Talk:Algarve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spanish Algarve[edit]

This page should actually read "Portuguese Algarve," as the original Moorish Kingdom of Algarve was partitioned between Spain and Portugal, and the two even fought over the title of "King of the Algarve." See http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&expIds=17259,18167,26442,27868&xhr=t&q=Spanish+Algarve&cp=12&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=Spanish+Alga&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=a54b69a33f3366d3

I suspect the Spanish Algarve is larger than the Portuguese.... There is also a need to create a page on the Spanish Algarve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.37.247 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the real NUTS division of Portugal, which does not have a comparable NUTS division in Spain. This is in comparison to any existent regional context that may have existed in the past. Although there may have existed a Portuguese and Spanish Algarve as a histo-cultural area, this namespace refers to current socio-political entity created within the framework of the European Union. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such thing as Spanish Algarve, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

I have little experience with Wikipedia, so maybe someone else who is more knowledgeable can correct the following bug: The link to Lagos does not lead to Lagos/Portugal but to Lagos/Nigeria.) - ... already done

Merge with Faro?[edit]

I suppose this article should be merged with Faro (district) since the region is now called Faro after it's capital like in other Iberian regions.

When I was in school Portugal had 11 regions (caled "Provícias") and 18 districts caled "distritos". Algarve is a província and Faro a district. A region was not the same thing as a district. What has changed and where can I get + info about it ?. Take a look at pt:Algarve and pt:Distrito de Faro. My opinion is that, in this subject, we should wait for the Portuguese language Wikipedia to change first. --OsvaldoGago 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against such merger. The Algarve and the district of Faro do have the same area, but they're different concepts. The Algarve is a region, the district of Faro is an administrative entity. Besides, if the articles were to be meged, which would be main article and which would redirect? I can't imagine Wikipedia without an article about the Algarve, and it would be awkward for the district of Faro to lose its article when all the other Portuguese districts have their own articles.--Húsönd 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Al'Garb Al'Andalus into this article[edit]

Although Al'Garb Al'Andalus is a history stub, there does not seem to be much to say about it, other than that the name was used. I'm suggesting a merger with Algarve. Copying the current paragraph to some other article on the history of Portugal might also be a good option. FilipeS 14:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal withdrawn. On second thoughts, the topics of each article are quite different. FilipeS 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine McCann[edit]

Not too sure what this has to do with Tourism in the Algarve. I notice that there is already a reference to this under Praia da Luz and as such I doubt the relevance of it here. I'm removing it for the time being, if Wiki users desperately want it back then I suggest it be retitled "Notable events" or merged with the History section. VTSPOWER 10:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the Praia da Luz mention is needed since this village is inextricably linked in international media reports with the disappearance. However, the connection with this article is too remote. TerriersFan 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praia da Luz Is a village location in the algarve that has not yet made town status. whilst being in the media for the Madeline McCann dissapearence , it should not be merged with any history of the Algarve.it is a case that perhaps received more media attention that any other, for a missing child, whilst I respect the sensativity of the case,The algarve does not need to be listed for such a case, due to the longterm affects this could have on tourism for the country, the same way WikipediA does not nor should cover murders of tourist, that have taken place over the many years unless it was noted in the media as a civil unrest that caused such avents that they be recorded as part of the countries History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.126.85 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of the Algarves[edit]

I think a separate page for the Kingdom of the Algarves (and later of either sides of the sea...) would be great, with a template in the style of the one seen in Portuguese Malacca and Kingdom of Portugal.Câmara (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where does this image come from? waht is the origin of this coat of arms? it should be wither source or removed, as it seems to me as a possible hoax--BBird (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Coat of Arms of the historical Kingdom of the Algarve.
It wasn't me that added it, but I saw it in some maps of the XVIIth century, that, if I record correctly, were dutch-made. The title of the maps was something like "Portugalliae & Algarbii" and the coat-of-arms of Portugal and Algarve were shown (the algarvian coat-of-arms was shown next to algarve, without possible confusion). Here is one example: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3800/776/1600/1705-1739.jpg .

Please note that sometimes the coat-of-arms does not have an arab-dressed-like man but a black man with a "rambo-like" stripe, sometimes red, sometimes white (the link I indicated has the black man). I saw all these variations. I would like to know when this coat-of-arms was made, and if it is as old as the portuguese conquest of Algarve in 1249.Câmara (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a lecture given at the Municipal Library in Lagoa in March by the head of the heraldry club in the Algarve, and he showed this coat of arms (and explained it) as part of his lecture on the making of coats of arms. It is valid. I will try to find the notice of the lecture and get in touch with the lecturer so that we can add an appropriate reference. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the lecture notice -- no e-mail contact -- but the shield on it (slightly different) is for the Heraldic Society. I made a rough sketch of the shield for the King of the Algarve (or Kingdom -- "King" may be my abbreviation) which more or less matches the design under discussion. I did not note the background colours. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1666 version
Olhao version

I have now communicated with the heraldry expert in the Algarve, and he points out that the early crests of the kingdom are different from the one posted above.

  • the Moor is in profile and has a different head-dress (like a "sweat-band")
  • the colours in the quarters are different
  • this 1638 image shows the Moor on white backgrounds and the Portuguese king on red backgrounds.
  • a 1649 version shows the reverse — Moor on red and king on white backgrounds
  • another 1639 version shows a variant — Moor on white but Portuguese king on blue
  • and a 1622 map of Iberia shows the Moor on red and the king on blue!

I note a reference to something which might (or might not!) settle this: Francisco de Simas Alves de Azevedo, " O Brasão de Armas de Reino de Algave e algumas das suas fontes cartográaficas", Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa (June 1984). Perhaps I can find this and see what it says. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the Alves de Azevedo article, and it adds little. It refers to Armando de Matos, Evolução Historica das Armas Nacionais Portuguesas (Porto, 1939), pp. 121-122, but de Matos also has little to offer, again citing early maps, which seem to be the only source of these arms. When used alone they appear to be a version of what I posted from the 1638 map; when incorporated into a larger coat of arms for the king, the same elements are used. I suppose what we need is a proper creation of the arms, similar in style to the 1638 version, but of the quality of the modern fictional one above. Who does these? Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were made by Commons User:Brian Boru (who is also a registered user here, as User:Brian Boru, and also at the Portuguese wikipedia, amongst others, as Usuário:Andreas Herzog). The Ogre (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a version with a real source cite in wikimedia commons: Atlas Contractus, Amsterdam 1666. --Roksanna (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very different version (other colours, other field positions, other Moors) was taken in Olhao. --Roksanna (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy[edit]

The article about an alleged governor of the Algarve during the Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves really needs evidence. I suggest it to remove it. Both the Portuguese and the Spanish versions of Wikipedia's Reino do Algarve (Kingdom of the Algarve) mention the opposite: There was no real autonomy in the Algarve. The country name "Portugal and the Algarves" was a title for the king to stress that the Algarve was part of Portugal, due to some Castilian claims over the region. However, if I am wrong, could any of you show me evidence of Algarve's autonomy?

Reference?[edit]

Praia da Marinha, Lagoa was classified as one of the 100 most beautiful and well preserved beaches of the world.

Where is this from?--Catpochi (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this, as no ref has been provided. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

For some reason someone decided that all external links should be removed, even two links which have been in this article for years. I'm referring to the www.visitalgarve.pt, the official tourism site for the Algarve, www.allgarve.pt, the official summer events website, and the www.algarvedigital.pt, a public entity which controls technology development in the Algarve, is responsible for the internet connection and websites of all Algarve municipities and has a generic portal for the Algarve which is of great value to anyone learning about this Portuguese region.

I urge the editors removing those links to discuss them with other editors before doing so, it shows ignorance and lack of respect. Any of those sites are withing the external links guideline as they are official websites for the Algarve from official government entities.

Let's please stop the e-peen contest to see who has got the biggest one and discuss it as we should. There is no reason to remove those links. At most I could see that visitalgarve.pt and allgarve.pt are a bit similar as both are aimed for tourism and maybe one (allgarve.pt) could be removed. But visitalgarve.pt and algarvedigital.pt are absolutely relevant and important for this article.

If you want to remove those links then use real and direct arguments instead of just claiming they are not within policies, which would be untrue.

And please refrain from removing those links while this is being discussed, if they survived so many years untouched a few more days or weeks won't make a difference. --Xaman79 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach is that of a spammer I'm afraid. You make no contribution other than the placement of links. It is clear to me that not all the links you place are within policy. In replacing the links despite the warnings on your talk page you risk being blocked from editing.
In practice reference to policy is a very real argument - the fact that you are not prepared to see it that way is a pity. --Herby talk thyme 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally - you were asked to take this to discussion and not put back the links without agreement.
I have followed each link - I do not see any of them as being encyclopaedic, we are not a tourism directory.
Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How you classify my approach is irrelevant, you're just an editor as me, you're not the authority here. So if you wish to remove those links use real arguments, you can't just come here and remove links which have been in this article for years because you feel like it, and you may be blocked from editing if you continue to do so,m you have been asked to leave the links alone while this is being discussed. I wait your arguments, if you have any. --Xaman79 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I reviewed each link & removed them I gave a valid argument. This can be seen here. You seem to think this is a tourist directory when it is an encyclopaedia. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are flawed, one of the links is not tourism related, and Algarve is well known for being the biggest tourist location in Portugal and one of the biggest in Europe, thus a link to a tourism portal is important (as I said before, maybe one of the two tourism links could be removed, but one needs to stay as it's important and relevant to the article itself). Shows your ignorance to the subject, thus you shouldn't be editing in the first place or you should ask before removing links. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I suggest we reach a common ground and remove the allgarve.pt link, as one tourism link should be enough and keep visitalgarve.pt and algarvedigital.pt on the links. I find this reasonable. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note you acknowledge the fact that you want a tourism link in an encyclopaedia which is exactly my point. You seem to be interested in Wikipedia solely for the purpose of link placement. As such you should be blocked in my view.
All the links are tourism related - they are not the sort of links required in an encyclopaedia.
I have passed this over to others as a case of edit warring. We will leave it to them for now. --Herby talk thyme 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you think of me is irrelevant and not of my concern, you are failing to show arguments and only your pride seems to be preventing this to have a solution. You'll be surprised that those links were originally added by a Wikipedia admin, so you should be blocked if you continue with your selfish actions and ignorant behavior. You are turning this into a personal war and such as no place in Wikipedia. Those links are legitimate and should remain in this article. We shall let an admin decide on this, as it's obvious a consensus can't be reached with you. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the Hawaii externals links and you'll notice that they also include a link to their official tourism website. Here it shouldn't be any different, regardless of what you think of me, if I'm right then those links should be included, period. Your personal opinion of me is irrelevant if my arguments are valid, which is what it counts. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Xaman79 for edit warring, following a report by HT. Both Herbythyme and SiobhanHansa are very experienced editors who have worked on external links for a long time across a range of articles. Xaman79 is bordering on an aggressive SPA adding links in with strength of personal feeling which suggests a conflict of interest and a previous block for spamming. The links themselves appear to be appropriate material for a links directory but are not a source for article content nor "official entity" websites for the country. Therefore I have taken them out. --BozMo talk 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I see these sites, I think they do not belong here. These are sites that typically go to an internet directory (where the internet directory can be linked here). Xaman79, these sites would be appropriate on an article on the tourism office article (where it is the official website), but these are not official websites of the Algarve, and hence, these links should be avoided. Moreover, the links are not intended to inform the reader with more information, they are intended to show the tourism possibilities (and there they might be a suitable reference when there is extended tourism information included in the article, though it may be difficult to attribute it correctly, and questions may arise if this is suitable as a reliable source). That the links are included for a long time does not mean that they therefor should stay (consensus can change, or maybe we did not notice it yet; see also 'what about X'). I think that now discussion should be on merit of the separate links here, awaiting consensus, before they are re-included. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge that visitalgarve.pt and algarvedigital.pt are included as links to this article. One is the official tourism website and the other the most official generic portal to the Algarve you can find, with links to public and non-profitable organizations. Both websites are within WP:EL and not including them is only hurting the readers. --Xaman (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again - this is an encyclopaedia not a tourist directory. People are more than capable of finding tourism sites for themselves.
There is no way we are hurting the readers by not having links.
I can see no reason to include one that is the most official generic portal to the Algarve you can find at all. Someone else will shortly be along with an argument that theirs is more official.--Herby talk thyme 12:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an official tourism website relevant to the article is does not make Wikipedia a tourist directory. You also should refresh you reading on the WP:EL as there is nothing there saying such websites should not be included, I suggest you open a discussion for that if you want to remove all tourism websites from the entire Wikipedia, otherwise if it's relevant to the article, which is the case here, it should be included.
And you are in fact hurting the readers by removing such links, as there is only one official tourism website for the Algarve, which is visitalgarve.pt, that includes relevant and reliable information about the Algarve, namely it's tourism. VisitAlgarve.pt is more than a tourism website, it's the front window of this region to the World by the Portuguese government. If your issue is that you don't have the proofs of this, let me know and I'll gladly present them.
I see all the reasons to include the most official generic portal to the Algarve, first because it's in compliance with the WP:EL and secondly because there's no other official site for it, I understand your ignorance on the subject, but as a native resident of Algarve I can assure you of this and there are other editors more knowledge of this region that can confirm this. There is in fact one website which would be more suitable than this one, the Civil Government of the District of Faro (Algarve), but it's only available in Portuguese, while Algarve Digital offers English as well.
I'd like to ask you to read this link, as it explains what the algarvedigital.pt project is all about and then argue if it's relevant or not --Xaman (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP:EL, links that should be included:
# Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.
1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
Visitalgarve.pt is an official website controlled by an official government entity and covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable (tourism). Therefore there is no valid argument not to include this link or to have removed it in the first place.
I also consider that Civil Government of the District of Faro (Algarve) should also be included, although it is not in English, it's the official website of the government controlling the district of Faro, which is the Algarve region. --Algarvean (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on these links but this argument as presented is completely invalid and an exact copy of the incorrect argument used by Xaman79, which is suggestive. There are at least 200 official UK government websites pretty much for example all for things for which the UK is notable. WP:EL does not imply we include them all. If the page is an entity with a single official website maybe but gov sites on tourism are not automatic./--BozMo talk 17:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom is a good example. It includes links to multiple different official websites for the UK, including one for their official tourism guide and a link to the Wikitravel article. I don't see how those links are more relevant to the UK as the links proposed to the Algarve, which currently has no links at all. It seems clear that the general consensus for Wikipedia editors is that travel/tourism links are relevant to articles and should be included. But I believe only official tourism websites should be included, not third-party or commercial ones. --Algarvean (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is any WP admin taking a look at this discussion? I don't understand why the link to the Algarve official tourism site has been removed and can't be re-added. For those who are not aware, the region Algarve is refereed to a touristic and geographic area of Portugal, there isn't any official government bodies ruling over the Algarve, officially it's the district of Faro. The term Algarve is mainly used for tourism board and for some other geographic denominations (wine, traditional products, etc), so there is no logic reasoning to remove the link to the Algarve official tourism board. I request that the link to VisitAlgarve.pt is reinstated. If you have any questions regarding what I said here please feel free to ask. --Algarvean (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This URL has been added to the central Spam blacklist so it is not actually possible to add it (I just tried). I guess we need to look at why --BozMo talk 20:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely it's directly related to this article, due to resubmission of the link after being removed and then the person who removed it reporting it as spam. If it's decided this link should be added to this article then it should be removed from the spam blacklist, as that was the reason for being there in the first place (incorrectly in my opinion). --Algarvean (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory it means that more than one language objected and it was added to more than one article but I will have to look through the archives

--BozMo talk 19:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check this article on the portuguese WP you'll see that this site is part of the external links. Probably overzealous by one of the admins due to the resubmission of this link to this specific article and not related to others. --Algarvean (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note This link is a restricted link(#2), due to blacklisting. Users Algarvean (talk · contribs) is Xaman79 (talk · contribs) and the accounts have been blocked for disruption and multi project Sock/spamming. Closed--Hu12 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Algarve. 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) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Algarve → The Algarve – Just like The Bronx, it seems to be most commonly referred to with the "The". Unreal7 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose not sure this is the same as The Bronx In ictu oculi (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This case is more parallel to "the Ukraine" and "the Camargue". While a "the" is fairly common in sources it is not used at all consistently (often even in the same publication). It is thus very distinct from cases like the Hague and the Bronx which almost never occur in RS without a "the" except in adjectival usage. The usage here – fairly common – doesn't equate to WP:COMMONNAME when WP:THE directly militates against it; it has to be an overwhelmingly preferred usage. Otherwise, for example, almost every single university article would be moved to "The University of Whatever" and "The Whatever University" (except those with a leading biographical or geographical name as the very first word, like Johns Hopkins University or Oxford University), and same with most articles on government agencies, non-profit organizations, many companies, numerous products, etc. They all show the same usage pattern of commonly being prefixed with "the" in various sentence constructions but also commonly found without it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish's comment. --Ptko (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplicated definite article[edit]

As many Portuguese friends have pointed out (and one or two Arabic speakers!), it is unnecessary to add 'The' in front of Algarve, as the Al part means the same thing - and 'The The West' would be a ridiculous name for a region. So, I'm happy to edit this article to remove the error, but I think it might be wise to check here first whether that would appear overly pedantic. We could of course add a brief explanatory note that in some other countries (especially the UK) a redundant additional definite article is often added in colloquial speech. Is that a constructive contribution?Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your Portuguese friends have misled you. A definitive article is always used in Portuguese. The Algarve is O Algarve. While the region's name origin in fact does come from the Arabic for "the west" (Al-Gharb), "Al" is in no way a definitive article in Portuguese. There is no redundancy in saying The Algarve as the name is Portuguese, albeit of Arabic origin, and has no literal definition in Portuguese as it is purely a proper name (therefor no one is ever saying "the the west"). I am from Portugal and literally any portuguese will refer to the region as o Algarve, I have no idea what your friends are talking about. Similarly, the views of Arabic speakers in the matter are not germane. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that highly informative reply, Cristiano. The Portuguese definite article can cause confusion when supplanted into English - hence the tendency of British travel firms to still refer to Porto as 'Oporto', but I take your point. It might, conceivably, be a result of most of my Portuguese contacts coming from the north of the country - but you've persuaded me that we don't need to make a change to this article. 'Much appreciated.Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“The Algarve”[edit]

The region is called "Algarve," not "The Algarve." When translating from Romance languages into English, the article is normally dropped, especially for proper nouns. We don't translate "la France" as "the France." The article needs to be corrected to reflect this. 98.156.119.111 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Algarve&oldid=1198394411"