Talk:Food choice of older adults

Untitled

I added some information on why older adults eat the diets they do as a result from physical diseases found in some elders ToriTori Hivner (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacob4459. Peer reviewers: RachelJohnson11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tug53884.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page Name & Title: Should be "Preferences of...," not "in"; should be "Choice…" not "preferences"?

The article title (and Page Name) should be corrected. "Food preferences in older adults and seniors" should really be "Food preferences of older adults and seniors" It may seem a bit technical and nitpicky to some people, but it's somewhat annoying to me. I don't think it's grammatically correct; but, beyond that, it also doesn't sound right.

I'm not sure I've ever implemented such as change at Wikipedia. Plus, I'm not sure of the repercussions. I'm not suggesting "leave well enough alone." But, if someone can help with this matter, I know that I'd appreciate it. Ca.papavero (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a change any autoconfirmed editor can make (see WP:MOVE). Near the top right of the page is the "Search" window and just the the left of that it says "More" or has a little arrow. Click on that and one of the options is "Move", then follow the prompts. Your suggestion makes sense to me so I say go for it, but since you've asked here, it would probably be good to see if anyone objects first.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! Yes, that goes with my thinking. Thanks for the words and help. I'll wait a bit and see. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION ABOUT RELATED PAGE NAME/ARTICLE TITLE

Should Food preferences in older adults and seniors be changed to "Food choice of older adults and seniors'; whereas, that's to be more consistent with this main article about "Food Choice"? By the way, I've already proposed correcting the preposition in that name: "in" for "of." But, would changing the word "preferences" to "choice" be helpful or problematic? For instance, consider that when searching for articles beginning "Food preferences…," both articles are recognized and hinted in the that search box (as you type). Choosing Food preferences will redirect you to Food choice. However, typing "Food choice…" does not recognize or hint the article for "Food preferences in older adults and seniors." Would these article benefit from the association in name, or would it cause confusion and so on? Also, can these articles be noted and linked together as a larger project? (I do believe that these articles should remain at separate pages, since senior and aging needs are quite particular in of themselves). This question has also been posed at the other page, Food choice, which is noted: "This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment." As far as I know, this page for older adults and seniors is not part of that particular assignment. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The guidance for such questions is at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, where one of the points says "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Based on that, I think you've come up with another good idea. Keep it up.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay… Again, I'll give it a waiting period and take a learning curve on this technical maneuver. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the move. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert it. otherwise, the article needs tone work. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-work sections, sub-titles, flow and continuity. Edit to reflect bodily and social influences.

I did some significant editing to this article, such as to improve wording and grammar; whereas, I then moved on to improve its outline and numeration from section to section. I believe that it needed better flow, as well as with regards to the logic and scenarios that influence food preferences and taste. For example, those things that are bodily, to those that are social, and then to lifestyle and other considerations. I still believe the article can improve, but its a start.

I do appreciate this article and its topic. It does a good job at putting the issues down and thinking it all out. I do think it can be further developed, especially in relation to supporting and/or related articles. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Food choice of older adults and seniors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140824061938/http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/MyPyramid/OriginalFoodGuidePyramids/FGP/FGPPamphlet.pdf to http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/mypyramid/originalfoodguidepyramids/fgp/fgppamphlet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2016

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: moved as proposed. SSTflyer 01:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Food choice of older adults and seniors → Food choice of older adults – or Food choice of seniors. current title is redundant. only older adults or seniors is needed. Voortle (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the first proposed title per nom but I'm also unclear what "food choice" means (note the original title was "Food preferences..."). The article is essayish and does not have a clear topic discernible in the intro. —  AjaxSmack  13:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I think the Preference implies desire, Choice shows action (past/present). Dolphx (talk) 20:57, 27 September 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.

Relevance of the food guide pyramid?

I'm just gonna put out here that I doubt that the food guide pyramid is relevant in the first section here. It's not illustrative of the subject at hand. I'm not willing to touch it in any other way because of my history with this topic. Ellenor2000 (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)