A committee member provided the following comment:
According to the article Reforms of Portuguese orthography, Portuguese and Brazilian philologists and institutions support unified language. Consequently, the basis for the request doesn't exist. --Millosh (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
"Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin"). Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
[[:File:Pt-wikipedia-stats.PNG|thumb|Origin of contributors]]
135x135 PNG derivative from a decent SVG image (instructions)
The two languages (Portuguese Portugal and Brazil) have significant differences to the introduction of the European Portuguese in wikipedia. May not include many differences but the phonetic big differences and not only the phonetic as writing the words. Words spoken and are written the same way but have different meanings in both languages but also in the overall syntax of sentences. The Brazilians aggressively dominate the Wiki and have imposed their standards on european portuguese speakers. --Ti4gopt (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose on the Grounds that there are many Languages with diverse dialects that share a Wikipedia. English being one of them, spelling and pronunciation differences vary greatly between British English, Scottish English, Midwest English, Southern English, Australian English, Californian English, etc.; and yet we find ways to get along on the same wiki. Quechua is a fine example, being a Macro-language of 44 quite distinct dialects, many of which are barely intelligible with each other, but they too have found a way to get along on the same wiki. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
And I Oppose with you. But in this case not the coexistence between the mother language and dialect, as are Brazilians dominate the Lusophone Wikipedia--Ti4gopt (talk)16:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
From the LPP, third point: "The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language." This criterium is obviously not fulfilled here, thus I suggest to reject this proposal. Vogone (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The real problem is that Wikipedia Lusophone is well divided, because at this point is completely in Brazilian.--Ti4gopt (talk)18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
And in the past there was Wikipedia Brazil, but was abandoned by the free will of Brazilians, if there is European Portuguese, I am sure it will not be abandoned.--Ti4gopt (talk)18:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
We are not only having Portuguese in Brazil and in Portugal, but also having Portuguese in Angola, Cape Verde, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Macau. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Portuguese is barely spoken in Macau nowadays. -Rolando
This proposal is not so ill-founded as it may seem. The reason why English Wikipedia is able to cope with so many language variants is because it has many editors and variants permanently reminding they all have to get along. Portuguese Wikipedia is 80%-90% edited by brazilians, and around 10% by portuguese. All other lusophone editors, beyond brazilian and portuguese are residual. That is why the need to get along is not so visible and well dealt. Not only in terms of orthography, but also in understanding what is culturally notorious. Brazilian editors tend to think that only what's known in their country is important, or more important than others, misjudging portuguese and other culture's themes and sources of information as inadequate. The only flaw in the proposal, in my opinion is: despite all this, it seems there are not many portuguese, yet, declaring the intention to make the rupture here (although many frequently threaten to do so on Wiki-pt).--18.104.22.168 20:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I Support the idea. There are few Portuguese editors in Portuguese-language Wikipedia. Most are Brazilians, and there are politics that allows to change the local Portuguese dialect from European to Brazilian to follow other articles of the same theme. Sometimes I feel that is a dispise of European Portuguese variant, from the Brazilian speakers. There are so many differences between EU-PT and BR-PT, and there is a ongoing discussion in the real world about Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990, that aproximates EU-PT to BR-PT. This Agreement is rejected by almost all EU-PT speakers. Cdmafra (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Origin of contributors
Oppose Can't we use LanguageConverter to transliterate pt-PT and pt-BR?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia editions are divided by languages. Portuguese Wikipedia edition is in Portuguese language and not Brazilian Portuguese or European Portuguese. These are a variety of the same language. If the rules accepted languages variations we would have also Angolan Portuguese Wikipedia, Mozambican Portuguese Wikipedia, and why not Alentejan Portuguese and many others. See w:pt:Categoria:Dialetos_da_língua_portuguesa. As user Vogone said, this violates one fundamental rule to request new Wikipedia editions: in Language_proposal_policy, Requisites for eligibility (...) The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language. For this reason this was rejected in the past:
Those problems described here by some users must be solved in another place, in Portuguese Wikipedia for example, and not in this page since goes against one fundamental rule to create new Wikipedia editions. By the way, as a Portuguese I never saw Brazilians or any other national imposing "their" standards, unless we are talking about someone telling us to cite references in articles we write is "imposing" their standards. Tentre (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Just because there are differences with European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese doesn't mean that this Wikipedia should be created. The first, second, and third requests have been rejected, so this just won't work and this request would also probably be rejected as well. In other words, dialects of Portuguese that are "different" can't get a Wikipedia since it's basically just the same language with a few differences. Enough said. --TrooperAnimalLover