Talk:Portuguese Wikipedia

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, June 23, 2009, see discussion. Keep, February 18, 2007, see discussion.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge 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 Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... 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 Brazil Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Reference works (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

I'm pretty sure "clivation" is not an English word. Perhaps "fork" or "branch" is better here? --ESP 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are correct. --Jonik 16:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to prove the notability of this topic can be found at this search at Google News Portugal. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These searches are a bit more focused. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since today proposed deletion is available. It works on basically the same grounds of wiki.en and a article must be proded for four days before being deleted. The name is pt:Wikipedia:Eliminação semirrápida. Lechatjaune (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In portuguese we use other namespace that we call Anexo. They can be list of something, tables, timelines... that complete an article. They can't exist without an main article. For example, the article Timeline of New Zealand history in portuguese wikipedia it would be an annex (Anexo). I'm not really fluent in English so if you I wrote here and I hope someone introduce this information in the article. Thanks. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User JBRibeiro1 eliminated a sentence in the text which states that personal conflicts between users are particularly frequent in pt:WP. I reverted this edit, because I know by years of personal experience that the statement is exact. I have been contributing to en:WP, pt:WP, de:WP, fr:WP, and es:WP, and pt:WP is the only version where I have found that personal conflicts, often of a deplorably low level, are frequent. Thus I am myself a source for the statement, and many other users of pt:WP, if asked, would serve as sources. In fact, on this kind of statement, the testimony of users is the only possible source (unless somebody spends a substantial portion of his time screening the talk pages of pt:WP.....) --Aflis (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aflis, I'll call mediation because "your testimony" is original research unless you publish it and get it peer reviewed. Note that it's not the same as to say you're wrong. For example, "my testimony" (and I'm there for almost four years) is different than yours. It's not Wikipedia that will solve this. Please, state your sources or remove the challenged statement. José Luiz ^talk 21:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Luiz: my knowledge of the matter is not based on any kind of research, but on facts observed while I have (for many years now) been active on a variety of talk pages. Being a sociologist, I am aware that in this case one could speak of research only if a representative sample of talk pages was examined. Which is not my intention to undertake, becasue my priorities are others. However, adding my own experiences to those of several other users, I think I have a solid basis for agreeing with the user who made the statement you obviously don't like. NB: For methodology's sake, I should like to add that I, like any other user, am not interested in the whole range of articles, but in a more or less clearly defined segment. In my case, mainly Subsaharan Afria, chiefly the Lusophone countries (although I sometimes edit pages which do not at all belong to this segment). This means that, inevitably, my experiences reflect what is going on in this particular field, and that the experiences people make in other fields are different. But I have to add that I am working in the same field, in other WPs, and that there nasty experiences are far less frequent than on pt:WP. - Asking me to "state my sources" does, of course, make no sense in a case lika this. The only sources which can exisist in this kind of situation is the experience of users. Thus, for the time being, we have the author of the statement you contest, and my own testimony. I could, of course, indicate a number of users who have made experiences similar to mine on pt:WP, but I think that would not be correct. However, I am reasonably sure that some of them will discover this discussion and join in. -- Aflis (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Wikipedia

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Jbribeiro1 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Jbribeiro1 (talk · contribs)
3. Aflis (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Portuguese Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Portuguese Wikipedia#Sources

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Bold statement unsourced.
2. "Sources" clearly (and admittedly) WP:OR.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

1. Agree. José Luiz ^talk 02:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. -- Aflis (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC) NB: The statement in question is in my view neither bold nor unsourced. The only possible source are the experiences of the users of pt:WP, and many if not most of these will regard the statement as reflecting a fact of life. Qualifying the experiences made by users in the course of their editing as WP OP does in my view make no logical sense.[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Solved here. José Luiz ^talk 01:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2020, the Portuguese Wikipedia was the subject of an article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-01/News and notes. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]