Talk:Diet (nutrition)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
It has been proposed that Diet (nutrition) be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. |
Contents |
[edit] Move?
The scope of this article is beyond health. If its scope was limited to health, then it would be largely redundant to the article Nutrition. I propose renaming to:
1. Diet (consumption)
2. Diet (eating)
or 3. Diet (ingestion)
Which name do you like?
ref: Wikipedia:Naming conventions
Darana 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think this article is about health per se. It is more about "stuff that can be consumed by creatures". I think Diet (consumption) is the closest, but consumption doesn't sound right.Libertate 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Naming conventions guide suggests using gerunds for verbs, so I guess it'd be (consuming) or (ingesting), but both seem forced. I thought of another one: Diet (food). It makes sense as a parenthetical, however, there is already an article Diet food about processed foods for dieters. Currently, a search for "diet" returns the disambiguation page which lists this article, Diet food, and Dieting. Diet (eating) would be understood by most readers, I believe — even those with poor reading skills. I put a tag on this page to attract more comments. If there are no more comments in a few days, I suggest using Diet (eating).
- I think Diet (eating) is a good choice. Eating is a synonym for consuming afterall.Libertate 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
Shouldn't this just be merged into dieting? They seem like the same subject to me. Could somone explain how it differs? If not, I'll probably put in a merge request. Tyciol 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Dieting involves losing weight. One's diet (nutrition) involves what foods one chooses to eat. Your diet can be vegetarian, kosher, "typical American", etc. That's not dieting.
Also, I don't think your "diet" is the same as "nutrition". I'd say they are separate topics, deserving of separate articles. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merge, diet includes what people actually do, in various places, as well as perhaps should do; nutrition is more analytical. Nutrition is good article, "Diet" would dilute it, at least.--TheNautilus 22:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Quadell above, short term "dieting" is very different from one's typical "diet". As for "nutrition", I do not see any benefit merging it with "diet". Nutritionally you could obtain calcium from milk or nuts, but both of these can be part of very different diets (omnivore and vegan, for example). nirvana2013 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
Because diet (nutrition) is such a popular topic, and the possibility of linking to grey area sites for the purpose of traffic is extremely tempting, I suggest external links to be limited to government or sanctioned research documentation. Currently there are two links which I believe should be struck. Libertate 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Diet Table
Should this table include column "Carnivore"? Diet does not necessarily refer to humans only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libertate (talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
I added the column carnivore.Libertate 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Additional row of "fish" even "seafood", can be added? Libertate 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, fish is a very important dietary food staple --216.132.71.213 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scitechinfo link
I don't understand why this one link keeps getting re-added (see history, no link here). It seems spectacularly valueless. Unless the user who keeps putting it in can explain why s/he is so insistent on having it included, I suggest leaving it off. · rodii · 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
regarding the diet table Halal diet is exactly like Kosher diet so why did u put that there is no Poultry in Halal diet ????? this is wrong.
