Talk:Lusophone

Portugal Low‑importance

This redirect 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

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-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

Languages

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles

Ethnic groups

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Culture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

Transwiki

It is way beyond dicdef. You must be kidding. mikka (t) 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not. It can contain absolutely no information that isn't better placed in either Portuguese language or any other Portuguese-related article. Really, there is no room for expansion other than by duplication of existing info. That it's sorted under language adjective doesn't exactly favor its inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is not entirely correct. Equatorial Guinea was a colony of Spain, not Portugal. Spanish is one of the two official languages. French is the other by virtue of being mostly surrounded by Francophone African nations. Chastwn (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe this should be merged with Lusitanic, but not with Portuguese language. Lusophone is a term to describe the speakers, not the language itself. It would be an interresting article if properly explored (especially the ethnical and cultural interactions between the different peoples and cultures). There are some interesting "things" in Lusitanic, over hispanic and Latino issues, but we could also explore the Latin African issues. Which is somewhat similar to what occured in Latin America - in a smaller scale, but with a different skin. --Pedro 20:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very reasonable idea. mikka (t) 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lusitanic" is very rare term. There are 900 Google hits for "Lusitanic" (even less if you exclude "lusitanic acid" and the copies of the wikipedia article itself). There are 500,000 pages that mention "lusophone". It might make sense to merge "Lusitanic" into "Lusophone" but not the other way around. Qaramazov 05:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this obsession with a separate term for Portuguese speakers just because there's a somewhat fancy term for it? Why can't this information be where people expect to find it? I.e. in the English wiktioary, articles like Portuguese language and the articles of the various Portugese language organizations. How is any of the information here or at Lusitanic made any more accessible by hiding in article titles that simply aren't encyclopedic? / Peter ^Isotalo 12:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has separate articles for the terms Francophone and Anglophone. Should we request that they be deleted as well ? 200.177.45.27 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Hispanophone. I think the precedent set here is that such terms get their own articles. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been very little proper discussion why these articles need to be kept. At least no one seems to be able to explain why any of the info doesn't belong in the main language articles or any the multitude of other sub-articles that belong to them. Most of the argumentation has been along the lines of deletionism vs. exclusionism, not why the articles need to be kept.

There are even attempts to argue the need for the articles within the articles themselves by the addition of weasly (and unverifiable) prose like "The notion of 'Lusophone' reaches beyond the dictionary definition of 'Portuguese speaker'."

Peter ^Isotalo 13:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is true, there's, for instance, lusophone culture, there's even a day for that. You can write a lot about this subject if there's someone willing to write it.--Pedro 14:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So write Lusophone culture then. Just don't try to write an article about the adjective. That's a very obvious target for transwikification to the wiktionaries.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to include everything, including specific terms. What's your problem?...Miguel — Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on the "Anglosphere" (a term I don't recall ever hearing in the English language media) for Anglophones. Why not start an article on the Lusophony? It's certainly used more often by the media than "Anglosphere"...

For PeterIsotalo: be sure not to miss any of these. FilipeS 12:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lusosphere or Lusophony?

It's called Lusofonia in Portuguese... FilipeS 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's no word "Lusophony" in English, just as there is no "Anglophony" or "Francophony." Just checked the Oxford English Dictionary. "Lusophony" as a word only seems to exist in the English-language Wikipedia, which is very embarrassing for all of us. It's a false translation. The correct term in English would be "Lusophone world." 05:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lusophone. 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://archive.is/20121217162839/https://domains.live.com/members/signup.aspx?domain=lusophone.org to https://domains.live.com/members/signup.aspx?domain=lusophone.org

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).

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) 07:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

map caption question

The intro defines Lusophonia as "countries and territories that recognize Portuguese as an official language." The map caption says "Nations in which Portuguese is an official language (de facto or de jure). Lusophone countries are a subset of those where Portuguese is the main native language." If this intends to make a distinction between Lusophonia and Lusophone countries, that might not be very clear or helpful.--142.163.195.187 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese speakers outside of 'official' countries

What do we call the community of Portuguese speakers who live in places other than the "10 sovereign states and territories that recognize Portuguese as an official language"?

Also, do Mozambicans, East Timorese, Brazilians, consider themselves as sharing a common ethnicity? Which is the given definition of "ethnolinguistic". --142.163.195.187 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the second question: an ethnolinguistic group is a common "type" of ethnic group whose members primarily self-identify with the group because of a shared language, NB the term can only be used for a single ethnic group. The usage in the lead is wrong (@142.163.195.187: well spotted). Portuguese speakers in Europe clearly can be called an ethnolinguistic group, because the European speakers self-identify with the ethnic term "Portuguese". But beyond that, the term doesn't work here. People of different ethnic groups (and there are lots of them in the Lusophone world) do not comprise an "ethnolinguistic group" just because they share a common first or second language for various historcal reasons. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We call them the community of Portuguese speakers or the Portuguese speaking community. This isn't difficult. --Khajidha (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Lusofonia?

Per WP:NOUN, “Lusophone”, as an adjective, is less than ideal as an article title. The English word Lusophony is a tad neologistic, but perhaps we could consider the precedent of Francophonie and simply use “Lusofonia”. Thoughts? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francophone is a redirect to Geographical distribution of French speakers. Francophonie is an article. Since Lusophone has became a redirect to Geographical distribution of Portuguese speakers, we could have both but as redirects to said article. Oğuzlar 13:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this redirect will ever return to an article, then it should be renamed to Lusofonia. Just like it's french counterpart Lusophonie. Oğuzlar 15:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]