From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Already a page on this...[edit]

The result of this discussion is no consensus. North America1000 13:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Ummm...? We already have snack food. This page is redundant and should be deleted. -- (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Snack food is often characterized as being junk food, whereas a snack is associated with the type of eating known as snacking. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's not the same thing. This article refers to the meal, while snack food refers to the food which makes up the meal. (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2015 (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.

Unsourced statements removed.[edit]

I have removed the following unsourced claims from the article:

Snack foods are often subjectively classified as junk food because they typically have little or no nutritional value,[citation needed] and are not seen as contributing towards general health and nutrition.[citation needed] With growing concerns for diet, weight control and general health,[citation needed]
Excessive snacking has been implicated in the increasing prevalence of obesity in many countries.[citation needed]
A beverage may be considered a snack if it possesses a substantive food item (e.g. bananas, kiwis, or strawberries) that has been blended to create a smoothie.[citation needed]
Plain snacks like plain cereals, pasta, and vegetables are also mildly popular, and the word snack has often been used to refer to a larger meal involving cooked or leftover items. Six-meal eating is a form of eating that incorporates healthy snacks in between small meals, to stave off hunger and promote weight loss.[citation needed]

Please feel free to restore them if they can be properly sourced. bd2412 T 05:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I originally relisted this, but, upon reconsideration, I feel this is the correct close. (closed by a page mover) Omni Flames (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

SnackSnack food – In February, the article Snack food was unilaterally merged into Snack, in spite of two failed proposals, the first one concluded in 2011, the second one concluded in 2016 (see above), both tending opposed. Snacking has a long history that goes far beyond processed convenience food, and in the Global South as well as in many households of the world, it still isn't equated with junk food, but related to a small meal taken between breakfast and lunch, or between lunch and diner. Therefore, the clearly better match would have been a page merge with snacking.
While it's almost impossible to disentangle the two articles after subsequent edits have been done, restoring the original name is all we can do. I'd subsequently propose snack to either redirect to snacking, or snacking to be moved here and expanded/improved with some of this page's original content. Other proposals how to restore a reasonable situation are welcome, too. I'm therefore pinging the participants of prior discussions and the editor who merged the articles: @BD2412, Northamerica1000, Jenks24, LtPowers, Necrothesp, Zentomologist, Marcus Qwertyus, and Vegaswikian.
Too bad that it's so complicated now, but all we can learn from it, is to be more cautious before merging articles, especially if there clearly is no consensus. Everybody note that page merges can't be easily undone, especially when merging from a more specific to a more general topic. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The problem here is that the phrase, "snack food", has no distinct meaning. Any food eaten as a snack is by definition a snack food. The food itself is a subtopic of the concept of snacking, not a separate topic. This is not changed merely due to the fact that certain foods are particularly marketed as "snack foods", and that some of those foods have health implications. bd2412 T 13:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Regardless of the merits one way or another, this merge was done completely out of process. But for the record, I continue to believe these are two separate topics. Much research has been done into snack foods; there should be plenty of secondary sources out there on the topic. Powers T 17:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The merge was not out of process. It was posted at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for broader input, and there was support without objection there. bd2412 T 17:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Can you link to that discussion? User:PanchoS said it was unilateral. Powers T 17:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @LtPowers: Well, from what I can see there were two merge discussions: the one above, and this one here: Talk:Snack food#Requested move. Both were concluded without consensus to merge, with an opposing tendency. The Proposed mergers discussion BD2412 now brings up, has never been announced here, assumes an existing consensus, and only yielded a single comment about the feasibility of a merger, not about whether it should be merged or not. Please note that I don't think BD2412's efforts were bad-faithed, in the contrary. But they disregarded outspoken opposition to the article merge and a lacking consensus. --PanchoS (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. A light meal.
  2. An item of food eaten between meals.
  • Wikipedia: A snack is a portion of food, smaller than a regular meal, generally eaten between meals.
  • wikt:snack food:
  1. A food traditionally or commonly consumed as a snack between meals.
  2. Any other food consumed as a snack.
  • Oppose. The current title is more concise. A snack is food, so adding "food" to "snack" does nothing to naturally disambiguate the term "snack". The article defines a snack as "a portion of food", not "portions of foods" which might form a "light meal". The idea that "snack" shouldn't have been combined into "snack food" is silly. The source was tagged as a stub, so it was easily absorbed into the target. Where the debate should lie is on whether snack and snacking are separate topics. If they remain separate, I have no objection to moving content from one to the other as appropriate. So feel free to move any content that originated in the former snack food article to snacking as appropriate. Sleeping redirects to sleep. Conversing redirects to conversation. So it's reasonable that snacking could redirect to snack. But since eating and food are separate topics, there's a rationale for keeping snacks and snacking separate. wbm1058 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current article is a good topic with a good concise title. However the merge with the snack food article has produced a messy and unfocussed article, for example the History section relates to Snack food but not to snacking generally. Suggest the merge be reversed, or alternatively, refactor the article to have a section on Snack food with the current history section a subsection of it, and redirect Snack food to the high-level section. Perhaps that would be better; There's not enough material here for two articles, and most of what is here on snack foods duplicates List of snack foods where the information is better formatted and more complete. Andrewa (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page doesn't need a move, if anything needs a move it's List of snack foods to [[List of snacks. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: current name is WP:CONSISTENT, with related terms such as Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. In addition the current name is more WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE than the proposed move. Ebonelm (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm not too pleased that this discussion was closed so quickly after a raft of new comments (coming a week after the previous last comment), giving no chance for a reply or rebuttal. Powers T 18:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)