Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil/Government and Laws of Brazil task force

Politicians?

Should this task force include politicians, or just political institutions/laws, etc.? Prburley (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. There are a ton of them and I can’t think of a better place. Of course, we’re making up the rules together, so I am happy to go with the rest of the hive. giso6150 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Cunha is no longer a member of the Chamber of Deputies. Also, you need to subtract 1 deputy to PMDB. He still appears below as President of the Bureau of the Chamber 06-05-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.219.32 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential and vice presidential end of term dates

An anonymous user (@190.104.120.136) is insistent in changing the end of term dates for a number of Brazilian presidents and vice presidents to the 31st of December. This is not correct as the term ends at the inauguration ceremony when the incumbent formally hands over (usually on on 1st January). It may sound like a technicality, but why use the wrong date?

Anon's reasoning may be good, I don't know, but I have tried to engage at talk:Fernando Henrique Cardoso with no response except repeated reinsertion of the incorrect dates. I could do with other users views on the matter. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagunceiro: Thank you for discussing this here. The best way to handle this will be to find a reliable source, which can be in Portuguese or any language. Add the citation in the article and make the change one more time. You should be able to find a source without much trouble, but if you cannot, let me know. It might be a good idea to see if there are sources which support this anonymous user's point of view as well. In that case, there may need to be a wider discussion about which source is "official". Whatever you do, please refrain from edit warring. Request assistance from an administrator if you have added the citation and still notice this user reverting your edits. giso6150 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very sensible suggestion. What do you think of the gallery of presidents at the planalto's own website as a source? The (correct ;-) ) dates are shown against each photo. Bagunceiro (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source completely supports your assertion about the overlap on the date of inauguration. You couldn’t have found a more official source than planalto.gov.br… Boa sorte! giso6150 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, done that but he's still insistently putting the incorrect dates in. Talk page message ignored. I've been with WP for a quite long time but I've never had to deal with this level of refusal to engage or explain before - where do you go from here? Bagunceiro (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Can we have an admin rollback the changes that Bagunceiro has outlined above, and protect the page(s) if necessary? Bagunceiro, is it more than just Fernando Henrique Cardoso? giso6150 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen that heads up thing before either - I'm learning lots today, thanks.

Itamar Franco and Fernando Collor de Mello are the only other ones currently that are in the same state (ie fixed, cited and then changed back). A number of others still exist in the wrong state because I haven't got around to fixing them yet (João Figueiredo for example) but perhaps we should wait to see what happens and whether we can get engagement first. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but responding to the {{Admin help}} above – your best bet for getting the pages protected is to request semi-protection at WP:RPP, then to fix any incorrect dates yourselves.

In my experience, admins tend to be fairly slow at responding to Admin help requests with this template, particularly if it's something like this where they'd need to go away and try to work out which articles you're referring to, but they'll be a lot quicker at responding to things at WP:RPP.

—me_and 13:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa has blocked the IP address for a month. Giso6150 asks for an admin to rollback changes and protect pages. Rolling back changes does not require an admin, but I will do it, using a non-admin account. There is no need to protect pages unless many more IP addresses are involved, so that it is not feasible to stop the disruption by blocking IP addresses. Bagunceiro, for future reference, I can confirm that you are likely to wait a long time for admin help if you leave it to admins to search around through editing history and try and figure out which edits you are referring to. Obviously, you must have known which articles were involved, so it would presumably have been easy for you to list the articles and also say what IP address was involved, whereas someone else, without background knowledge, might have quite a bit of work to put in to find out, and in such a situation an administrator is very likely to think "the same amount of my time and work could be much more fruitfully used on dealing with several other problems where the information has been provided than struggling over this one problem where I don't know where to look." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: - thanks very much for your help.

WRT your further comments, I´m not clear what I did wrong here (or rather omitted to do right). You say "it would presumably have been easy for you to list the articles and also say what IP address was involved" but I did that in the the discussion above - "An anonymous user (@190.104.120.136) is insistent..." and "I have tried to engage at talk:Fernando Henrique Cardoso" along with "Itamar Franco and Fernando Collor de Mello are the only other ones...". I do not understand why that was not clear - again for future reference can you advise what should I have done, please? Thanks. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagunceiro: My apologies: you did give the IP address, right at the beginning of your first post here, and I really don't know how I failed to notice that you did. At first you mentioned only one of the articles involved, and added links to the others only after another editor had asked "is it more than just Fernando Henrique Cardoso?" and when I wrote "it would presumably have been easy for you to list the articles" I meant in your first post. However, since you did give the IP address, it would not have been too difficult to find what articles were involved, so that is not such an important issue as I thought when I wrote my comment above. Again, my apologies for my mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]