Talk:Feijoada (Brazilian dish)

Isaguge (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that the dishes and cultural factors are sufficiently different that separate coverage is of benefit to readers. Klbrain (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Feijoada (à brasileira) into Feijoada. The articles cover the same topic, some of this newly translated content would improve the existing primary topic. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure they're the same topic. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What makes you uncertain? Mooonswimmer 17:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Feijoada à brasileira is a sub-type and the current article is quite poor 2A04:EE41:3:D360:EC48:B642:E43B:FCC7 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. There are several versions of feijoada. I think that by not merging the articles we give undue weight to the one in the main article "Feijoada" by turning it into the primary topic, which is not fair. All of them can be talked about in a single article. Torimem (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I think there should be two articles so that the Brazilian version doesn't overshadow the Feijoada article. Versions of feijoada exist in a lot of Portuguese-speaking countries, not only in Brazil and Portugal. --Melsj (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Don't merge I'm no expert in either Portuguese or Brazilian cuisine, but have eaten and cooked both types of feijoada, and believe they are fundamentally different dishes. Just because both are called 'beans' does not mean they are the same gastronomically, culturally or historically. Also, the Brazilian version has some claim to be the national dish of Brazil, and IMO that alone justifies a standalone article on it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 27 February 2024

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• Feijoada (Brazilian dish) → Feijoada
• Feijoada → Feijoada (Portuguese dish)

– Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC Brazilian feijoada is the national dish of a country with a population of over 214 million people; Portuguese feijoada is but a dish among dishes prepared in a country with a population of about 10 million people. إيان (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose 1, support 2, make dab at Feijoada. Population size is not a criterion of WP:DPT. 162 etc. (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1, support 2 per 162—blindlynx 19:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, the Portuguese one has 8,693 views compared with only 2,176[[1]] for the Brazilian one. A DAB is probably the best choice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's probably due to the recent fork. إيان (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Some hard evidence of Brazilian feijoada as the PRIMARYTOPIC in the form of consistent primacy in Google trends from 2004 to the present. إيان (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both The Feijoada page is not about Portuguese Feijoada at all! It is a parent article, referring to all the Portuguese-speaking world (including Brazil). Feijoada (Brazilian dish) is a daughter article with more details. I understand this is a recent fork, but the content does not reflect it.

Also frankly quite appalled by attempted reasoning based on population size. Large countries are not "more important" than small countries on Wikipedia. That is a terrible bias. Walrasiad (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The Feijoada page is not about Portuguese Feijoada at all!

Why don't you read the article, not just the introduction that doesn't match the article body, and see if that actually checks out.

According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

Large countries are not 'more important' than small countries on Wikipedia. What's this? Nobody said so. The discussion is about feijoada, not countries. If we think logically, the status of one dish as the national dish of a country with a population that dwarfs the population of the country for the second dish, which has no national cultural status, it's going to generate *substantially* more usage for the first. And this is reflected in the Google Trends stats cited above. إيان (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I read the article. There's only one sentence on Portuguese feijoada. The rest is about origins and dissemination in the Portuguese-speaking countries, including pictures of the various dishes from other parts of the world (including Brazil, Timor, etc.). It is a dish of Portuguese origin, which is why there are many variations in former Portuguese colonies. But this is not an article about the Portuguese dish itself. It is a parent article for all feijoadas. The Brazilian section was originally here, and spun off into a separate article recently to give more details. That's all.

"Usage" refers to usage in English-language sources. Country population has nothing to do with that. Walrasiad (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's your "usage in English-language sources". Obvious primary topic. إيان (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, here's an ngram Not sure what you think you're showing. "Portuguese feijoada" is not a term that's used. It is referred to simply as "feijoada". Just as the Brazilian dish is also commonly called simply "feijoada". And the Angolan dish is "feijoada". And the Mozambican dish is "feijoada". And the Goese dish is "feijoada". And the Timorese dish is "feijoada". They're all just varieties of a dish of Portuguese origin.

This is not an article on a particular sub-variety, this is the parent article covering all varieties. A child article should not supersede the parent article. Have you even read this article at all? Walrasiad (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. All of this can be dealt with in one article of reasonable length. —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Certainly in its current state. Walrasiad (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see above the merge discussion closed 6 days ago. إيان (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Given how confused this RM is, it is a probably a good indicator it should be merged. Walrasiad (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main article is about the generic dish, not specifically about the dish as served in Portugal. The other is about the Brazilian version of it. No logical need for a move whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Food and drink has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Brazil has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Portugal has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all per Necrothesp and others. This is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article about the dish as a whole. The Brazilian page is probably long enough that it can stay as standalone, but I do think the Regional variations / Brazil section of Feijoada should be fleshed out in summary style, so that it mentions the main points. Perhaps add similar sections for Portugal and any other countries involved too.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.