Talk:Porto Alegre

World Social Forum
Porto Alegre hosts many conventions or groups of people meeting there. Doubtless from within and without Grande do Sul. The inclusion of: "In recent years, Porto Alegre hosted the World Social Forum, an initiative of several Non Government Organizations which criticize the supremacy of capitalism in the international economic relations, and advocate that Governments and corporations should have a deeper social concerns when implementing their politics." borders on characterizing the City as the host of this group. That is untrue. How this group meets there is a private or business matter and that need to be pointed out in the paragraph about the WSF. I'm interested in reading others responses.Mark Preston (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
This page has problems with copyright; This section is identical to several other web sites, like the Brazilian Tourism Portal. What should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.2.94 (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

so this appears to be partly lifted from http://www.braziltour.com/site/en/cidades/materia.php?estados=348&id_cidade=3091&regioes=208 a brazilian tourism site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.175.43 (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

City Name in English
Why report my change of "Happy Port" to "Gay Port" as a vandalism? Happy Port is the translation for "Porto Feliz", not for "Porto Alegre". Alegre in English is Gay, not Happy. The "Happy Port" is an equivalent for the "Porto Feliz" city, in São Paulo state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.83.133.147 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I've taken the liberty of reverting your changes for now. If you still feel it should read "gay port", please be sure to provide some reliable sources. Thanks. -- Seed 2.0 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't my fault the fact of the jokes about the gay people of Porto Alegre in Brazil, but the fact is the name of the city means Gay Port in english. We can't endanger the quality of the article only because some morons make jokes about the people from Porto Alegre. If Porto Alegre means "Happy Port", what about the city of Porto Feliz? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.83.133.147 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I've changed it to "Glad Port" to keep it distinct from Porto Feliz, while also retaining its proper meaning. In recent years, the word 'gay' has changed from its now outdated meaning, 'happy' or 'joyous,' and therefore is not an accurate reflection of the Portuguese word, 'alegre.' Corvokarasu 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure the word 'gay' is perhaps most commonly used to refer to homosexuality these days, but the original meaning, 'happy' or 'joyous', is still valid and recognized by most English speakers. Many English words have multiple meanings and the vast majority of English speakers can differentiate between those meanings.  I'm no linguist, but if the literal translation of 'Alegre' is 'gay', then I think that's how the article should read.  If you feel it is necessary, maybe add 'happy' in brackets, or simply remove the translation altogether as it is unreferenced and adds little to the article.  Substituting a synonym doesn't seem appropriate to me. Strobilus 20:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I googled the English translations of alegre on the internet and found no refererence to the word 'gay.' It was almost always translated as 'happy' or 'joyous.'  The latter makes the most sense, since feliz is the equivalent of 'happy' already.  (In fact, during the year I lived in Porto Alegre, it was always 'joyous (joyful) port' in my mind, since alegria means 'joy.')  I've included a reference within the article.  I'd be happy to hear what you think of the translation. Corvokarasu 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Joyous' reads alot better than 'glad', and is referenced to boot. Nice work. Strobilus 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As an english speaker (born and bred) living in Porto Alegre I've always translated it into Happy Port and I'm from the time when gay didn't have two meanings.Alesome (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I can also say as an English speaker that spent extensive time living in Porto Alegre, 'gay port' is not an accurate translation of the city's name into English. In fact there are very few, if any, reliable sources that suggest otherwise. The correct English translation is 'Joyous Port'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummingbird04 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not "Merry Port"? 72.14.165.102 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am an English speaker born and bred in Porto Alegre, and I say that 'Happy Port' sounds kinda weird. As I read the article and laid my eyes on the English translation of the city name, I could not help but feel that the word was misused. Perhaps the word 'happy' is more suitable for designating an individual's mood, not like it is used in the article. Additionally, the word 'feliz' translates into 'happy' or 'merry', depending on the context. 'Alegria' translates beautifully into 'joy' - not 'happiness' - so why not change the name to 'Joyous Port'? As for 'gay', I honestly don't understand why some insist on translating 'alegre' to 'gay', since that word has gained a completely different meaning since the 1950s. I can only think of it as lack of information or a bad joke. Cbvweirich (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Time Scale
This graph has absolutely no consistancy in the number of years between each incriment. The first incriment is a 22 year jump but the last one is a 1 year jump with everything else in between. What's the deal? -Dave 22:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How about some information on the Participatory Budget in Porto Alegre? For many this feature is what makes (or once made) Porto Alegre stand out. (davc)

City name in right hand box
The current city name is only "Porto Alegre", and not "Loyal and Valiant City of Porto Alegre" (mui leal e valorosa cidade de porto alegre). This "long name" was a title given to the city by Central Forces during Farrapos War (Guerra dos Farrapos). This long name remains in the city heraldry and flag, but this is not the city's name. Thus, I'm reverting this change. hawck 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree on the nickname being the Gaúcho capital: most people would call it just "Porto" (spoken) or "poa" (written, from Porto Alegre). I'm not editing this, I want people to discuss this topic. hawck 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, it is much more usual people calls Porto Alegre as POA, and not sd Gaúcho capitol. Bruno SL 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at other articles, the nicknames are not what the city is mostly commonly called, but what distinction it has. For reference see this. Corvokarasu 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Test page


 * I disagree with you Corvokarasu.
 * São Paulo's = "terra da garoa" or "sampa" (infobox)
 * Rio de Janeiro = "cidade maravilhosa" (first paragraph)
 * Florianópolis = "floripa" (infobox)
 * Belo Horizonte = "BH" (infobox)
 * which matches how most people call these cities nowadays. Hence, for the sake of consistency, we should use either "Porto" or "Poa".hawck 14:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

editions
hi! i have added some info to Museums (Museum Felizardo and Museum Júlio) and Historical Buildings (Piratini Palace) sections, but my english is not perfect. could someone take a look and check the wording? thanks!Ricardofrantz 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation removed
In June of 2007, material was added to this article in bulk here, copied directly from this website. That site has specific re-use allowances which are inconsistent with GFDL (see here), and this material has had to be removed. Contributors to this article are welcome to rewrite that material in their own words, but it must not be reinstated otherwise. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously. Users who violate copyright in spite of warnings may need to be blocked from contributing to protect the project and the rights of copyright holders. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I am checking over other contributions from that source and locating other copyright violations. I have just removed a paragraph copied and pasted from this website, with only a one word change. As with the above, this and subsequent violations I identify may only be included if rewritten from scratch to avoid copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
I believe I have cleaned all of the extensive copyright violations that were introduced on June 2th (see section immediately above). I have not removed images even if associated with text that has been removed. I will leave that to regular editors of this article or for those with more of an eye to design. Accordingly, I have tagged this article for cleanup-images in the hopes of attracting someone who can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Participatory budgeting
have added a section on participatory budgeting to this article. Porto Alegre is pretty notable for that (apparently the first example of a fully fledged participatory budgeting process on this scale). The section is a cut and paste from the participatory budgeting article and might need some work/editing to fit better into this article.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Poorly Written
This article contains sentences such as "The bars here are great," and "the popular music scene is good here." This article looks like it is written by a seventh grader. It needs to be fixed. Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Demographics
"3,218,000 White people (79.94%), 477,000 Brown (Multiracial) people (11.84%), 300,000 Black people (7.45%), 19,000 Amerindian people (0.48%), 8,000 Asian people (0.20%)."

This is a lie! I live here, and it's more like: White (15%), Multiracial (60%)... I don't know why people write this lies in Wikipedia, anyone who visit the city can know this 80% white is a big lie, of course there are neighborhoods where it is like 70% white, but they are exceptions... Maybe for the rest of Rio Grande do Sul it's 30% white, and in some cities it's 70%... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.3.224 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alluvial port?
This article makes mention several times of "Alluvial port". Assuming that what was intended by the author was to state that the city is a port on a river, should this not be "fluvial port", which is also very similar to the Portuguese "porto fluvial"? Interestingly, if you Google "Alluvial port" in quotes, it comes up almost exclusively with the text from this page (and a large number of other pages with the identical text...). I am interested to find out whether or not I am mistaken on this, so have not taken the liberty of editing the original text. Thank you. 177.81.39.225 (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Porto Alegre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040612173617/http://www.brasilalemanha.com.br:80/informativo02.htm to http://www.brasilalemanha.com.br/informativo02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription
I do not understand why [ˈpoɾtw-] has been edited out. The pronunciation [ˈpoʁtu-] is simply wrong, first because [u] becomes [w] in any dialect of Portuguese in this environment; and secondly, because the rhotic [ʁ] in coda position simply does not exist in Porto Alegre and in the state of Rio Grande do Sul for that matter. Why can Campinas in São Paulo have its final sibilant transcribed as [s] and the same phonemic sibilant in Caxias in RJ be transcribed as [ʃ] reflecting local pronunciations, but the rhotic in Porto Alegre can't have its pronunciation respected? LandgraabIV (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Help:IPA/Portuguese guide does not cover the Porto Alegre dialect but the general Brazilian pronunciation used by the majority and in the mainstream media. The IPA-pt template is not for transcribing Wikipedia recordings but for transcribing Portuguese words into IPA following the conventions in the guide per Manual of Style/Pronunciation.
 * Coda is not wrong but non-local and that's different. We can reinstate  since it contrasts with  only in verbal conjugation. This is something we should fix in all our transcriptions and that's what I'll try to do in the following days/weeks (this will likely introduce other discrepancies between the IPA and recordings, but that is something even the writers of the famous Longman Pronunciation Dictionary had to deal with - see . You can't have it all.)
 * There's likely a parallel problem with the coda rhotic in IPA transcriptions of Spanish. Help:IPA/Spanish tells us to write it as an alveolar tap, but there are dialects in which it is trilled.
 * I'll change the coda sibilant in Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro to . Per guide, this is the only allowed transcription. I'll try to fix that in our transcriptions as well. You should know that even a month ago they were far messier, inconsistent and not in line with the guide than they are now. I've made about 1000 edits trying to fix that, but I cannot replace any recordings as I'm not a native speaker and my pronunciation of nasal vowels (present in many words) is bad. Sol505000 (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To me this seems like import of the English tradition of normativization of the pronunciation (e.g. RP), which is foreign to Portuguese. We have never had a rigid normativization of the pronunciation akin to RP or General American, let alone of rhotics down to their phonetic realizations. In my 5 years of teaching Portuguese as an additional language at UFRGS as a PhD student in linguistics I have never encountered that. I'd like to see the data backing up the claim that it is used by the majority, given that it is absent in some of the most populous states (São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná) and many other areas of Minas Gerais and Santa Catarina. "Mainstream media" is weird too, since even on national TV [ɾ] is arguably just as common as [ʁ]. Same thing with the sibilants, both are very common on national TV. I could agree with your strife for consistency if it were phonemic transcriptions, not phonetic ones. I don't know who controls or decides these policies, but I hope it changes back to the way it was before. Language is messy, phonetic transcriptions should reflect that. LandgraabIV (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is more about transcription. In the syllable coda, neither the rhotics nor the sibilants contrast. This means that it doesn't matter whether you use the hard or soft R, or whether you use the alveolar or postalveolar sibilant. The meaning stays the same. A great example of this are German pronunciation dictionaries: while they acknowledge all the pronunciation variants of an individual sound, they give one normalized transcription that covers all of this variation. They don't write for Dorn 'thorn', they settle on  (Duden) or  (Krech et al., which we follow on Help:IPA/Standard German in that regard). There's a whole chapter on those conventions in both of those dictionaries. There, we can learn that coda  in German typically varies between a uvular approximant or an open central semi-vowel after short vowels, but is most often the latter after long vowels (so that mehr 'more' is, but considering the fact that  is just a transcriptional convention itself and that semivowel does not have one stable pronunciation, it can be a mere lengthening of  and  and a phonetic zero after : , leading to a three-way merger of ,  and . It's a bit complicated and there is LOTS of variation). The IPA guides we have on WP are our counterpart of those chapters, except that those guides are stripped down to the bare essentials, while Portuguese phonology (or Standard German phonology, etc.) covers the rest. So I don't believe that Language is messy, phonetic transcriptions should reflect that. If the mess can be avoided, we avoid it. Free variations should be relegated to the guide (or the phonology article if they are trivial enough, e.g. you need IPA diacritics to show the difference).
 * Portuguese phonology is poorly sourced, but Barbosa & Albano 2004 say that there's a variation regarding the rhotics but the neutralized sibilant is alveolar (they don't bring up the postalveolar realization). A change to ⟨ɾ⟩ in the coda may be a good idea (meaning: a change in all IPA transcriptions of BP linking to the Help:IPA/Portuguese guide) because that'd bring together Brazilian and European Portuguese (one difference less to worry about), but I don't know about ⟨s⟩ → ⟨ʃ⟩ in the coda. If they are equally common, ⟨ʃ⟩ would be a good choice because then we'd be using the same rhotic and sibilant codas in all of our transcriptions, European and Brazilian. Sol505000 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)