Talk:Pedro Proença

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

Referees High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Referees WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Referees. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.RefereesWikipedia:WikiProject RefereesTemplate:WikiProject RefereesReferees
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Biased article

This article doesn't mention the questionable actions of Pedro Proença in important matches, specially against Benfica. The article also doesn't mention the connections between Proença and F.C. Porto. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. – Pee Jay 23:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like ignorance to me. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can prove that Proenca acted improperly in matches involving Benfica, or that he has an improper relationship with Porto, your accusations are highly inappropriate and I suggest you retract them. Ignorance has nothing to do with it. – Pee Jay 01:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Videos and images are better than words to describe it so if you and anybody else interested in my statement can watch some videos on YouTube by searching for "proença benfica". The most recent video about his robbery is here. Anyway... I won't waste more time trying to prove that this article is biased and doesn't mention any of his scandals against Benfica in favor of FC Porto. :) I also don't want to be banned (Wikipedia's culture of fear) for statements without proper sources in english (most of them are written in portuguese). BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica says goodbye to another championship thanks to Pedro Proença, again. Proença showed 2 red cards against Benfica and didn't want to see a penalty in favor of Benfica. And who gains with this? The same club in the last 30 years: FC Porto, the most corrupt club in history of European football. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can hear from you is childish complaining. You are obviously biased as well, and I'm sure a neutral fan would have a completely different viewpoint from either you or a Porto fan. Unless you can prove Proenca is corrupt (or at least find some third-party coverage in reliable media to that effect), I suggest you take your pointless bleating elsewhere. – Pee Jay 20:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is "how he can prove what everybody can see in images and video ? It is important that when a referee have a public team preference ( F.C.Porto ) can not arbitrate matches against the main rival ( Benfica ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.142.64.50 (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section with "controversies" like every other referee, listing his mistakes in games.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no space left. :) BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]