Talk:Nutritional science

Study object vs. science discipline
This merge led to confusion, as nutrition is the study object, the scientific discipline is nutritional science or nutrition science. An article about the science should include history of the science, notable professorships, scientists, journals, key results. I started that in the article that can be found today. --AlienFood (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Split. The original merge rationale does not apply, since both pages were engaging with the science sense of the term. (Whether it's a silly/fancy degree word doesn't matter, but it does help disambiguate.) Now would come here and give a POV? (Also CC  for the disambig page.) Now regarding how to do the split, my original plan was to make a nutrition (physiological process) article to avoid engaging the merge (it was a new sense not mentioned in the article after all); the ideal way would be to do a move of nutrition &rarr; nutrition science and then a move of nutrition (physiological process) &rarr; nutrition; both will need to be admin-assisted. Doing the cut-paste thing is a bit against WP:MOVE's central idea of preserving the history as much as possible. --Artoria2e5 🌉 15:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no dog in this hunt. Could care less whether it is split or not. My only issue was that it was merged as the result of consensus due to a discussion.  Therefore, if a split is warranted, that should come as the result of consensus through another discussion.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just from a comparison of what was "merged" originally (basically nothing) and what proposes to break out  - the latter is certainly a more sensible attempt at an article, and could stand on its own. But based on the complex splitting and reforming that has been done at Nutrition over the past five years, I have honestly no idea whether that stuff is already covered somewhere in a suitable context. Hopefully others do have that overview :p -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a suggestion how a separate article nutritional science could look like here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nutritional_science&oldid=1010406688 But it was reverted. These aspects (history of the science, key results, notable scientists) are not covered in the current article nutrition at all. --AlienFood (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to split or move anything. Just leave nutrition as it is currently (an overview article leading to the subtopics human nutrition, animal nutrition and plant nutrition, not about the science discipline) and restore what I suggested as an article for nutritional science instead of the redirect. --AlienFood (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)