From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Splitting proposal[edit]

This article has been tagged for having an excessive human-centric bent since last January (by Hidayatsrf). The long-term presence of the tag indicates that it has at least some buy-in, but there has been no action to reshape the article, and I suspect that if there were, there would be some objections, as there is a lot of good content on human food that we should want to preserve. Therefore, I'd like to see what folks think of splitting this article out into Food (covering all organisms, with a hatnote at the top) and Human food. The transition would likely begin by moving this page to "Human food", and then building the all-organism page at the current title. Would this be an acceptable solution? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I think it just needs a major trim. The classificatons and types of food makes no sense as is. Maybe split out List of human food if someone wants to preserve sections on frozen food, finger food, space food etc. Either way this should stay the main article on food in general as it is a primary topic. FWIW I was intending to fix some issues with this article, but time has been short recently. Aircorn (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sdkb: Given the comments in the below section I created Talk:Food/List of foods and moved the long list there. Does this resolve the split concerns? Aircorn (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think a full split of human food vs food as a concept makes sense, I suspect there are a dozen other articles that treat the use of other concepts in other fields, Sadads (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article almost completely concerns human food only, a split would do.The article faeces concerns animal feaces, human faeces are on a separate article. Twa0726 (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article definitely needs a split. Humans (usually) eat food for enjoyment, while animals (usually) eat food for survival, so splitting the articles makes sense imo. Then again, all living organisms need food to survive, including humans, so we could argue that we should just rewrite the article to make it both for survival and for enjoyment. Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food categories[edit]

Present categories are superficial and useless, since each one contains many of the same foods by other classifications and people eat almost anything in any one of them.

Instead use the 19 food groups per the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4001:670:0:0:0:9003 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That classification system is mentioned already. I guess the point of the section is to say that there are various ways to classify foods. Aircorn (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of "List of food" sections. (Agreeing with a prior comment and adding on)[edit]

I personally think that the article should get rid of the whole List of food sections out and turn it into it's own list article, and make the Food article talk more about foods and diets other animals consume, and how food is digested, (with references with the decapitated chicken who consumed food through a person stuffing it into it's throat). The List of food sections take up too much of the article. G-Toasty (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed ZackAshley (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Food/List of foods Aircorn (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn Why not spin that into a list article directly? Sadads (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am not really sure how. I can't really think of a title that really covers it. List of human food is so broad Classifications and types of food (how it was originally headed here) is also broad and not quite correct either. Even if it was created it would still have the same problems it was labeled for arbitrary list of topics, that are not really "representative" or well organized for readers -- should be organized in a more discrete, focused, readable way. And to be honest it is not really an article/list I want to work on to get it working even if it was possible to write it in a way that made sense. I do want to work on this article however and the list was not appropriate here. I also didn't want to lose the information. I will most likely even go through it and see if anything can be put back in in a more focused section here. If anyone thinks it could work they are welcome to turn it into an article. Aircorn (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022[edit]

ok so i would like to add some clarifacation ok? ok Jake from state farm my guy (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]