Talk:Child labor in Brazil

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwxsib.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I wrote the first edition of this important issue. Hope people come and contribute!Jwxsib (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The reason to move here is WP:RETAIN: as Dohn joe points out, the article text consistently used American English from its creation. I gave no weight to arguments about WP:TIES since Brazil is not an English-speaking country. However, the RETAIN element of WP:ENGVAR is compelling, so the article will be moved to match the text. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Child labour in Brazil → Child labor in Brazil – 'labour' --> 'labor' per WP:ENGVAR; South American (except Falkland Islands and former British territories) usually use AmEng. A redirect at the requested title exists. Baffle☿gab 01:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support move per ENGVAR. ONR (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per WP:ENGVAR (specifically MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES). Brazil is not an English-speaking nation, so there are no strong national ties suggesting the use a particular variety of English in the article. Since the article was created with Commonwealth English, there's no good reason to change. Dohn joe (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Striking per below. Dohn joe (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MOS:RETAIN and MOS:CONSISTENCY. The article primarily uses the British spelling apart from the lede which was changed in this edit. Esiymbro (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Dohn joe's argument below. Esiymbro (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Brazil is not an English-speaking nation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On further review, the article was actually created using American English, and was not changed until this edit earlier this month. For my previous reasoning (MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES - and not per the nom's reasoning), the article should remain in AmEng, and the title should reflect that. Dohn joe (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.