Talk:Flag of Portugal

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flag of Portugal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Flag of Portugal is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 13, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
March 16, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 12, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Heraldry and vexillology

	Heraldry portal Flag of Portugal is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles
	This was a selected article on the Heraldry and Vexillology Portal for October 2007.

Portugal Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

older entries[edit]

Given the size of the flag, the detail is abominable. Certainly the castles should be somewhat clearer and the sphere should be more spherical. --Brooklyn Nellie 06:01, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Merge Flag of portugal[edit]

Contents of this new page which duplicates this page should be merged here and Flag of portugal redirected. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ugly[edit]

Deleted: «The flag is also considered a bit ugly by most people.» For being irrelevant. We should not classify symbols as beautiful or not. And yes... I'm portuguese.--Nabla 17:11, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

I consider it ugly. The shield is beautiful. Angola also has an ugly flag, and it will change to a more African style of flag (it is very beautiful). We also should change to a more Portuguese flag! I think the monarchy flags are way much more beautiful and way more in the style of the Portuguese culture. But honestly, I think only in 2004 people start really adopting the current flag. Now changing it will be difficult. Doesnt the red means republic? Many people say is the blood of the french when they took the bastille. this articles seems biased and unfactual:
1149 - The Venusians defeat the Martians in the Solar System War II

that thing of the empire (sunset etc, I've never heard in life) -though it seems a nice theory. About the Iberian theory that seems a nice way to change people's mind to adopt another flag. I prefer a white background with the shield.

why this article is slightly biased: [[1]]

evolution of the flag, shield and sphere: [[2]]

we should readopt a version from these flags: [3] [4] so many centuries evolving to end with green and red. And yes... I'm from the Kingdom of Northern Lusitania and we, the Condoms Northern Lusitanians, don't accept a red and green flag. We want a referendum and choose a new flag!!!-Pedro 21:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

condoms? Nelson Ricardo 04:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

- I was kidding! -Pedro 08:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not biased. It was me who included the Iberic Federalism mention, as José Hermano Saraiva puts it in his História Recente de Portugal and many other history scholars argue. Once again, the article states that it is just "speculated" that the red/green scheme was based on such ideals, although highly probable. --MiguelFC 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Maybe that's a good reason for changing the flag, and to remove that red! red has anything to do with Portugal. Although I continue believeing it is biased, and more with your answer. BTW José Hermano Saraiva is just widely known but is not exactly the most neutral historian known in Portugal. Ask any history student. -Pedro 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

I also dislike the flag - and yes, I'm portuguese, and also an History student - but I don't get your issue with the red. Red is present in the Arms of Portugal since D. Afonso III (via the red border with gold castles borrowed from Castile). If anything it's the *green* that always looked completely alien. I'm not advocating a fully red flag BTW, blue and white are the main colours of course, but red and gold are the two other colours that can associated (e.g. they were many times used as the colours for the mantle when the Arms were fully represented)--Bellum sine bello 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should mention the criticism that exists about this flag, because it goes against several flag stuff rules, like the colours (red-green don't match). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.239.233 (talk)

Yes, I don't know why I didn't add info about that. Thanks for remembering! Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've researched a bit, the field colors mix is OK according to heraldry rules, because the stripes of a divided background are considered to be "next to each other" not "one over the other", so the rule-of-thumb "metal over color/color over metal" doesn't apply to the colors green and red on the background. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some sources for that? I know that there are example of it but it has always been discouraged in heraldry. They are sometimes said to be "sewed" when used that way but in a more purist view they should be avoided at all costs (otherwise the "colour on colour" rule wouldn't mean much, since heraldry uses partitions extensively). Flags do not necessarily use heraldry rules though, vexicology as a different, more relaxed set of "rules". But as far as heraldry goes the usage is, if not plan wrong, at leat discouraged and absent from the usage of ancient heralds.--Bellum sine bello 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mourish"[edit]

Is that how it's actually spelled? Thanx 68.39.174.150 23:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nope. it should be Moorish.-Pedro 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Green[edit]

I thought Green meant hope. And yes, I'm Portuguese, never heard about it being about the woods...

Just make your own fado and forget hope

Colours - Definite Explanation[edit]

When I first wrote the original article, I had mentioned that the colours of the flag - green and red - had strong masonic association, mainly with the Carbonari. This explanation was, however, relegated to the second plan, and the Estado Novo interpretation (blood + hope) was given priority.

The fact is that in spite of our political beliefs or what we want to show to foreign people, Wikipedia should be a primarily objective and neutral information source. Few historians and vexillologists have doubts about the connection of the flag's current colours to the Carbonari and Freemasons, and their Iberic Federalist ideals. In fact, red and green were the colours of St. John, the patron saint of the Carbonari. These two colours were widely used by the Carbonari during the late 19th century uprising against the monarchy, and eventually became themselves the colours of Portuguese Republicanism.

--MiguelFC 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

great article[edit]

we should have more articles like this. I didn't know what the flag of portugal looked like until now.

Sigh. Sic transit gloria mundi... --Bellum sine bello 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colour blind-friendly[edit]

The colour blind-friendly version is in .jpg, and so appears blurry. Is it possible to make a colour blind friendly .png or .svg? --Joffeloff 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply going to remove that, because the user that added it didn't substantiate his reasons and when I asked him to explain them he just deleted my message on his talk page. This shows how important and truthful was his edit.

Too much information?[edit]

hmm....does an article about a flag really need this much information? in my opinion, i think it needs to be a tad shorter. Kinzukiwi-lphs 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)kinzukiwi-lphs[reply]

Why would you want to REMOVE factual information from an encyclopedia? Just because a flag isn't that important doesn't mean you should REMOVE information - it's not this article that needs trimming, it's the others that need filling. --Joffeloff 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted to FA because it was comprehensive enough. Removing factual and encyclopedic information from it is going against the goals of Wikipedia. Anyway, I still believe more data can be added to the article. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's your opinion and does not fit the wikipedian standard. A flag it's important, it's a symbol of so many things, it tells us culture and history. just because you don't think like that there is no reason to remove relevant and factual information. I'm sure many people agree and that's why the article is not as short as you wanted. we don't have guilt that maybe your country flag doesn't have such a rich history like the Portuguese flag. I also belive that more data can be added. There are more relevant information that should be on the article.

Unequal bands[edit]

I think there's an important point missing here (and everywhere, actually). Why does the Portuguese flag features more red than green? That's a basic thing about the flag that ought be known and should be on the article. I've searched in several sites but none explains that. Maybe i didn't search where i should. If someone could find information about that, it would nice.

--Bluedenim 10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first unevenly distributed Portuguese flag was the state, civil and naval ensign from the Constitutional Monarchy (1830-1910) period, which was 1:2 (Light Blue, White); state, civil and war flag was 1:1. To my knowledge, that was for one reason only: being permanently flown while cruising, and due to strong sea wind, ensigns tend to be ripped little by little on the fly end, shortening it; if the fly is larger in the first place, it can be ripped while not becoming in-aesthetically short. Somehow, the uneven distribution (which was not used on land) was deemed more aesthetically appealing by the Republican flag, and it was adopted (though on a 2:3 distribution) in all the designs except the war flag (which is not usually flown, but only carried on military parades). Gazilion (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard an account from an elder person (unfortunately I've got no evidence for the truth or lack thereof of this account) saying the bands were initially supposed to be equal, but when the flag had to be put on a pole, part of the green band was rolled on it for the flag to be securely held (they had not foreseen this issue beforehand) and thereafter the unevenness was kept onwards. Luckylemming (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval civil flag and ensign? Medieval flags were not for civil usage[edit]

The Medieval flags displayed here show the indication that they were used in all 6 situations vexillologists recognize: state, civil and war flag (on land); state, civil and naval ensign (at sea). However, those Medieval flags were not national flags, as they didn't represent the country itself; they were personal flags of the King, only representing him, an army under his rule, and maybe other official enforcing his authority (tax collector and such). That means that those flags were never used as civil flag or ensign; that concept (that right) is much more recent. Gazilion (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling consistency[edit]

I suggested a while ago that, this article, as a featured article, should use one variety of English spelling, per WP:ENGVAR. As I noted there, it seemed to be mostly some form of English/European/Australian (it was "colour" in the lead, and nearly always "colour" on this talk page). I have bitten the bullet, and implemented that. I briefly checked the article's history and could not see consistency in anyone else's edits for spelling consistency before (even user Parutakupiu's excellent edits seem to use both at different times), but if someone would really much rather we settled on en-US then I would have no objection: but I think there should be consistency. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help with that, RobertG. As a non-native English speaker, I sometimes change from one variant to the other without noticing. Thanks again. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pantone-colored version?[edit]

I'm thinking there should be a Pantone-colored version of this flag like there is for Australia and Switzerland each. I don't like how bright the colors are on the regular version. --Kanjilearner358 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107074304/http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/mundial/portugal/110/ to http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/mundial/portugal/110/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flag of Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171224213851/http://5outubro.centenariorepublica.pt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=98 to http://5outubro.centenariorepublica.pt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=98

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

colors[edit]

These are the colors - takeb from the original document https://imprensanacional.pt/bandeira-nacional-objetos-com-historia/ https://i.ibb.co/TDXwz6g/verm.jpg https://i.ibb.co/Dknbq2q/verde-da-bandeira.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.214.144 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020[edit]

This older FA has significant amounts of uncited text, which does not meet the current FA standards. If the problems are not addressed, a featured article review may be necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 00:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visa[edit]

I need a vist visa your country 0axam (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]