Talk:Reference Intake

Requested move 1 July 2022

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.

---

Result:
Moved. No objections below, so this request is granted. Thanks and kudos to the nom for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

---

• Reference intake → Reference Intake
• Reference intakes → Reference intake

– Topic (#1) is a term that is a proper noun. The redirect Reference Intake is recently created. Reference intake should then become a disambiguation page, which currently sits at References intakes and therefore needs to be moved. Whizz40 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2022 (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.

Proposed merge of Guideline Daily Amount into Reference Intake

Old name for the same topic, merge into a section in this article Whizz40 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'll repeat here what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guideline Daily Amount. I do not agree that merge to Reference Intake is the correct way forward. If it is the case, as claimed, that GDA has simply been renamed "Reference Intake" then the GDA article, as the older, more established, and more detailed article, should be kept and moved to the new title. Any merge should be the other other way round with a WP:ROUNDROBIN move to preserve the history of both. On the other hand, if they are similar, but not exactly the same thing, a merge to Reference Intake is inappropriate. I could, however, support a merge to a title that was inclusive of both systems. SpinningSpark 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • As mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guideline Daily Amount, usage of guideline daily amount is so entrenched that many people use it as a common noun (see a couple of examples in the UK at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/guideline-amount). Merging the article into Reference Intake means readers who search for the term (on Google or Wikipedia) as a description of the current system of food labelling will go to the right article (Reference Intake) and readers who are searching for the historical Guideline Daily Amount will find themselves at the right article as well. I think merging is the simplest approach to providing the best encyclopedic reference for most readers interested in this topic. Whizz40 (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The caveat would be unless it is clear Guideline Daily Amount and Reference Intake are separate topics warranting separate articles. For example, because Guideline Daily Amount has had influence in a number of countries, not only Reference Intake in the EU and UK. Whizz40 (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    • That second point is a further reason why any merge should be the other way round. I don't pay much attention to this aspect of food labelling, but I'm sure the labels in the UK used to give "recommended daily amounts" (RDAs). This book seems to indicate that that is a common international term. SpinningSpark 16:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Reference Intake is the current food labelling standard in the EU and the UK, so I think that is a notable standalone topic and therefore we should have an article with this title, with Guideline Daily Amount (the former food labelling standard) either merged into that article, or kept as a separate article. I'm shifting towards keeping it as a separate article. Whizz40 (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
        • To clarify what I said about merging. Any merge should be into the GDA article for the reasons I've given, but that does not preclude (and I was assuming there would be) a subsequent move to the RI title. That is what I meant by a round robin merge. The difference is in what would be showm in the page history. SpinningSpark 10:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Makes sense. If there is a merge then I support that approach. Whizz40 (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• We also need to take into account the article Dietary Reference Values. According to that article, DRVs are the actual nutritional requirements and the GDA and RI articles describe food labelling systems. SpinningSpark 16:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree. I think that is a separate but closely related topic. Each article could briefly discuss this and link to each other. Whizz40 (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Do not merge - If Guideline Daily Amount had just been renamed Reference Intake then a merger might have been appropriate. But it seems the two are distinctly different labeling systems with different ways of assessing and presenting the nutritional information. The Reference Intake would appear to follow international practice more closely, while Guideline Daily Amount appears to have been more country specific. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree. I'm coming to the view also that they are separate topics and therefore should have separate articles. Whizz40 (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)