Talk:Portuguese vocabulary

Use of ?
This article invokes, but that is not (nor has ever been) a valid use of Template:M on the English WP. I suspect it has been copied over from another 'pedia. Can anyone enlighten me on where it comes from, and what a suitable replacement might be? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Portuguese vocabulary. 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 tag to http://www.scielo.mec.pt/scielo.php?script
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115064222/http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/G0062100.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/G0062100.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229083536/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE16.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE16.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203214346/http://bartleby.com/61/roots/IE434.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE434.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704184247/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE143.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE143.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212064417/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE48.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE48.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210224507/http://bartleby.com/61/roots/IE344.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE344.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018072946/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE582.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE582.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224155507/http://www.bartleby.com/61/23/S0582300.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/23/S0582300.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810180926/http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/A0006500.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/A0006500.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202222657/http://bartleby.com/61/roots/IE37.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE37.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060519035935/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE295.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE295.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213123316/http://bartleby.com/61/roots/IE205.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE205.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210155701/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE54.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE54.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203212528/http://bartleby.com/61/roots/IE45.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE45.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204231735/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE498.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE498.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210012138/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE572.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE572.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518045152/http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/hlp/gramhist/index.html to http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/hlp/gramhist/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Examples and article title
This article needs to decide what it's about. Either almost all the examples of Portuguese vocabulary have to be removed per WP:EXAMPLEFARM, leaving only a few which improve understanding of the body content by illustrating some important point being made, or else the title of the article needs to be changed to "List of Portuguese vocabulary words" to reflect the extensive number of words included here. And even then, I'm not so sure that's acceptable, whether sourced or not, since WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article in its current shape is utterly unencyclopedic. Many of the lists and list-style sections might have their proper place in Wiktionary, but not here. And what's crazy: although there is a separate article List of Portuguese words of Germanic origin, the subsection here is just as huge.
 * The prose part of the section "Germanic languages" preceding the list is in quite descent shape (but undersourced), and could serve as a model for what this article should actually look like. –Austronesier (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed; for starters, anything not sourced can be removed; then we can see where we are, which I suspect will be a list article. I've started a cull. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder about verifiability and copyright
Just a reminder that verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. From paragraph two of the policy:"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I have begun to remove unsourced material. If you are the author of this material, don't worry, your work is not "lost"; it is preserved in the history, and may easily be recovered. Just make sure to include a citation to a reliable source, and you can just reinsert the material.

Some of the etymological portions of entries look like copy-pastes from a dictionary or other source. According to Wikipedia's licensing requirements: Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. ... Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) Please avoid WP:Copying text from other sources, or using Close paraphrase. Summarize the material in your own words, and provide a citation to the source. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)