![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The intro mentions that "[Belem Tower] is an UNESCO World Heritage Site (along with the nearby Jerónimos Monastery) because of the significant role it played in the Portuguese maritime discoveries of the era of the Age of Discoveries."
However, exactly what this role is is left unmentioned in the rest of the article. Could anyone add a bit more on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.142.175 ( talk) 01:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought Belem Tower was a coastal fort, meant to guard that entrance to the capital, but the article says it is a lighthouse. Can anyone explain this to me, since all the information and research I've done points to my point mentioned above?-- Ciga 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) I've seen no light on the top[ of the Belem Tower, it was a fort. CristianChirita
It was used as a lighthouse, in 1865. You can find the information here: http://www.mosteirojeronimos.pt/web_torre_belem/frameset.html
Drakron 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you thing of moving this gallery to the Commons page ?
--
OsvaldoGago
22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should vote at:
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries
I don't understand this point of view, is not enough space for hosting the pictures, are the pictures not related to the article, can someone picture, the Belem tower, in words, better then in images? CristianChirita 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Another subject: By the way I noticed you put the name "Chirita" on some of those images (like this one or this one). Did you know that this is against the Image use policy (rules of thumb) (an official policy) ? (Quote: ...Don't put credits in images themselves...) The credits of images should go on image pages, not in images themselves. But this is something I believe you did't know and that you will fix easilly :-) -- OsvaldoGago 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Plese delete the images that disturb you you have this right, you have the right to act.I've put the pictures in the article, hoping that in some day some one will have a better picture and a better comment. At least i've tried.
Any policy is subject to changes, and if not .. then it is only censorship :) anyway my policy is different, and anyone has the right to change the page I've uploaded or to delete the page.
"after the Great Earthquake of 1755 shifted the course of the river" This is a Hoax, legend and stupid idea. Prove (documentation) this afirmation, please. (Luigimalatesta)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 31, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-05-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There is something wrong in the infobox in the material section. It shows only that it is made of wood. Alts ( talk) 23:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Belém Tower. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Average Portuguese Joe: I'm not convinced that this change is an improvement. The new photo is from much the same angle as the photo in the infobox except more distant, and its merits are artistic rather than documentary. Subjectively, I preferred the old photo, which showed the building in greater detail and from a different aspect.
What do others think? Dave.Dunford ( talk) 12:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Dave.Dunford: You can change it back to how it was before, I was just trying to improve the quality of some photos, if you think this is not an improvement at all, you can change it. I have no problem with that. Average Portuguese Joe ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)