Talk:Soft diet

Untitled

Seeing that this page had been flagged for removal because it contained advice, I removed the "tips" and "avoid" sections, which were clearly advice. The rest is descriptive, explaining what a soft diet is. The "tips" and "avoid" sections could be useful in a new article somewhere else than Wikipedia. Sssuuuzzzaaannn (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is completely misleading, the ES version links here from https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieta_blanda which refers to light diet. While some of the food here is okay (like rice) there are other examples that aren't. The Spanish ES version seems to be accurate though. I should be clear that this is not a "light diet" and perhaps remove the reference from the ES version. Example:

"Muffins, pancakes, or waffles, softened with syrup or butter" - this might be soft to eat, but not light at all.

Unfortunately soft in Spanish means blanda, which is the equivalent of 'light diet'. I think people also call soft diet a light diet anyway.

--BLuEGoD (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

So a Wikipedia user AngusWOOF thinks there should be an open conversation about whether Pureed diet article should be merged to Soft diet or split to separate article. Please leave your comment for merge or against merge, below here. --Pek (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed topic of discussion to split proposal, please indicate support or oppose instead. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Why? We normally split articles if they become unmanageably big. That's obviously not the case here. Is it because they are considered two different things? There is very little information in this article, most of it being a list of ingredients. I suggest first fixing what we have, with more content and sources and fewer ingredients, then think about splitting it if it still seems necessary. (Also I gather there has been some discussion already, why isn't that here on the talk page?) GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GA-RT-22, it looks like Pek created an article, which AngusWOOF hid in the Draft: namespace, with an edit summary saying that it wasn't, in their opinion, good enough to be in the mainspace.
    Angus left a boilerplate message on Pek's talk page that appears to be completely irrelevant, and I suspect it is merely a case of the NPP software making it easier to say the wrong thing than to do the right thing. They had a short conversation about that at User talk:AngusWOOF/Archive 25#Puree diet.
    You can see the page at Draft:Pureed diet. @AngusWOOF, perhaps you would be willing to share which numbered objection in Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review you are claiming is relevant. I'm sure you're very aware that objections like "This would split content from an existing article" or "I just think it needs more work to look like a decent Wikipedia article" aren't actually approved reasons for unilateral draftification, and it's helpful to other editors to know which specific problem is your concern. (Of course, if your concern really was just the split, then that's not an accepted reason for draftifying, and you should probably move it back to the mainspace.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, the soft diet article had pureed diet already bolded, implying that it covers the same topic. As of October 2021, a whole year before I touched the article. HERE There isn't enough sizable content to show a difference in the terms, so I would merge the articles and redirect it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simple WP:CONTENTSPLIT. A puréed diet is a sub-type of a soft diet. If the new content showed "a difference in the terms" from the old content, it would be proof that someone had screwed up.
The sensible options are either to propose merging the new content (e.g., about puréed diets for babies) into this page, or to keep the split and add a {{Main|Puréed diet}} heading, in compliance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Hiding the new content in the Draft: space is not IMO a sensible approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to draft and threw in a talkspin since I thought there could be content worth merging, otherwise, I'd just boldly redirect it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that AngusWOOF was Hiding the new content in the Draft: space is a little silly. The reviewer moved the new content to draft because they had notability questions, and made a recommendation for how to discuss those questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content in the draft space is intentionally hidden from search engines and from people doing basic/default searches in Special:Search. WP:DRAFT says that when patrollers have doubts about notability, they should settle those at AFD, not in the Draft: namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying I should have just boldly redirected the content if I thought it was already covered? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 10:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that you, or any other reasonable editor, would think that content about baby food is already covered in a page that doesn't mention baby food, but if you did, and you thought it would be uncontentious, then the Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers encourages bold blank-and-redirect edits in such cases. More relevantly, since the new page contains all new sentences and all new sources, WP:PM also encourages editors to boldly copy over the contents before redirecting. Three minutes' work, maybe?
If you thought someone might disagree, then you would want to follow the discussion process for contentious mergers. In my experience, this is about three to five minutes' work, depending on how long your merge rationale is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thank Pek for trying to improve Wikipedia. I support having them together here together. To me, pureed is a form of soft diet so it would be best to place the new content within this article. I think having them here also helps readers because the content is similar and having them next to each other is useful. I would rename the section 'alternatives' to 'pureed' diet and that might feel less jarring.:Tom (LT) (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soft_diet&oldid=1202100146"