Talk:Tropicália

Fado?

I believe that fado, a portuguese typical music, is not a influence in Tropicália. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.47.150.35 (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tropicalia.jpg

Image:Tropicalia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

External link suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this feature-length essay about Tropicália/Tropicalismo. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the piece and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section of this page. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

the music

does anyone know abot the music of Tropicalismo.

86.135.255.182 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Tropicalismo → Tropicalia – Tropicalia redirects to Tropicalismo but it should be the reverse. I never heard the term Tropicalismo in my life. Perhpas it's used more often in England or Australia but considering the Brazilians refer to it as Tropicalia and the ENTIRE ARTICLE refers to it as Tropicalia, the title of the article should be changed as well. 98.14.235.158 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Tropicalia → Tropicália –

• Portuguese orthography is generally followed here. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I don't think diacritics are uncontroversial in the present environment. In addition, most of the sources in the articles just use "Tropicalia". Jenks24 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Portuguese orthography is followed, generally, in our article titles, cf. e.g. António de Oliveira Salazar and Batalhão de Infantaria de Montanha. —Srnec (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think non-English orthography should ever be considered uncontroversial. What's wrong with waiting the week standard RMs take? 65.94.77.207 (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe Portuguese orthography for Portuguese-language terminology should ever be considered controversial. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: per WP:UE. The OP's statement about Portuguese orthography is pretty much pure WP:OP WP:OR Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean WP:OR? WP:OP is about open proxies... Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Oops! Too many acronyms! Thanks for pointing that out. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
      • What is supposed to be OR here? The spelling "Tropicália"? Or my assertion about our standard practice, backed up with two examples? Srnec (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
        • The claim that "Portuguese orthography is generally followed here". Two examples that happen to fit your claim is hardly proof. And before you come back with a list of ten, that's still not proof or a good reason. WP:UE is policy, and we're supposed to supply proper policy arguments for these discussions. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What's this? WP:OR is about the content of articles, nothing else. It is not about researching what Wikipedian practice is; nor is it about determining the best title for an article. Read the policies and guidelines first, so that you won't misrepresent them at RMs. Noetica^Tea? 02:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone is making a statement without supporting proof, it's OR no matter where it is. Stop trying to be patronising. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a highly original view, Abs. It is not a matter of patronising; it's a matter of calling for accuracy. The nutshell summary of the policy page WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

And the detail of the policy bears that out. It's all about what content appears in articles. A prohibition beyond that would be a prohibition on the sort of dialogue we are having here and now – or on discussion toward the development of policies and guidelines for the project, or on their even having content that is unique to Wikipedia.

Of course we can allege that statements in discussion are unsupported by evidence; but WP:OR itself is not a basis for such allegations.

Noetica^Tea? 21:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Either support the statement or stop making it. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes what it what? And who are you asking to support what statement? Noetica^Tea? 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica is completely correct that WP:OR, as a policy, applies to article content, and to no more. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". Since you know the policy, I didn't think I needed to quote it for you. But note also that policy is based on convention, and my two examples were meant to show our convention in this matter. A Google Books search, which you can do yourself, shows that the spelling Tropicália has an edge, or at least that there is no established preference for one spelling or the other. Srnec (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I did several searches, and I would thank you to stop suggesting otherwise. "Tropicalia" has a 3:1 prevalence over "Tropicália", so this is pretty much case closed - it should stay here. Non-English spellings shouldn't be used on the English language Wiki when their usage predominates. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please report the details of those searches here, Abs. Their precise construction needs open scrutiny, before they can be accepted as weighty in this RM. Noetica^Tea? 21:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do the damn searches yourself. Stop bugging me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to be rude, AN. No one wants to "bug" you. You claim that certain searches give certain evidence. We are entitled to ask for the details, that's all. I report full details of searches I do all the time. It's a good habit. Noetica^Tea? 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. There is indeed a presupposition that standard diacritics of major European languages (especially Western European) will be retained in titles. This acute accent is not burdensome to keep, and in Portuguese (as in Spanish, and intuitively for English readers of those languages) its presence or absence is decisive for how to stress a word. Lacking the acute, "Tropicalia" would be stressed on the last "i" – by my understanding of standard Portuguese orthography, anyway. It is lazy, provincial, and disrespectful to drop it. And unhelpful to readers. Noetica^Tea? 02:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Quite a few of the English sources and external links in the article do use the acute accent so, as it does no harm, there's no reason not to use it here for reasons of accuracy. —  AjaxSmack  23:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.