Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2020

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← November 2020 Votes for deletion archives for December 2020 (current) January 2021 →

Vila do Bispo

No content other than blatantly touting a local restaurant. The place has no notoriety and anything of relevance in the area is already covered in Sagres Tvdp77 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sagres.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We would remove the link in that case, but point taken.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western world

See the discussion at Talk:Western world; the bottom line is that this isn't a travel article. This type of geographic/historical analysis belongs at other sites than this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is not a plausible travel itinerary or topic and if it's not explicitly racist, it's definitely racist-adjacent enough to make me very uncomfortable with hosting this material. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've made my reasonings on Talk:Western world. Ibaman (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. I don't think it's a racist article, but I do think it's impossible to adequately discuss the concept of the "Western world" without bringing race into it, and that's beyond our scope.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't object in principle to hosting articles that are too wide in scope to cover in any ways other than broad "geographic/historical analysis" - we have articles on entire continents, for example - but Justin is correct that this particular one has too much sociopolitical baggage to justify. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot imagine someone sitting down to plan a trip for the purpose of exploring "the Western world". Ground Zero (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure whether the article should be deleted, since User:The dog2 has stated that Singaporeans do plan vacations wanting to visit a Western country and then pick Australia. However, I'm also not sure about the idea of having numerous links to it to explain what "Western" means when it's used in other articles (though maybe that's not harmful), and I would insist on deleting the statement that white South Africans are sometimes considered "Western", because that directly equates Western and white. However, I think we should address the claim that defining the word "Western" is "racist or racist-adjacent": If so, should we remove the word from all articles, and in that case, what word should we use to substitute for it? Whether we delete this article or not, I don't think we should put that genie back into the bottle. For the record, I think it's OK to use "Western", even though it's geographically inaccurate, and it's often clearer and more accurate than "white", let alone "European". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I may have a few words as a non-white person, I don't think the article in and of itself is racist. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap between "white" and "Western", but the two terms are certainly not congruent. I think the article is useful in a brief form just give an overview on the ambiguity of the term, and its potential range of meanings. Like in the scenario I had mention, say a visitor to China is feeling tired of Chinese food, and asks if there is a "Western" restaurant in town. You might well be directed to a Russian restaurant, and if you're from the US or Western Europe, this would be utterly baffling, and such and article will help to clear the air in such situations. In any case, extra-hierarchical region articles are meant to be brief, and the only one that has any significant content is the one on Latin America, so I don't see any harm in having something like this. The dog2 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if I may digress a little about the Latin America article. I'm Brazilian, therefore Latin American; I'm also non-white. The article's Understand section begins like this: The term "Latin America" dates to propaganda efforts by French Emperor Napoleon III (reigned 1848-1870; the first few years as President) to exert French influence in the Americas on the basis of Spanish and Portuguese being languages derived from Latin just as French was. It's my personal reckoning that this term, however common, well-spread in all languages, and devoid of any racist overtones, is on its way of becoming obsolete in the medium run. I have never personally contributed to this article and don't intend to; there's no point of excluding Aruba or Jamaica or Belize or Suriname from the Americas, per ttcf, period paragraph end of text. However, I also reckon this article useful as disambiguation, if almost superfluous, in Wikivoyage, don't see any harm in having it either, and would not suggest its deletion, as of this time. Ibaman (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete upon further thought. Means very different things to different people and will never even be a coherent extraregion. Gizza (roam) 23:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Isn't that the point of the article (as explained by The dog2 immediately above): to tell that "Western" can mean a wide array of things (I myself have not yet made up my mind about whether the article is worthwhile, nor what it should include). –LPfi (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, that is the point of the article. But in my view it doesn't make sense for Wikivoyage to have an article devoted to analyzing the subtleties of a term like "Western world", "Global South", or "Third World". I don't think it's racist – it's just not a travel article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Granger: this might be appropriate as a Wiktionary entry, or a Wikipedia article (with references to reliable sources). Wikivoyage shouldn't have article to define terms. Ground Zero (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the most this could be a single sentence in English language varieties saying that "Western World" means different things to different people, and travellers should avoid confusion by not using it. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Westerner"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as I wrote on the article's talk page: how well do these oversimplifications actually serve the traveller? let's have as example our article on Indian cuisine. It will most likely never go beyond outline status, simply because the subject is too splendidly extensive to be properly summarized in the context of a travel guide. It's most obvious that peoples from the coast, the plains, the river valleys, the jungle areas, the desert and the mountains (to avoid mention of any non-geographical factors) must have very different diets, and it would be impossible and unfair to pick one regional style to describe as "typical". The scope is simply too vast. The scope of "western world" or "westerner" is even larger. Ibaman (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet would you agree that "Westerner" is sometimes the word that's needed in a comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Conflating "Western world" with "white world" is just ignorant. "Western" references EUROPEAN cultural and political influences and structures (specifically Western European). Just because Europeans are known historically to be "white" does not mean that "Western" means "white", just like "Bantu" doesn't mean "black" just because Bantu languages and people are of African origin. It's just false. These are not race words. Lots of so-called "white" countries are not part of the "Western world", such as Russia. Then to call it "racist" implies that the term not only means "white" but that it also suggests racial superiority or inferiority, which it doesn't. "Western" is a neutral term. There is no "undertone". If individuals believe that the Western world is superior or inferior to the rest of the world, that has nothing to do with "Western world" as a term. That comes from someplace else. I don't have a problem with consensus in favor of deletion for legitimate reasons, but I do have a problem allowing ignorance of words and terms or fear of people who are ignorant of the words/terms to dictate how we operate, which is what I feel the "racist" argument does. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We agree. The racism in using the term, when it exists, would seem to me to be down to the intent or subconscious associations of the user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. This discussion was about the term's racist overtones, rather than about the deletion. Ibaman (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2020&oldid=4290543"