Talk:Love handles

Origination
Does anyone know where this term originated from? We all know it's that roll of fat but how did it get that name? Spare tire makes sense but Love Handle????? If there's a sex act that involves holding onto it, I'm not familiar with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makikiwiki12:16, 22 June 2007 (talk • contribs)

Volunteer
I have packed on some 25 lbs over the last year and a half and I decided to volunteer a photo of my "love handles" to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.12.173 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Picture needs to reflect handles part more directly, the arms cover the sides blocking the view of the handles on the left and right sides. I'd just rotate 90° and resubmit. 206.248.128.31 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger
Cumulus Clouds wanted to merge this article to Central obesity, whereas I feel the phrase deserves its own article. I've added this section to the talk page to prompt a discussion. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is well-sourced, and has received extensive coverage in the media.--  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to delete an unnecessary recreation of material that was identical to the text in Central obesity. Once again, I will remerge these. Please stop undoing this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Cumulus Clouds merged the Love handles article to the Central obesity article with no evident discussion. When I restored the articles and removed the text from the Central obesity article he reverted. I split the articles again and suggested a discussion, yet the article has been reverted again. I would like the articles to remain distinct until a proper consensus can be reached.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, the information was replicated on both pages so no discussion was necessary. You continue to revert the redirects without acknowledging this. These articles are unsourced neologism and do not need to be forked out of Central obesity. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Muffin top survived an AfD discussion. Does that mean nothing? --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if the information on both pages is exactly the same, no. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since nobody else objects to this merge, this RfC should be closed and the merge should be completed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't more clearly object, as my revert of your latest out-of-consensus merge should amply demonstrate. It's time for you to move on to other subjects. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So is this another procedural objection or is there any actual reason to have this information replicated. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a separate and distinct subject from Central obesity, with reliable and verifiable sources. I object to the content being confined to Central obesity or anywhere else without the clearest possible consensus for such a merge. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're opposed to forming a consensus on merging because no former consensus to merge was formed? That strikes me as being self defeating, but to each their own. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is/should be contained in this article that is not already in the Central obesity article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by However whatever (talk • contribs) 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is already different to what is contained in Central obesity, and can be expanded upon. As has already been mentioned, Love handles is a slang phrase, not a medical one.
 * It is my opinion that there should be maybe a one-line reference in Central obesity with a link to the main article (I also think the same should apply to Muffin top).
 * In any case, I think that reverting to your redirect while consensus has not been reached is (as has been commented by a couple of different editors) not the way to do things. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, this is a separate and distinct subject from Central obesity, with reliable and verifiable sources. I object to the content being confined to Central obesity or anywhere else without the clearest possible consensus for such a merge. The fact that Love Handles exists as a separate article for a Canadian TV show does nothing to justify turning this article into a redirect. There is no justification, let alone consensus, for a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge muffin top
Muffin top is another slang term for the same thing (apparent abdominal obesity). Since it is less common/more recent term, should be merged into this article. Zodon (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While a muffin top is apparently the result of love handles, it is a condition brought on by certain garments, and I believe the sources use this term to describe females, though I could be wrong. It's my opinion that muffin top should continue to be its own article because you cannot use the terms interchangeably; eg one cannot have a muffin top if they are nude. Boy, my comment really is becoming quite disturbing. I'll stop now. :) Lawshoot! 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They are both terms describing large ammounts of abdominal fat. It is questionable whether they even belong in WikiPedia (probably more apropos of Wiktionary), but since both are about essentially the same topic (terms describing ...) there is no reason for separate articles in an encyclopedia.  Zodon (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they are fine apart. This discussion is stale. Time to close it. Surf Dog (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)