, inspired by new refreshed readings, diagonally, from the translation into portuguese of this long Letter, taken from "Carta de um cruzado Inglês / Conquista de Lisboa aos Mouros em 1147" Livros Horizonte (coleccção Cidade de Lisboa) 2004 --LuzoGraal (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Climate" section, "However, snowfall can occur. The latest one happened on January 29th 2006."

I think this two sentences are deceiving for two reasons.

1. On January 29th 2006 it sort of snowed for less than 20 minutes in Lisbon and I don't even know if that was technically snow or just hail. Anyway, whatever came has imediately melted in the ground.

2. Before that moment, it also snowed 60 or 80 year before, I am not sure whether it is 60 or 80. Thus, snow is something that can occur only in extremely rare circumstances. In the last 100 years, if it really, technically snowed at all, the sum of "snowing time" was less than 60 minutes. "snowfall can occur" doesn't lead to the idea that snow can occur 60 minutes or less every 100 years.

I suggest that ""However, snowfall can occur. The latest one happened on January 29th 2006." be removed because "snowfall can occur" is misleading and the other sentence is not relevant: making a register of the two or three times that it "sort of" snowed in the last 100 year in a city doesn't seem relevant enough for an encyclopedia. I believe an encyclopedia should be extensive but can save some words and some reader's time by not including what are mere curiosities of low relevance or including those curiosities in the "Curiosities" section, as long as they are not deceiving.

I was in Lisbon last time it "snowed". I asked some German friends about this snow and all of them said "this is not true snow". Even if it was true, not controversial snow the two arguments above still hold.

Ricardo, from Lisbon ricemagic.blogspot.com

You are correct. I was in Lisbon on that day (29th January,2006) ( Restelo) and didn´t saw any snow. Maybe in Lisbon, aurora borealis ocurrence are as rare as a simple flicker of snow, but heat indeed has much more expression. The summers that temperatures got 40ºc or more aren´t very rare and occur quite periodically.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.208 (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 

Snow in Lisbon is an extremelly rare event that may however occur. In the 1950's it snowed and the amount of fallen snow stood on the ground for quite long. Before, on a winter during WWII, the amount of snow on the ground reached 1 meter high. It's indeed rare but not impossible. The idea of Lisbon having subtropical climate is in my opinion debatable (as debatable is the definition of subtropical climate). Lisbon is located at the paralel 38,7. The rain, humidity and lack of snow is due to its marine climate, not due to proximity with the tropics. The are places in the world closer to the tropics that experience much colder winters and warmer summers because they are not located at the west coast of a continent as Lisbon. Besides Lisbon is on a peninsula (Lisbon's peninsula) that is located slightly westwards than the rest of Portugal, making it more exposed to the sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The last time it fell enough snow to make a layer on the ground was in the 1950's. Before it fell also in the early 1940's. It's true that snow is an extremely rare event, however the temperature chart is misleading. The lowest recorded temperature is not 0º or 1º. In 2005 it was -3º in the middle of the night which was lower. -3º at night is vary rare too, but not impossible during drought winters. Frost happens regularly during dry winters outside Lisbon's peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I can remember, this page (and all pages on Portuguese cities and administrative units) has always stood out (and not in a good way) from the rest of the reputable cities of the world in its use of the geobox instead of the infobox. Apart from my own personal distaste for the disorganization and cluttered feel of the geobox, I find it unnecessary to break consistency of the infobox with Lisbon. I understand the structures of cities in Portugal are one of relative uniqueness when compared to a regular city, but it is not so revolutionary that it would warrant a special box. Let us finally decide on the matter, as a community, using democracy and logic, above all. Shall we use the infobox or the geobox. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to first apologize for the confusion during the lead-up to this debate. In reference to User:Cristiano Tomás' comments on Geobox versus Infobox, I offer the above presentation of both, to argue my points. Apart from the aesthetic differences (using the Vector-based formating), I offer that this format is neither disorganized nor cluttered, easily providing a structured example of all components identified in the Infobox. The Geobox begins with toponomic information, follows into geographic statistics (divisions, point reference, dimensions) , histo-political information, administrative codes, before social information. The Infobox, in comparison, starts at divisions, then history, then government, then physical dimensions, then social, followed by administrative codes before jumping back to social. I find that the Infobox "jumps" around far more then the Geobox. Meanwhile, the Geobox design encapsulates the important geographic and socio-political references, allows enough customization to add new groupings, automates the calculation of dimensions (area, distances, etc), and integrates directly with Wikimedia Commons, within a more compact structure then Infobox format (lateral page size). It has been discussed in the past (can't find the reference) that the Geobox positioning of the map might not be the best, but even that does not dissuade me from preferring, what I feel is, a content-rich layout of the Geobox. Its just MADE for this type of data summary. I note that there many details that can not be duplicated within the Infobox: in fact, I will concede to Infobox (against my dislike), if it is possible to duplicate the detail already based in the Geobox format. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So, what we got: urban area has 958 km2 with population of 3,051,000. Metro area has 2,957 km2 with population of 3,035,000. Simple math says that –16,000 people live in the remaining 1,999 km2, giving population density of –8 persons/km. I guess that Lisbon city center attracts more people than a black hole, and laws of physics collapse into a singularity in a similar manner. No such user (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For someone who does not know anything about the politico-administrative divisions in Portugal, the use of the word "region" in this article will be very much confusing. Portugal is a partially and peripherally regionalized country: it has only two proper regions in a politico-administrative sense: the Autonomous Region of Açores, and the the Autonomous Region of Madeira. Mainland Portugal is *not* a region: anyone living there is subject to the national government, and to local government, but it is not subject to any intermediate level administration. "Districts" do not qualify as an intermediate level administration, as there are no district parliaments nor district governments.

Hence, the use of the word "region" in this article, plus the expression "region of Lisbon" leads reader into the wrong belief that there is such thing as a "region of Lisbon". Lisbon is a municipality, with many parishes; municipalities and parishes are part of the local level political administration.

Lisbon is a NUTS II region. NUTS regions are used by the EuroStat to collect data; they need not coincide with any existing politico-administrative regions; NUTS regions exist for the statistical purposes of EuroStat and other statistics offices, they are not political-administrative entities.

Hence, I am changing any reference to "region of Lisbon" to NUTS II region of Lisbon. As this may be visually annoying (or reader unfriendly), one may just erase the word "region" whenever it is improperly used, that is, almost all the times in this article.

aw5678 at gmail dot com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.244.197 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The following was added by an anon to the description of the Vasco da Gama Bridge. I found it incomprehinsible (and probably only marginally encyclopedic), so I cut it. "In 98 a know Detergent brand organized the biggest lunch table on the main plataform of the bridge with 20 km, beeing listed as one of the biggest in world at Guiness Book of Records." If anyone knows what this means to say and thinks it's worth saying, feel free to rewrite it comprehensibly & re-add, or to write it here in Portuguese or whatever else within reason & someone can translate. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good edit. That was part of an ad campaign led for that detergent (*cough*Fairy*cough). IMHO it's worthless for an encyclopedia. Nuno Correia

I understand what that means and it is probably true. However, I don't think that is relevant for an encyclopedia. It might go to the "Curiosities" section but even for that section its relevance is almost null at least for an article about the city of Lisbon. It can go to the curiosities section (if it exists) of an article about that bridge.

Ricardo, from Lisbon ricemagic.blogspot.com

It did happen, it really was in the Guiness, and yes, it is irrelevant other than as a minor curiosity. --Pedrojpinto (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Aqueduto das Águas Livres is in Campolide, not Alcântara! Please correct the picture subtitle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.249.17.120 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you. Carlstak (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A number of sister cities appear to be incorrect. I am almost positive Bonn and Kendal are two of these, but I fear there are a number more. This page here has the official list of sister cities: http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/municipio/relacoes-internacionais

I don't know which cities come under the bullet point "Declaração de Geminação múltipla e solidária com as Capitais Iberoamericanas" ("Declaration of joint and several twinning with the Ibero American Capital"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenyph (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I never heard about it.

If anyone cares to explain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.11.218 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the Moorish rulers of Lisbon, from 711 to 1147, aren't given enough credit in this article. The rule is concluded in two sentences. Did the city just dissapear and reappear in 1147? Lisbon was a thriving city under Moorish rule, and we need to mention that. Go in depth. Mention how the populace spoke Arabic, some retaining the Romance, and that the majority of the population was Muslim during this time. Somebody needs to do research and write as much about the Muslim rule as is in the Roman rule. Thanks!

Go for it!!! --BBird 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go for it! But sources are important. I had the idea that a great part of Lisbon's population (Muslim and Christian) had been killed by the Crusaders. This should be checked. The Ogre 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case, as in fact the whole neighbourhood of Mouraria, a very big (by the standards of that period) and populous neighbourhood, seems to have been created in consequence of the ressetlement of the mourish population outside the city's walls. So, expelled from their homes, yes; mass slaughtered, i shouldn't think so.--Pedrojpinto 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This section now looks like like almost apologetic for the reconquering of Lisbon, and makes Lisbon the paradise on earth under Moorish rule. I really doubt it is accurate. Some sources and some balance might be of use here.--BBird 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not "apologetic" for the reconquest. All I tried to do was make the differences in Lisbon's life then and now jump out at the reader. You have to admit that life was much different then. How was it "paradise on Earth"? Is it because I said that Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived peacefully together? That is the truth. It is 100% accurate. You're sounding biased or almost mad that Muslims ever came to Lisbon. Stallions2010 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not mad at all. Muslim rule is part of Lisbon history. I don't know much about

this period but I doubt (i) everything was so peacefull and tolerant, repeated twice or 3 times (ii) that Lisbon florished (no mark is left from the Moorish period except the castle wich existed already and the moorish wall). Which mosques were converted in to churches?. Anyway, this was almost 1000 years ago, and this period is far from being the best period in Lisbon story.Th woule descripriton seemed vague and common place. sorry -- this was my reading. BR. --BBird 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See, I just don't see why there is a doubt about the tolerance. Throughout the Moorish kingdoms there was tolerance and peace. Occasionally there were uprisings, but they were very rare. The reason why there is so little Muslim material left is because the Christian reconquerers destroyed everything that they could. It may or may not be the best period in Lisbon history, but I lightly touched on this. The 16th century, when Portugal had many colonies, is looked upon in this article as the Golden Age, not the Muslim period. Can we at least give some credit to the Muslims who were in Lisbon? The Moorish rule left much more than you think. True, there is little physical evidence left. But many placenames exist that are derived from Arabic - the Alfama, for example, is derived from the Arabic "al-hamma". And Lisbon's name itself, pronounced Lishboa in Portuguese, is more directly derived from the Arabic name of the city, al-Ushbuna, than the Latin Olissipo. The azulejos that are so common on streetsides are originally Muslim in style, and the word "azulejo" is derived from an Arabic word. Therefore, credit should be given to the Moors. All reason points to it. Stallions2010 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are little to no uprisings in North Korea, so I guess it proves that it is a country filled with "tolerance and peace" :D. Seriously though, I (and I know that this comes 3 years after the discussion) find that part of the article partial, a sort of apologetics for Muslim occupation, not unlike your comments (which are fine, as long as they stay here and not in the article). Lisbon was taken/lost several times before (beginning with Afonso II of Astúrias in the VIII century), and I find that your linguistic reinterpretation of how we say "Lisboa" (which is baseless) goes a bit above mere speculation, you seem to be heavily invested in "giving them credits", even if for non-existent things. When you say "credits should go to the Moors" and "can we at least give them some credit?" you make it sound as if this was an end in itself, some sort of "price" that must be reflected in the article, facts be damned. By the way, the "azulejos" that you speak about didn't even exist in Lisbon at the time, they were introduced in the 15th century "from above" since D. Manuel liked the effect and started to order it from Spain. Heck, IIRC they were imported from Flanders before they started being home made. As for the "Golden Age", to even put this name in the same sentence as "Moorish rule of Lisbon" is, well, really weird.

So, to recap: tolerance is as usual misused here, there were uprisings, killing of natives several times, the usual "dhimmitude" that passes as "tolerance and peace" to many times, the Christians are apparently the ones that have the burden of guilt (they "destroyed" everything that the benign, advanced Moors had built! How savage of them!), placenames mean very little (but warrant notice in the article), the name of the city has nothing to do with the Arabic work, tiles were introduced much latter, the city was already large before and became larger after, and there is no "credit to the Moors" to be given as if that in itself was something to strive for. Also, I'll be researching and altering the article since I do find it extremely partial to "Moorish rule" and blowing it out of any sense of proportion in terms of significance. Which is NOT to say that the objective is the complete opposite of this. --Bellum sine bello (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not interely tru. The Visigothic name for the city was already Ulishbona.

"The reason why there is so little Muslim material left is because the Christian reconquerers destroyed everything that they could." This was a silly comment. Most written material was in Lisbon and was destroied in the 1755 earthquake. The rest that disapeared was during the Spanish rule, many things were relocated to the capital of the kingdom, and Napoleon Invasion.

Indeed, and anyway, from Olissiponam, it's easy to derive Lisbona (which was the very early name of reconquered city) using regular sound-changes which took place in all of western Romania. If Lisboa derived from al-Ushbuna, the name of the city would probably start with an a (*Alusbua or *Alusbunha) like nearly every other word in Portuguese derived from Arabic. Finally, the zh sound in the modern pronunciation of Lisboa didn't show up until the 17th or 18th century, due to French influence, I think. Wtrmute 01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend rather to think what you wrote above -- factual interesting informative -- would be of bigger value in the article than the generalizations that were inserted in the article. mind you, I agree the Moorish heritage is important, just like the others. Thanks. --BBird 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If I have a doubt, it's justified. Many modern Portuguese don't like the Muslim heritage. They see the Moorish rule as being disastrous and Muslims as uncivilized. An example is at this link: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2748&PN=1

Based on what do you say that? Based on a forum post of someone that changed from being an over zealous christian to an over zealous muslim?

Anyway, as you wish. I'll put them into the article, as well as the generalizations previously listed. Stallions2010 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely have my doubts that Muslims were "converted" to christianity after the invasions. From what I know most muslims were captured and killed during the Reconquista. THis should be checked.

The muslims had to pay a ransom to be freed and then were free to go to the neighbouring muslim kingdoms. Just like the Christians had to pay a ransom when captured.

Most of the street grid around the castle is the result of the historical evolution of the muslim street grid. There is little evidence that the city was radically transformed after the christians took over and, again, the whole neighborhood of Mouraria derives its name from it being a "suburb" where the muslim population relocated to. Although I have no source for the percentage of the population that remained in the city, there is ample evidence that the christian rite survived through the muslim domination, as did very significant christian and jewish communities. They were not all slaughtered, evidentely. In fact, there is ample evidence that most were not. The most valuable document may be the letter written by one of the cruzaders (De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, portuguese translation here: http://www.arqnet.pt/portal/pessoais/cruzado_lisboa.html) where it reads: «[the council between the cruzaders and the King [Afonso I]] agreed with the muslim emissaries that the [muslim] mayor would be set free and allowed to keep his belongings and that each and every man in the city [that is, families] would keep their food and the city would surrender; otherwise, they would face combat. (...) This was confirmed by both parts and a force of 140 man-at-arms and 160 german and flemish cruzaders would enter peacefully and occupy the upper castle, where the enemy would submit all their money and belongings. Afterwards the city would be inspected to atest that all goods had been surrendered, and in case something was to be found, the owner of the house was to be executed. (...) [A few german and flemish cruzaders], having entered the city ahead, were tempted and pillaged, and abused some of the residents. They cut the bishop's throat [that's the mozarabic christian bishop of Lisbon], against the law of god and man and imprison the city mayor himself, after emptying his residence. (...) Having at last come to sense, our men begged them to have the remaining areas of the city shared peacefully among us (...). Dishoned of their belongings, the enemies in the city were witnessed exiting continuously through the three city gates [during five days], producing such a crowd as if the whole of Spain was flowing through them. (...) [in their large mosque], there were 200 deceased, plus 800 hailing, due to the filth [derived from the siege]. Restoration of the diocese with a new bishop and purification of the Mosque (November 1st). (...) The miserable condition of the moors: afterwards there came a pest so big between the moors that throughout the vast fields, vineyards. villages and squares, as well as throughout the ruined houses, there lay thousands of corpses abandoned to the beasts and birds (...)». So, there were obviously casualties and some abuses, but far from a widespread slaughter. The muslim community was mostly relocated out of the city's walls, but were allowed to stay either in out-of-walls neighborhoods just outside or in the villages and fields nearby. See also the discussion under the subtopic "Middle Ages" --Pedrojpinto (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are you people? The main improvements on content must always be done first in the original article, in the native language. So, yes, the Wikipedia article on Lisboa could/should, possibly be improved. Then would come the translation. You should read the native language text first. That's what non-native speakers on English also do when reading texts originally produced in English. History is not a field of self projections on to the present. The Moors were not Talibans (amazing isn't it?), the common language was NOT ARABIC, over here, people didn't KILL each other to take over the land, the Portuguese don't particularly DISLIKE Arabs then or now. The Muslim city is largely interred under the ground. This is not a film/movie, a children's tale a Hello magazine story. Portuguese Historians still find the content unworthy of their effort and I regret to admit that the thing, as far as Portuguese Culture is concerned, is still in the hands of "touristers" and playstation users. TSS.TSSWikip (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Lisbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110315034541/http://www.euromonitor.com:80/euromonitor-internationals-top-city-destinations-ranking/article to http://www.euromonitor.com/euromonitor-internationals-top-city-destinations-ranking/article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110513194342/https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=3421&NewsAreaID=2 to https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=3421&NewsAreaID=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110914152244/http://www.nato.int:80/issues/summits/index.html to http://www.nato.int/issues/summits/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220011057/http://www.estatisticas.gpeari.mctes.pt/archive/doc/insc07_08__difusao_.xls to http://www.estatisticas.gpeari.mctes.pt/archive/doc/insc07_08__difusao_.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything is working fine. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Who keeps posting negative temperatures on the 1980-2010 lisbon climate graph when it were positive? Is that so hard to accept that Lisbon is the second mildest European capital (being only second to La Valetta, Malta)? Also there seems to be a (very likely) spanish guy using andalucian cities which are NOT european capitals and comparing with lisbon on the Lisbon wiki page... Why that keeps being posted as well? I already had to correct these sourceless mistakes several times and yet they keep being posted and accepted. Once on a while I come here and see them posted again and again and I have to correct them again and again. There are portuguese cities with warmer winters than Andalucia, but we don´t fill the andalucian wikipedia pages with it.

It was maybe someone from the Malaga Page, who did it. It are there that they make such type of claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog Marin (talk • contribs) 12:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, which is that portuguese city with a warmer winter than Andalucía which is not located in Azores of Madeira?? I would really like to see it, as none city on the whole continent of Europe has a warmer winter than Almería... Faro is the warmest of mainland Portugal and is still colder than many cities of Spain or Italy

And stop vandalising the page... it says "Climate data for Lisbon". Not climate data for Lisbon 1981-2010 or extremes 1981-2010. -1.2ºC is the lowest temperature ever recorded by the official IPMA station of Lisbon...[14] And stop mentioning Valletta which is not even on continental Europe, which doesn't have any climate station (the station is from Luqa, Malta) is also further south and it doesn't even have a population above 100.000. We are talking about other European metropolises... lol! --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It´s you would need to stop vandalizing the page. Also that 70ºc came from where? Heat burst episode is confirmed by whom? The thermometer was moved to a oven? Among the European capitals (who´s interested in comparing it with all European metropolises (?), Lisbon is a capital city, not just a metropolis), yes, logically Lisbon should be the second warmest one in the winter, because Valletta is still European (just not on the mainland), and I don´t see any big difference from Luqa to Valletta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valletta). Anyway, well if you want, we can say that Lisbon is the warmest during the winter, regarding mainland Europe capital cities. Or if you want, we shouldn´t even speak about that (though it´s less stupid than comparing it with Malaga or Almeria, because these aren´t even capitals). Yes, the climatological series presented is obviously the 1980-2010 one. The values are all absolutely the same (https://www.ipma.pt/en/oclima/normais.clima/1981-2010/012/) for that series except that stupid joke of 70ºc and the minus before the 1,2 in February and the minus before the 1,0 in January, that shouldn´t be there... It should be 1,2ºc and 1,0ºc just like we see for the 1980-2010 series. So ironically, even on that, the numbers were also exactly the same for 1980-2010 series with the difference that it were positive, not negative during this period. If you want to use all old data (also not verified one) at least, use for all periods, not just for the crazy value of 70ºc for July and the wrong -1,2/-1,0 ºc values on the middle of a 1980-2010 climatological series... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And who´s interested in comparing Faro (which I´m sure is not the warmest region in mainland Portugal, but probably just the warmest city) with certain andalucian cities? It´s because of a city definition convenience? Regarding winters, yes, even the Azores islands cities (no one spoke about Madeira) are warmer than any Andalusian or Italian city. But I´m not into this kind of comparisons, I just found the page originally conveniently spoiled by spaniards or someone else with issues, by comparing it with Malaga or Almeria and did a more realistic comparison.

Technician GB wrote « it says "Climate data for Lisbon". Not climate data for Lisbon 1981-2010 or extremes 1981-2010.»

Are you sure? I have explained you, but here it´s a print screen just for you:

http://i63.tinypic.com/20z7ehe.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have read the reference about the heat burst, and I may believe that there´s some truth on it (but more importantly, it didn´t happened in Lisbon). Lots of things happened on crops, animals and people, so it may hold some truth on it... But it lacks official confirmation, it wasn´t in Lisbon and it needs more investigation, So it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@188.37.171.168: Again, you didn't understood me. Where it says that the extremes are also in the period of 1981-2010 ? That's just the averages. I've shown you that Lisbon got -1.2ºC and the official IPMA source for it. And yes, Valletta is not even a metropolis, Valencia and Málaga are. The 70ºC temperature is a pure joke and it wasn't me who added that, lol.

I don't know which is the point to put the Azores in between. The thing is in mainland Portugal, not on the portuguese islands which geographically belong to Macaronesia, it's like comparing apples with lemons. There isn't any single city warmer or with warmer winters than some Spanish or Italian cities, in fact the warmest city of mainland Europe is Sevilla with an average of 19.2ºC followed by Almería (19.1ºC), which has also the warmest winters in the European Mediterranean, even counting Malta and Cyprus. It's pointless to compare some islands at more than 1.000km of mainland Europe like Azores, then we would mention the Canary Islands which have cities with tropical climates and coconuts, but that's irrelevant as they aren't in continental Europe, just like Azores!

It's clearly stated in the description that the -1.2ºC temperature was in February of 1956. But doesn't matter, I just edited the page to put that the extremes are from 1956 to 2016. Here you go. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

technicianGB wrote:

«Again, you didn't understood me. Where it says that the extremes are also in the period of 1981-2010 ? That's just the averages. I've shown you that Lisbon got -1.2ºC and the official IPMA source for it. And yes, Valletta is not even a metropolis, Valencia and Málaga are. The 70ºC temperature is a pure joke and it wasn't me who added that, lol. »

Valletta is the Malta capital, is much more than just a city or metropole. No, it clearly says that those values are for the 1980-2010 http://i63.tinypic.com/20z7ehe.png Here is what it says on the offical IM page: https://www.ipma.pt/pt/oclima/normais.clima/1981-2010/012/

So once again, don´t put negative values when it were positive. And once again if you want to use just the older and colder values to your convenience (just to put the extremes since the 1950 decade or so), then use it for all the older climatological series as well... Because this is becoming really a nuissance.

Macaronesia is often used for a biogeographical designation, to describe flora and fauna that lives on certain atlantic archipelagoes, it´s not a continent. Azores are all if not almost all geographically in Europe. On which continent you would want to place it??

You should be Spanish, that´s easy to understand.

Canary islands are geographically in Africa, just like Madeira. The furthest place known from the Equator where it grow coconuts outside are actually in Porto Santo, not in the Canary islands. Also the history of Canary islands is not the same for the Azores or Madeira. Canary islands were inhabited before Spaniards get there, Guanche people were nearly all extirpated, killed and suicided themselves, due to Spaniards presence. Azores and Madeira were deserted islands, when the Portuguese got there.

It´s you who´s comparing apples with oranges, by conveniently comparing spanish metropolises with capital metropolises of other countries. Who´s interested in your spanish/andalucia wiki propaganda? Portugal also had a completely different urban organization/settlement, in several aspects when compared with Spain. Guadalquivir basin (where cities like Seville and Cordoba lay), needed cities on lowland/inland areas. Portugal didn´t needed any major city in the lowland inland Guadiana valley for example or close to Rosmaninhal, which is Tagus inland basin or in Ribeira do Zacarias along the Sabor or in Coa Valley, where some of the warmest regions on mainland Portugal are located and were identified by the offical IM services ([1] João Ferreira, Sílvia Antunes e H. Oliveira Pires (2001). "Representação Gráfica de Campos Climatológicos Obtidos Objectivamente por Regressão Multivariada em Relação a Factores Físicos", aguarda publicação em Actas do 2º Simpósio da APMG, Évora 2001"...)Therefore Portugal doesn´t have any current weather info, in these places, simply because there are no weather stations/urban poins there (only temporary temperature measurements were done to represent a 30 year period (1960-1990)), these places are usually in natural parks or in wild areas. The closest you can get and it should be still colder, is Sanlucar de Guadiana which is next to the Portuguese border (only 500 meters from Alcoutim), that have or had a weather station and that it was slightly warmer than Seville (when comparing the same decade series). But once again, the warmest areas are still warmer than this. With this I´m not saying that Portugal has warmer summers than Spain, at least, in all aspects. If we use total area, Spain should have bigger areas with warmer summer months, but also bigger areas with colder winter months, relatively. If we use the warmest areas overall in the summer for both countries, then I´m not really sure which one is the warmest. But I honestly shouldn´t care. So better leave Lisbon wiki page alone and aside from your comparisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What's the relationship about all of the testament you wrote with the climate of Lisbon?

Among european metropolises, yes. And the climate is not just only of the 1981-2010 period, the extremes are from another period as they're available...

Porto Santo hasn't got any kind of coconut... In Madeira, which is warmer, barely a few grow and they don't even fruit. You can do a Google search in palm forums and even people from Madeira never could find any single coconut in Porto Santo, because they can't grow there a single winter... In Porto Santo there is not a single evidence of them =))) and which is the relationship with coconuts or with the history of the Canary Islands? That has nothing to do here. This is senseless... I just mentioned that not even Azores or Madeira or Canary Islands are on Europe so it's senseless to mentione them, as you mentioned the Azores. And what about the Guanches? That doesn't belong here. End of the discussion... I won't continue to discuss such senseless things. It's all said. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Childish discussion. Both are making mistakes. I add my opinion.

1. Geog Marin wrote: "Is that so hard to accept that Lisbon is the second mildest European capital (being only second to La Valetta, Malta)?" - generally, Lisbon is second mildest winters (after Valletta) among European capitals and second among metropolises (after Valencia). Malaga is not metropolis.
2. TechnicianGB wrote: "Faro is the warmest of mainland Portugal and is still colder than many cities of Spain or Italy" - in Italy? please, give examples.
3. TechnicianGB wrote: "Valletta is not even a metropolis, Valencia and Málaga are" and also "stop mentioning Valletta which is not even on continental Europe" - it does not matter, Valletta and whole Malta is located in Europe. Also, Valletta is capital. Also, see #1.
4. 188.37.171.168 wrote: " heat burst, and I may believe that there´s some truth on it (but more importantly, it didn´t happened in Lisbon). Lots of things happened on crops, animals and people, so it may hold some truth on it... But it lacks official confirmation, it wasn´t in Lisbon and it needs more investigation, So it should be removed" and also TechnicianGB wrote: "The 70ºC temperature is a pure joke" - I agree with it, both.
5. TechnicianGB wrote: "There isn't any single city warmer or with warmer winters than some Spanish or Italian cities, in fact the warmest city of mainland Europe is Sevilla with an average of 19.2ºC followed by Almería (19.1ºC), which has also the warmest winters in the European Mediterranean, even counting Malta and Cyprus" - Italian? which has also the warmest winters in the European Mediterranean, even counting Malta and Cyprus? - nonsense
6. 188.37.171.168 and TechnicianGB, stop discuss about Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands. These islands are not located in Europe.

Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: in Italy? Lampedusa. Btw that is another irrelevant discussion as Málaga and Valencia have warmer winters, btw... And Málaga is a metropolis, it has more than 500.000 inhabitants... in fact it has 569.130, the metro area has about 960.000 and the great Málaga area has 1.628.973... that is a metropolis buddy. While the city of Lisbon has 545.245, so Málaga has more population than Lisbon (the city itself)... although the population of metro Lisbon is much higher with 2.821.876 inhabitants. But yes, Málaga is a big city in Europe. Here is the source for the temperatures below 0... also official source from IPMA."Extreme temperatures in Portugal". |date= January 2017}} I just stated that the extremes are for the 1956-2016 period. A place which has such extremes available have to be stated, not just the extremes of the last 35 years... and it doesn't matter if it's stated again that the minimum temperature was -1.2ºC in the description, I just added in the chart that the extremes are from the period of 1956-2016, not of 1981-2010... and I added the source on the chart. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

TechnicianGB,

1. you wrote: "Faro is the warmest of mainland Portugal and is still colder than many cities of Spain or Italy" - if there are many cities, give there are many examples :D your one (sole) example - Lampedusa is part of Pelagie Islands, geographically belongs to the African continent.
2. you wrote: "in fact it has 569.130, the metro area has 1.628.973... while Lisbon has 545.245, so Málaga has more population than Lisbon..." - administrative borders of city are not used to metropolises. That would be absurd, for example - city of London is officialy city and 8,072 people, City of Sydney has a 205,339... but both are metropolises. In case of metropolis, metropolitan area is typical argument. Back to the topic, Malaga is not metropolis, even - Malaga is not large city in Europe. This is the medium size city, 46th in European Union. There are no sources for metropolis, there are no arguments for metropolis (maybe one - metropolitan area >1 million in one/two sources).
3. After your change [15], weatherbox say "extremes (1956-2016)" but your source show only two data, not show maximum temp of 12 months and minimum temp of 10 months. Your desciption are wrong. De facto, you are doing chaos in weatherbox. Weatherbox say "extremes (1956-2016)" but main source show data of 22 months (12+10) and secondary source show data of 2 from 24 months. Better, leave weatherbox with primary source and data, and new info with oldest data enter in text of section of climate.

Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man:

Of course i'll show them! ;) Faro, Portugal has a mean average of 17.9 ºC. Reggio di Calabria has 18.3 ºC. Lampedusa I know it's not in Europe but in Africa but it's quite closer to an european region rather than Azores. I just mentioned it for the user from above... Palermo has a mean average of 18.3 ºC too. Messina 18.8 ºC. Syracuse, Sicily 18.1 ºC. Well, we have 4 italian cities warmer than faro. ;) without counting Lampedusa. And probably Ragusa too but it doesn't have an official weather station.

Spain's time. Barcelona, Valencia, Ibiza, Palma de Mallorca, Murcia, Alicante, Almería, Málaga, Cádiz, Huelva, Sevilla, Córdoba, Spain. 12 cities. We can also count Benidorm, Dénia, Torrevieja... and many more cities but those haven't got an official AEMET station and the sources are websites which are not very trustworthy; so it's enough with the 12 cities mentioned before which have an AEMET station. 12 in Spain + 4 in Italy = 16. So yes, many. :)

If we talk just about the winter temperatures, then some are warmer as Faro, as I've mentioned above. Just some, not many. But many in overall. I said this to the guy who said that Algarve has warmer places than the south of Spain or the south of Italy... but without any official station or trustwhorty source this can't be proven, and the warmest is Faro, which is colder than 12 Spanish cities (and not only on the south) and 4 southern italian cities, of course with official weather stations.

I don't understand what do you mean. The source shows the extremes. It's clearly stated that the temperature of -1.2 ºC was reached in February of 1956 in the IPMA observatory of Lisbon. Yes, the first source shows the data from 1981 to 2010, but not the whole historical data. The secondary source, as you say, say 2 numbers, enough to prove from where those -1.2 ºC come from. Isn't this true? Regards ;) --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My friend, and about Málaga... it's the 46th biggest city in Europe. Then it is a big city for Europe. In the whole continent is on the number 46. That isn't bad, isn't it? :) I consider as "big" the 50th first, is in a whole continent, not just in a region... you know? Please, don't put as example Sydney, London, etc cities with the anglosaxon typical urbanism, those have nothing to do with most of Europe. Lisbon itself has less population than Málaga, and Lisbon itself is big... --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

TechnicianGB,

1. I meant just about italian cities and temperatures in winter (warmer winters than Faro). However, no matter - it is not important.
2. You added second source and change two temperatures. The problem is that you create chaos in weatherbox. Your source show only two records for Lisbon but your description in weatherbos say: "extremes (1956-2016)". This is not extremes (1956-2016) but extremes (1981-2010) with two records from 1956-2016 by secondary source. Also, your source describes two different locations, allegedly in Lisbon. After your changes, weatherbox is incorrectly described and also introduces a mess in sources and locations. My proposition: restore previous version of weatherbox based on primary source and keep data with your source (two records of temperature) in one sentence in climate section. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I did another change. Check it now. Seems ok to you? --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it´s not ok, of course. The mistakes are the same.

techncian GB wrote: «Porto Santo hasn't got any kind of coconut... In Madeira, which is warmer, barely a few grow and they don't even fruit. You can do a Google search in palm forums and even people from Madeira never could find any single coconut in Porto Santo, because they can't grow there a single winter... In Porto Santo there is not a single evidence of them =)))»

There are coconuts in both Madeira and Porto Santo:

https://www.meteopt.com/forum/topico/micro-clima-tropical-em-portugal.6904/page-9#post-460277

They don´t even fruit? Don´t lie again. There are pictures of them doing it there, though local municipalities tend to remove the branch that give them very early, so you have that wrong impression. But when that wasn´t done and polinization was allowed, the coconuts were growing.

So if Canary and Madeira belong to African continent, Azores belong to which continent? Except Flores and Corvo, all are inside the Eurasian plate, so 7 of the 9 main islands, are all in Europe (it makes perfect sense since Azores, are also much closer to Europe, than to any other continent). I know it because I have been reading about it regarding the creation of 17 new marine reserves (with special conservation status) which were added to the «giant» Azorean Marine Park (which covers currently around 900.000 km2) and consulted maps on the continental plates myself.

Just because some Italian and Andalucian cities are warmer than Faro, it doesn´t mean that Portugal haven´t warmer places that that. Alcoutim/Sanlucar de Guadiana area have warmer average even than Seville, so this will take us to nowhere and there are even warmer areas in Portugal than this, identified on this study: ([1] João Ferreira, Sílvia Antunes e H. Oliveira Pires (2001). "Representação Gráfica de Campos Climatológicos Obtidos Objectivamente por Regressão Multivariada em Relação a Factores Físicos", aguarda publicação em Actas do 2º Simpósio da APMG, Évora 2001"...) Just because you want to conveniently introduce city/metropole definition to fit your bias, doesn´t mean that we can´t introduce a broader context on the subject. Yes, it may be a bit offtopic but you also spoke about offtopic yourself and want to introduce it on the Lisbon wikipedia main page, by speaking about Valencia and Malaga, when´t it´s not that necessary. If it makes you happy, open a wiki page just for your city climates hilarious comparisons as if only cities had climates. And regarding capital/metropole/city definition and convenience to say it on Lisbon wikipedia page that´s warmer or less warm than certain others spanish/italian places, I find it pathetic and childish. How about not comparing with any of those? I ask this, because I honestly think that this is all an artifact from a Spanish guy that has a lot of time to troll internet with his superiority/inferiority complexes. Are you of that kind that also believe that Barcelona has a subtropical humid climate (with 3 dry summer months, next to the Mediterranean sea and with a mediterranean forest cover, like cork oaks, olive groves and so on)? Lisbon is a capital though, there´s no doubt of that. Then if you want to compare, compare at least, accordingly to what it is. But I find it childish and irrelevant.

techinician GB wrote:«I just stated that the extremes are for the 1956-2016 period. A place which has such extremes available have to be stated, not just the extremes of the last 35 years... and it doesn't matter if it's stated again that the minimum temperature was -1.2ºC in the description, I just added in the chart that the extremes are from the period of 1956-2016, not of 1981-2010... and I added the source on the chart.»

What you state here is non sense. Why you are using old records on the middle of a 1980-2010 climate series? subtropical man said the same as me you did the same mistake again... If you want to use old records, use for all the decades available, not for just one that fits your agenda. Like subtropical man said, you could speak about it on the climate of lisbon description and leave the climate board alone. I would mention this anytime again I think that´s necessary.

subtropical man wrote:«Your desciption are wrong. De facto, you are doing chaos in weatherbox. Weatherbox say "extremes (1956-2016)" but main source show data of 22 months (12+10) and secondary source show data of 2 from 24 months. Better, leave weatherbox with primary source and data, and new info with oldest data enter in text of section of climate. »

I agree. And once again he did the same mistake (and if he wants to prove everyone that Lisbon got negative temperatures on the deep past, why he doesn´t dig for the earliest decades of the XX century since data may exist about that too (not just from the 1950´s))? And why he doesn´t the same for his beloved Andalucian cities/metropolosis or whatever he wants to call it? If he starts to use old series records for Spain, we´ll see shockingly low temperatures, actually much lower than what their respective pages show there and what we see here.

Regarding the changes I purpose that instead of this: «Among european cities with a population above 500,000 (less than Valencia or Málaga), Lisbon has one of the warmest winters», it should be this: «Lisbon has amene winters»

Basically what I mean is, enough with ridicule comparison and bias, ok???

And now by speaking about ridicule, how someone mysteriously and conveniently did took of the «edit» function for Lisbon wikipedia page? This is a coward childish atittude not the atittude of an adult serious person. As a person born in Lisbon, I´m shocked with this hate atittude towards my city. You either accept the other opinions like a grown person or you´ll see this Lisbon wiki page destroyed/deleted, I can guarantee you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog Marin (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't read all of this senseless testament. Grow up and stop acting like a small child. No one hates Lisbon. You should start to accept the reality, you can't cover the sun with your finger, lol.

Again, there isn't any place warmer in Portugal than those places mentioned above from Andalucia, Valencia, Balearic islands, Sicily... Show the proof with an official station. Oh, there it isn't. So you can't say nothing! Those are just scuttlebutts!!

Come on, I really encourage you to "destroy" this page, as you're threating us that you will do it. Do it! And you will be banned from Wikipedia. Stop making more wikipedia accounts, we know that is you. =))

And hey, no one said they don't grow in Madeira. They do, but hardly fruit and only in warmer years, they never given any single mature fruit, don't invent things. And in Porto Santo there isn't any one.

Lying? Who lied?? I just told the things. Azores are more than 1.500km from mainland Europe so they're automatically senseless to be mentioned here. And some Azores islands are in the American plate. I just said that Lampedusa is closer LOL

And which is the relationship that you're from Lisbon? Lisbon had -1.2ºC in the past. As far as I can see, Sevilla, Cádiz, Almería etc all have extremes old extremes too. Almería is the only place in mainland Europe where the temperature never went under 0ºC (place with an official station), as even before 1950, the lowest temperature was 0.2ºC, in 2005 they arrived to 0.1ºC, but that's the airport, the city is warmer itself. Some cities are 1981-2010, yes. But they wouldn't be "much" lower. Don't be angry lol...

Stop trying to convince us that Portugal is a kind of tropical country or something like that, many other european places are warmer than the warmest city in Portugal, all of mainland portuguese stations have seen at least 1 time a freeze... You can't change this.

That thread you shown me it's wrong... Coconut trees grow outside tropical climates, like Salton City in California, Durban, and even Port Elizabeth, which is the furthermost point where a coconut can grow from the equator. That thread is named "tropical micro-climate in Portugal" and that's simply ridiculous because 1 year was much warmer than normal in Madeira that doesn't say nothing, because another year will be colder than normal and it will balance... Madeira is too far to be close to tropical. If we look at the last 1981-2010 averages of Funchal (which are the warmest ones of any Madeiran station due to the UHI, as you know it) 6 months have averages under 18ºC... plus the cool winter rain. That's purely subtropical.

Oh, and I'm not Spanish. I'm Dutch. ;) I won't reply you anymore. It's not deserved. Anyone would understand all the things which I've said and you call them "senseless". Is you who are mixing oranges with apples and saying senseless things!!!

Btw, I'm ok to change again to the 1981-2010 extremes if they are CLEARLY STATED. And in the description is clearly stated that the lowest temperature was -1.2ºC in 1956 and the in January was -1.0ºC, as the IPMA extreme source says.

Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geog Marin: extremes changed to 1981-2010 and clearly stated that the extremes are from the same period and also stated in the description the all time minimums as the all time highs. I hope you're happy now.

And about Barcelona... it's clearly stated that it's a bordering climate. I also thought that it's a Csa climate but some months ago someone shown me how I was wrong and it's de facto a Cfa climate... --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that controlling the edit function for the lisbon wiki page, so no one can improve the page now on...), is a good reason to simply discard this page from existence on the web.

«Didn't read all of this senseless testament.»

That´s easy to perceive, for example, by your senseless accusation that I´m making up Portugal as some kind of tropical country when I never said that. And which other account on wikipedia I have? More lies...

«Again, there isn't any place warmer in Portugal than those places mentioned above from Andalucia, Valencia, Balearic islands, Sicily... Show the proof with an official station. Oh, there it isn't. So you can't say nothing! Those are just scuttlebutts!!»

There are, I have proven it and I don´t need to get around it anymore.

«Lying? Who lied?»

You and I mentioned where. Next time, read what is written to you, before reply.

«And in Porto Santo there isn't any one.»

You are lying here too, for example. I have shown you an example of one (it was on the iink that I provided to you and that once again, you didn´t read it.

«That thread you shown me it's wrong... Coconut trees grow outside tropical climates, like Salton City in California, Durban, and even Port Elizabeth, which is the furthermost point where a coconut can grow from the equator. That thread is named "tropical micro-climate in Portugal" and that's simply ridiculous because 1 year was much warmer than normal in Madeira that doesn't say nothing, because another year will be colder than normal and it will balance...»

No, that thread show that you are the wrong one (and nowhere it says there that coconuts only grow on tropical climates). I gave it, because it was about the coconuts giving fruits in Madeira, which you said it didn´t happened and about coconut growing in Porto Santo, which you said, it didn´t happened as well. Actually the thread merely wants to understand if there´s any tropical microclimate in Madeira, not implying there´s a tropical climate in Madeira (while that has been done, people started to talk about coconuts...). And Funchal is not the warmest place in Madeira! Some places there, are almost borderline to tropical and others that are warmer lack sufficient climatological data. And show me the latitudes for Durban and Port Elizabeth. I want to see if it are further from the Equator, than Porto Santo.

«And about Barcelona... it's clearly stated that it's a bordering climate. I also thought that it's a Csa climate but some months ago someone shown me how I was wrong and it's de facto a Cfa climate... --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)»

Yeah, show me now why Barcelona suddenly turned into Cfa climate. Looking at the subtropical humid climate definitions, not a single dry month should occur in the summer for Barcelona, to have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog Marin (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

«Oh, and I'm not Spanish. I'm Dutch. ;) I won't reply you anymore. It's not deserved. Anyone would understand all the things which I've said and you call them "senseless". Is you who are mixing oranges with apples and saying senseless things!!!»

Oh, a Dutch guy debating often on several Andalucian wiki pages on climate... And making Andalucian propaganda on the Lisbon wiki page. That´s curious... Anyway, I may give you here the benefit of the doubt, so Dutch you say you are, then Dutch you must be.

«Btw, I'm ok to change again to the 1981-2010 extremes if they are CLEARLY STATED. And in the description is clearly stated that the lowest temperature was -1.2ºC in 1956 and the in January was -1.0ºC, as the IPMA extreme source says.»

It´s ok for me now, but the Andalucian propaganda (Valencia and Malaga...) here is not that necessary, oke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog Marin (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The things about "you lie" are so childish that I've not even reply to that.

You didn't show me nothing but scuttlebutts, according to a book of the Murcian climatology, Cartagena has an average of 20.4ºC per year but no one believes that as the nearest AEMET station of Murcia has 18.6ºC. Probably it can be between 19-19.5ºC but 20.4ºC? Not even in a dream. And it's a climatological book. The same as the book you "posted" above. That is 0. The only acceptable sources are IPMA or AEMET, and not a single portuguese location is warmer than Faro (17.9ºC). I shown you 12 cities with AEMET stations warmer than Faro, so end of the discussion lol. You didn't show me anything but the name of a book, and that is not valid as it's not from an official agency. The same as that murcian book where puts Cartagena with an average of 20.4ºC...

Propaganda? They are there because they're metropolis. That must remain there, no one has any problem with that unless you my friend, we are talking about metropolitan areas...

The climate of Barcelona is not dry enough in the summer, if you see, only 1 summer is slightly dry, the other summer months are "humid" for a Csa climate. That's why is a borderline climate...

If you want to se the latitudes of Salton City or Port Elizabeth just click on each page as I linked the names to their respective pages... and that one on Porto Santo looks like a Parajubaea, a single photo doesn't say nothing, sorry. In Madeira I know there are some, as those ones from the marina and in some hotels, but Madeira is quite warmer than Porto Santo, looking at the averages of Porto Santo a coconut can't stand there a winter. Find more and I will believe it. But a single photo from far doesn't prove nothing, and more looking at the averages, for God's sake January and February in Porto Santo Island have extreme maximums under 23ºC... that's not a climate for a single coconut.

And please, don't say that Madeira has warmer spots without evidence, as Funchal is probably the warmest, as is influenced by the UHI of the city and it's in the south of the island. Don't say something you can't prove... --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lisbon. 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/20131014191556/http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html to http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906034159/http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/ to http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326210729/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_02/1-19022007-EN-AP.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_02/1-19022007-EN-AP.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216020135/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_02/1-12022008-EN-AP.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_02/1-12022008-EN-AP.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325003726/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009_MONTH_02/1-19022009-EN-AP.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009_MONTH_02/1-19022009-EN-AP.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031202617/http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/municipio/relacoes-internacionais to http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/municipio/relacoes-internacionais
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031202617/http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/municipio/relacoes-internacionais to http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/municipio/relacoes-internacionais
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724140854/http://www.bethlehem-city.org/Twining.php to http://www.bethlehem-city.org/Twining.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510114810/http://www.munimadrid.es/UnidadWeb/Contenidos/EspecialInformativo/RelacInternac/RRII/HermanamientosyAcuerdos/Files/hermanamiento_UCCI.pdf to http://www.munimadrid.es/UnidadWeb/Contenidos/EspecialInformativo/RelacInternac/RRII/HermanamientosyAcuerdos/Files/hermanamiento_UCCI.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you are a «Spanish» version of Mesogeiakos. And, yeah, climates only exist on the cities, right? And I don´t have nothing to prove to you, I already mentioned the place that got a bigger (measured by a weather station) average for the same period than Seville... I can try to find the link, if you want... But there is more data, to give support to it. And yeah, I really get the idea that you get annoyed with the idea of Portugal (MAINLAND) having warmer places than Faro. Even in Algarve there are almost certainly warmer places than Faro, I don´t see what´s the big deal, if you knew a little bit about the subject, you would easily understand it, because Faro is on a CAPE, not on a sheltered valley with mountains surrounding it or anything alike. Faro may be the warmest city in the Algarve though, true. I gave you also a scientific reference about climatological studies that prove that the current weather and climate information based on the present weather stations in Portugal, don´t give us any clue about the warmest places on the country (or the diversity of conditions in the country). So if you conveniently pick cities to prove that one place is warmer than the other one, you aren´t doing anything, other than providing evidence than one city spot may be warmer than the other city spot (and not implying any further than that). Once a broader and more scientific context is introduced, that becomes almost irrelevant.

techniciangb wrote: «Propaganda? They are there because they're metropolis. That must remain there, no one has any problem with that unless you my friend, we are talking about metropolitan areas...»

Yes, propaganda. Why we need Spanish Andalucian cities or metropolis, references and links, on the Lisbon general (Estremaduran) wikipedia page just to say that it are warmer than Lisbon?? That´s pathetic.

And Azores are on which continent? I know the answer, but I´m curious to know your opinion... All land surfaces on Earth, belong to a certain continent. Will you answer Macaronesia??

techniciangb wrote: «The climate of Barcelona is not dry enough in the summer, if you see, only 1 summer is slightly dry, the other summer months are "humid" for a Csa climate. That's why is a borderline climate...»

Barcelona has 3 dry months (June, July, August). Don´t see what´s so Cfa about that. Cfa climates haven´t a single dry month in the summer, AFAIK. So Barcelona if anything, has a Mediterranean climate, (though maybe borderline to Cfa) and not the opposite (subtropical humid borderline to Mediterranean).

techiniciangb wrote: «If you want to se the latitudes of Salton City or Port Elizabeth just click on each page as I linked the names to their respective pages... and that one on Porto Santo looks like a Parajubaea, a single photo doesn't say nothing, sorry. In Madeira I know there are some, as those ones from the marina and in some hotels, but Madeira is quite warmer than Porto Santo, looking at the averages of Porto Santo a coconut can't stand there a winter. Find more and I will believe it. But a single photo from far doesn't prove nothing, and more looking at the averages, for God's sake January and February in Porto Santo Island have extreme maximums under 23ºC... that's not a climate for a single coconut.»

Coconut palms in Salton city?

Here it is what I found on the subject:

«There was an article in either Princeps or the SC Palms magazine years ago (I don't think it was recent or I didn't see that article) that had pictures of this coconut in the backyard of some house near the Salton Sea. There was no real info other than anectodal. The palm, according to the article, died a slow death from having zero water. I want to say that the house was empty or abandoned. That's all I remember from the article.»

Other: «Still would love to hear about the "Salton Sea Coconut".I can even remember the LA Times article that someone posted that told the story of a teacher who planted them and they grew for a period of time.My guess is that they grew well during a period of above average warmth but passed after the inevitable return of normal conditions.It is just one of those stories that grows legs because it tells people something they like to think is possible. Once again, if the low desert sports an adequate climate for Coconuts, why are they not all over the place?» http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/index.php?/topic/23573-salton-sea-coconut/

So everything went down the drain. If you know more or little better than this let me know.

Ah, found this posted on 2016:

«In terms of absolute record it goes to California Coachella Valley in some spots. However the northernmost zone to reliably grow them outside/public places and keep them for a very long lifespan without any sort of heating aid or protection from cold would probably go to Madeira and Porto Santo (this one at 33) in my opinion.» http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/index.php?/topic/9024-coconut-growing-farthest-from-equator/&page=4

No big tricks here. If there are examples of ones growing with the same conditions and further from the Equator, I would like to see it. Now, I wonder why you are questioning the very oceanic Porto Santo, based a single weather station (there are climates not only where the temperatures were measured), and who told you that coconuts don´t grow based on the conditions that you are putting (for example, by January and February in Porto SAnto having extreme maximums presumably (based on a single weather station) under 23ºC... )?

techniciangb wrote: «And please, don't say that Madeira has warmer spots without evidence, as Funchal is probably the warmest, as is influenced by the UHI of the city and it's in the south of the island. Don't say something you can't prove..»

No, it´s you who need to prove that Funchal is the warmest place in Madeira, according to what is currently known. Funchal actually, has quite good number of cloudy days and fog compared with southwest Madeira, for example. To say that´s probably the warmest in Madeira, it´s showing a very weak knowledge about the island climatology, Well, the references are on the thread that was questioning the possibility of existence of a tropical microclimate in Madeira. Lugar de Baixo (Ponta do Sol) have a clear higher average than Funchal, for example. It was never a secrete, I guess.. And a IPMA study for temperature averages on the island (for the 1960-1990 period), didn´t even put the Lugar de Baixo among the warmest areas on the island, which once again, is completely expected. One of the warmest places on the island, should be around Fajã dos Padres, for example.

« No, that thread show that you are the wrong one (and nowhere it says there that coconuts only grow on tropical climates). I gave it, because it was about the coconuts giving fruits in Madeira, which you said it didn´t happened and about coconut growing in Porto Santo, which you said, it didn´t happened as well. Actually the thread merely wants to understand if there´s any tropical microclimate in Madeira, not implying there´s a tropical climate in Madeira (while that has been done, people started to talk about coconuts...). And Funchal is not the warmest place in Madeira! Some places there, are almost borderline to tropical and others that are warmer lack sufficient climatological data. And show me the latitudes for Durban and Port Elizabeth. I want to see if it are further from the Equator, than Porto Santo. »

Then in what i'm wrong? Probably you can't support to be wrong and try to evade anything writing such testaments? Again, the only thing about a coconut in Porto Santo is a photo from far which can be another kind of palm tree like a Parajubaea... And again, click in the pages of those cities to see the latitude.

« Maybe you are a «Spanish» version of Mesogeiakos. And, yeah, climates only exist on the cities, right? And I don´t have nothing to prove to you, I already mentioned the place that got a bigger (measured by a weather station) average for the same period than Seville... »

First, I told you from where I am. And maybe you are a portuguese version of "Mesogeiakos" (don't know what is that), and you want to make us all think that Portugal has a tropical climate and it's the warmest place of Europe, because it seems like that...

I didn't say nothing wrong and I didn't lie in any moment, i'm just talking about official weather stations. All that you say are suppositions, you didn't show me nothing and there isn't any single warmer place in mainland Portugal (unless the islands) with an annual average of 18ºC, if you can't support that is not my problem, but you can't change the official IPMA 1981-2010 averages... You can mentione anything you want, that doesn't mean that it will be true. :)

« And yeah, I really get the idea that you get annoyed with the idea of Portugal (MAINLAND) having warmer places than Faro. »

It seems that you get annoyed because any single place in Portugal has an official average above 18ºC and you get really annoyed because Málaga and Valencia are cities in Europe with warmer averages.

« because Faro is on a CAPE, not on a sheltered valley with mountains surrounding it or anything alike. »

Exactly because is on a cape has a very mild climate influenced by the ocean and it has the warmest winters possible on mainland Portugal. No excuses, the AEMET station of Cádiz is also in front of the ocean and it's warmer year round...

« Coconut palms in Salton city?

Here it is what I found on the subject: »

In the same link you post "palmtalk" in the page 2 you can see various photos of coconuts in Salton Sea. I also see some high coconuts in La Quinta, California which is northern than Madeira and Porto Santo... As Port Elizabeth is further from the Equator than all of them.

« In terms of absolute record it goes to California Coachella Valley in some spots. However the northernmost zone to reliably grow them outside/public places and keep them for a very long lifespan without any sort of heating aid or protection from cold would probably go to Madeira and Porto Santo (this one at 33) in my opinion. »

Probably you wrote that =)) it's a single user saying that in his opinion. Wrong opinion, btw. As I shown before, many places have coconuts and are further from the Equator. And we don't know if Porto Santo has one, it's a single photo bad seen which can be also another kind of palm tree. We only can take Madeira which is at 32ºN, even Porto Santo is barely at 33ºN while La Quinta is at 33º40'N Salton is at 34ºN and Port Elizabeth is at 34ºS.

« No, it´s you who need to prove that Funchal is the warmest place in Madeira, according to what is currently known. Funchal actually, has quite good number of cloudy days and fog compared with southwest Madeira, for example. To say that´s probably the warmest in Madeira »

Is you who is stating all the time without evidence that there are warmer spots on Madeira. Then show them with an official weather station, as long as you don't show them that can't be proved so it's not true... And Funchal is influenced by the Urban Heat Island, increasing slightly the averages, as they're lower in reality but for the influence of the buildings of the city it's higher, as happens in any other city in the world. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And I repeat it, for the last time, you are not understanding it or maybe you don't want to understand it?

I'm just sticking to official IPMA and AEMET averages, you're the only one who say false things like "this place is warmer than this other place" without showing any kind of official proof, just suppositions or scuttlebutts, i'm just sticking to the official climate agencies or reputable agencies like NOAA, so stop saying that a place is warmer only because you think of that! They're suppositions!!! That isn't true if can't be proven with valuable data. I also can say that Netherlands has a place with an annual average of 15ºC... but I can't prove it. So it's equal to 0. I hope you understand it finally. Oh, and I moved this "discussion" to a new section, btw this is going senseless, this has nothing to do with Lisbon. --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

techniciangb wrote: «Then in what i'm wrong? Probably you can't support to be wrong and try to evade anything writing such testaments? Again, the only thing about a coconut in Porto Santo is a photo from far which can be another kind of palm tree like a Parajubaea... And again, click in the pages of those cities to see the latitude. Probably you wrote that =)) it's a single user saying that in his opinion. Wrong opinion, btw. As I shown before, many places have coconuts and are further from the Equator. And we don't know if Porto Santo has one, it's a single photo bad seen which can be also another kind of palm tree. We only can take Madeira which is at 32ºN, even Porto Santo is barely at 33ºN while La Quinta is at 33º40'N Salton is at 34ºN and Port Elizabeth is at 34ºS.»

I wrote a testament and so did you. I don´t need your opinion to explain me the obvious. The Madeira ones didn´t/don´t receive any kind of heating aid or protection from cold. So yes, is the most distant place from the equator known where they grow on these conditions.

techiniciangb: «I didn't say nothing wrong and I didn't lie in any moment,»

You did it on more than 1 occasion.

Here again, for example: « and you want to make us all think that Portugal has a tropical climate and it's the warmest place of Europe, because it seems like that..»

Once again, where I tried to make people think that Portugal has a tropical climate?? Just because I used a link opened to question the possible existence of a tropical microclimate in Madeira island (not done by me), to speak about the Madeiran coconuts case??

techiniciangb: «i'm just talking about official weather stations. All that you say are suppositions, you didn't show me nothing and there isn't any single warmer place in mainland Portugal (unless the islands) with an annual average of 18ºC, if you can't support that is not my problem, but you can't change the official IPMA 1981-2010 averages... You can mentione anything you want, that doesn't mean that it will be true. :)»

Well and once again, I provided already scientific evidence, that the current IPMA stations, don´t give us any clue about the warmest areas in the Portuguese mainland. They did measurements on several less typical places, to find that. You are basing yourself in small urban dots, to make big conclusions. I would rather be very careful with that. Climatologists don´t support the notion that only the current (urban) weather stations, are used are used to make climatological studies. It can or it can´t be representative of a certain area. So yes, your comparisons are limited and somewhat irrelevant to support any broader notion of what is warmer or not.

techniciangb: «It seems that you get annoyed because any single place in Portugal has an official average above 18ºC and you get really annoyed because Málaga and Valencia are cities in Europe with warmer averages.»

I don´t, there are warmer places even here in mainland Portugal, and even if there weren´t I would still prefer our conditions here and you seem really desperate to spread your Spanish propaganda on other European country wiki pages. So what´s the deal of saying that Andalucian Valencia and Malaga cities have warmer winters on average than Lisbon capital city?? It´s absolutely irrelevant and unnecessary. Fortunately, I have more important things to do, than showing off my country weather.and discussing it on other country wiki pages.

And no, the warmest sea waters in mainland Portugal, are present East of Faro, not in Faro. The warmest portuguese sea waters overall are those from the maritime territories of Azores and Madeira (not next to the coast, though, but still inside the Portuguese territorial waters). The Azorean waters seem to be even warmer than the Madeira ones (maybe it have an extra Gulf stream branch). Some places should have averages at least, over 18ºc/19ºc even for the coldest month, according to the NOAA satellite observations.

techiniciangb: «Is you who is stating all the time without evidence that there are warmer spots on Madeira. Then show them with an official weather station, as long as you don't show them that can't be proved so it's not true... And Funchal is influenced by the Urban Heat Island, increasing slightly the averages, as they're lower in reality but for the influence of the buildings of the city it's higher, as happens in any other city in the world.»

Well, next time care to read what is written to you?? I told you where the reference was (I mentioned the link, but I´ll do the favor for you to put it here (check post 165)): https://www.meteopt.com/forum/topico/micro-clima-tropical-em-portugal.6904/page-11

And Funchal on that series had only 19,0ºc, nowadays is 19,6ºc. So consequently, Lugar de Baixo, should have also a bit more than 19,7ºc nowadays. And this place (Lugar de Baixo) wasn´t even among the warmest ones in Madeira, presented on a official study by the IPMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog Marin (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that you ended with the hostility, and now we can discuss politely without attacking the other person.

Madeira is at 32º40'N, there are places further with coconuts. Port Elizabeth is at 34ºN, which is the furthermost place from the Equator to have coconuts without protection. Salton City has a few unprotected but they're small, Salton is at 33º20'N.

Btw, La Quinta, California and Palm Desert are at 33º40'N and 33º45'N and they have big and mature coconuts, unprotected too. I've seen it in the page you posted before. http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/index.php?/topic/23573-salton-sea-coconut/&page=2

There is an user in infojardin which claims that had 2 winters his coconuts outside of the house unprotected in Málaga, it was in autumn of 2016 when he wrote that, the winter of this year was warmer than normal so this would be the 3rd winter in a row. The coconuts are in pots, although they're actually quite big, the user claims that they remained there for 2 complete winters without any kind of protection, not even a small plastic covering to maintain the heat. In another post the same user talked that if they would survive some more winters, he will plant them outside as when they're bigger they're hardier. Málaga is at 36º45'N. http://foro.infojardin.com/threads/he-germinado-un-coco-y-ahora-que-hago-con-el.61372/ (post 4) --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I got the idea that the user (Cluster) that says that all coconut palms that grow further from the Equator than the Madeiran ones, received heat treats and protections once on a while, to make them doing it outside. So I´ll ask him for evidence about that.

And well, if true, that´s interesting for Malaga. I know that Malaga should have one of the warmest winters in mainland Iberia (another candidate should be the area around Tarifa or even some spot close to Almeria). Nice pictures of the palms, though they are still small by now (but look healthy!). The big test anyway (I think), should be when she puts finally the coconuts on the ground, because that would be when the roots will have to deal with the winter ground temperatures and humidity, more closely. And if the coconut palms survive outside for some few winters more (with some winters being within the average) then that would mean that those are the most distant coconuts growing from the equator known until now (without any protection).

I think the same too, probably near Almería, Málaga or also possibly near Cartagena in Murcia, Tarifa is very mild but the high temperatures are slightly cooler, maybe a place between Tarifa and Cádiz? Who knows. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, someone else keeps trying to put the wrong values on the Lisbon Climate box. Interestingly is the same mistake done previously with negative temperatures when they were positive... Curious isn´t it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a really low move, since he/she probably changed the climate series for a indefinitive one (with no dates) so anyone can puts there with he/she wants since the start of meteorological observations (why not use also data from the XIX century too)? It was you who did that, technicianGB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog marin 2 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I find strange the interest of some people here, regarding the climate of lisbon and Portugal, particularly that of Technician GB, but I´m sure that´s not a healthy interest, by reading the discussion here and the modifications that I saw that he did on the Lisbon climate page. My suggestion is to use a certaim climate series, like the 1971-2000 one since the 1981-2010 for odd reasons doesn´t appear now on the official portuguese meteorological webpage:

http://www.ipma.pt/pt/oclima/normais.clima/1971-2000/012/

Nearly all the european (or worldwide) city climate boards on wikipedia, have a certain period of observations, why it is any different for Lisbon? Is just to show negative temperatures on the board as well (not enough to have it on written descriptions already)?

And yes, I agree with knocking off Malaga and Valencia, if not we would need to fill every European city page, with references about warmer or colder european cities as comparison, which is irrelevant.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lisbon. 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://archive.is/20140929112522/http://www.dgterritorio.pt/ficheiros/cadastro/caop/caop_download/caop_2014_0/areasfregmundistcaop2014_2 to http://www.dgterritorio.pt/ficheiros/cadastro/caop/caop_download/caop_2014_0/areasfregmundistcaop2014_2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004193127/http://www.rave.pt/tabid/233/Default.aspx to http://www.rave.pt/tabid/233/Default.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.agencialusa.com.br/index.php?iden=7832
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140621220603/http://www.cm-vfxira.pt/files/3/documentos/2013091715584601248.pdf to http://www.cm-vfxira.pt/files/3/documentos/2013091715584601248.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161013091642/http://anthropologyworldnews.tamu.edu/faculty/castro/publications/Wachsmann%20et%20al.%202009%20-%20Portugal.pdf to http://anthropologyworldnews.tamu.edu/faculty/castro/publications/Wachsmann%20et%20al.%202009%20-%20Portugal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311082423/http://nisee.berkeley.edu/lisbon/index.html to http://nisee.berkeley.edu/lisbon/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311082423/http://nisee.berkeley.edu/lisbon/index.html to http://nisee.berkeley.edu/lisbon/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109234659/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-18022010-AP/EN/1-18022010-AP-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-18022010-AP/EN/1-18022010-AP-EN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515002830/http://www.personal.u-net.com/~luso/listrams.htm to http://www.personal.u-net.com/~luso/listrams.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013152926/http://otlis.com.pt/ to http://www.otlis.com.pt/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)