Talk:Lusophone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Portugal Portal
Lusophone is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do:


[edit] Transwiki

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

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)

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)

  • 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)
    This is a very reasonable idea. mikka (t) 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "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)
    • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to include everything, including specific terms. What's your problem?...Miguel

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)

[edit] Lusosphere or Lusophony?

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