Talk:Portuguese Wikipedia

"clivation"?

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

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

Please add some references

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)

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

Proposed deletion

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)

New Namespace

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)

Sources

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)

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)

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)

Portuguese Wikipedia

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

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

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

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

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. José Luiz ^talk 02:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
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.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

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

Wikipedia Signpost

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)