 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Abdominal fat is different from abdominal obesity, just like fat and obesity. Continue discussion in article talk page, not user talk page. Regards. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you are going to start on an article on adominal fat which is different to what is meant by adominal obesity it will simply get voted for deletion based on lack of notability. We could start articles then on fat in wrists, arms, legs, ass, thighs, where do we stop?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There are only 3 types of fat:
- Abdominal fat or Visceral fat
- subcutaneous fat
- intramuscular fat
As mentioned in the lead. They are fundamentally different. Abdominal obesity is notable only because of correlation with heart risk. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 09:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Excess of abdominal fat, and much of the notability of abdominal fat, is covered in Abdominal obesity. What's left should be covered in Body fat. I see no need for this page. -- Scray ( talk) 15:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Scray and Literature. This page is a co track and needs to be deleted and redirected to abdominal obesity as agreed previously.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is like merging Body fat with Obesity, which are different. What i feel is other editor hate the word "fat", which is also used for mocking. But separate article for Abdominal fat makes complete sense. My undid move was of the intention of merging Abdominal obesity with Abdominal fat, but merging in other direction seems illogical. Also, all the editors came from WP:MEDICINE would have same point of view, so broader input is required. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I am now wondering is there a point to having an article called "visceral fat"? I wasn't aware there were two other articles on subscutaneous or intramuscular fat. What about the other two articles should they be merged, kept or deleted? What are peoples views?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a medical topic which is why many editors are from WP:MED. I can say as can others that we do not hold the same views on many topics. Abdominal obesity is close enough in meaning to both abdominal and visceral fat that the other pages are not needed. If you are talking about the special characteristics of fat found in the viscera or around the waist than this is best discussed as a subheading of the fat article and is not significant to warrant its own article. If of course the section on visceral fat get so long and detailed that it needs its own page than that is another matter that we can deal with if it ever becomes a reality.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
My views lean towards merging this article with either abdominal obesity or body fat article. The other two articles i.e., subcutaneous fat and intramuscular fat I am wondering if they should be merged into body fat or left as they are?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- No need of merging, instead all the articles can be improved. Also I dont understand why abdominal obesity be merged to abdominal fat, a specific answer would be helpful. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I never said that Golf, please don't misconstrue my words to back up your position. I said the merge the other way round, this page into abdominal obesity.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is the other way around Abdominal fat should be merged into Abdominal obesity or the article on fat Fat around the abdominal is not notable.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that at this point it makes sense to merge this page into Abdominal obesity and Adipose tissue.
- Goesgolf20 - if you want there to be an article specifically about adipose tissue in the peritoneal cavity, expanding the coverage of that topic would help. (i.e., provide content that explains what it is, how it is different from other types of fat, etc. Most of this article is about the condition of abdominal obesity, which already has an article, rather than being about the material.) Some good content and references would make a stronger basis for keeping this article, rather than just asserting without evidence that this type of tissue is different/special. If it will take a while to develop such material, probably makes sense to do it within the adipose tissue article, then split once there is enough of it. Zodon ( talk) 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Zodon, article maybe merged with adipose tissue but not with obesity, again, remind you google search has double results for '"abdominal fat" -wikipedia'. I expanded lead little, and improvement will take time - I will be adding more content soon - spare me few days. But the article already has content more than just a section - so deserves separate article. Thanks all. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Than we agree to merge into adipose tissue than? Abdominal fat is vague it means either central obesity of visceral fat.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that "abdominal fat" is treated here, whether rightly or wrongly (though clearly not consistently), as a synonym for "visceral fat" which is a distinct and notable concept (fat inside the abdominal cavity - not subcutaneous fat which merely happens to be in the general area of the abdomen) which needs its own page. To redirect from "visceral fat" to "abdominal fat" to "adipose tissue" might have seemed sensible at every step, but the end effect is destructive. I can't support the elimination of this page unless visceral fat is first restored. 24.79.89.34 ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Restoring this page doesn't really help deal with visceral fat. Currently the only content we have relating to visceral fat is in the adipose tissue article. I renamed the section to make it clearer, and fixed the visceral fat redirect so it goes directly to the appropriate material. So far there isn't enough material about visceral fat to warrant a separate article, as noted above, once there is we can split it into its own article. Rather than duplicating content in a lot of articles, seems to make sense to have a few articles cover the content that we have, and expand/improve them to the point where makes sense to split. Zodon ( talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Abdominal fat is different from abdominal obesity, just like fat and obesity. Continue discussion in article talk page, not user talk page. Regards. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you are going to start on an article on adominal fat which is different to what is meant by adominal obesity it will simply get voted for deletion based on lack of notability. We could start articles then on fat in wrists, arms, legs, ass, thighs, where do we stop?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There are only 3 types of fat:
- Abdominal fat or Visceral fat
- subcutaneous fat
- intramuscular fat
As mentioned in the lead. They are fundamentally different. Abdominal obesity is notable only because of correlation with heart risk. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 09:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Excess of abdominal fat, and much of the notability of abdominal fat, is covered in Abdominal obesity. What's left should be covered in Body fat. I see no need for this page. -- Scray ( talk) 15:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Scray and Literature. This page is a co track and needs to be deleted and redirected to abdominal obesity as agreed previously.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is like merging Body fat with Obesity, which are different. What i feel is other editor hate the word "fat", which is also used for mocking. But separate article for Abdominal fat makes complete sense. My undid move was of the intention of merging Abdominal obesity with Abdominal fat, but merging in other direction seems illogical. Also, all the editors came from WP:MEDICINE would have same point of view, so broader input is required. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I am now wondering is there a point to having an article called "visceral fat"? I wasn't aware there were two other articles on subscutaneous or intramuscular fat. What about the other two articles should they be merged, kept or deleted? What are peoples views?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a medical topic which is why many editors are from WP:MED. I can say as can others that we do not hold the same views on many topics. Abdominal obesity is close enough in meaning to both abdominal and visceral fat that the other pages are not needed. If you are talking about the special characteristics of fat found in the viscera or around the waist than this is best discussed as a subheading of the fat article and is not significant to warrant its own article. If of course the section on visceral fat get so long and detailed that it needs its own page than that is another matter that we can deal with if it ever becomes a reality.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
My views lean towards merging this article with either abdominal obesity or body fat article. The other two articles i.e., subcutaneous fat and intramuscular fat I am wondering if they should be merged into body fat or left as they are?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- No need of merging, instead all the articles can be improved. Also I dont understand why abdominal obesity be merged to abdominal fat, a specific answer would be helpful. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I never said that Golf, please don't misconstrue my words to back up your position. I said the merge the other way round, this page into abdominal obesity.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is the other way around Abdominal fat should be merged into Abdominal obesity or the article on fat Fat around the abdominal is not notable.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that at this point it makes sense to merge this page into Abdominal obesity and Adipose tissue.
- Goesgolf20 - if you want there to be an article specifically about adipose tissue in the peritoneal cavity, expanding the coverage of that topic would help. (i.e., provide content that explains what it is, how it is different from other types of fat, etc. Most of this article is about the condition of abdominal obesity, which already has an article, rather than being about the material.) Some good content and references would make a stronger basis for keeping this article, rather than just asserting without evidence that this type of tissue is different/special. If it will take a while to develop such material, probably makes sense to do it within the adipose tissue article, then split once there is enough of it. Zodon ( talk) 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Zodon, article maybe merged with adipose tissue but not with obesity, again, remind you google search has double results for '"abdominal fat" -wikipedia'. I expanded lead little, and improvement will take time - I will be adding more content soon - spare me few days. But the article already has content more than just a section - so deserves separate article. Thanks all. Goesgolf20 ( talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Than we agree to merge into adipose tissue than? Abdominal fat is vague it means either central obesity of visceral fat.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that "abdominal fat" is treated here, whether rightly or wrongly (though clearly not consistently), as a synonym for "visceral fat" which is a distinct and notable concept (fat inside the abdominal cavity - not subcutaneous fat which merely happens to be in the general area of the abdomen) which needs its own page. To redirect from "visceral fat" to "abdominal fat" to "adipose tissue" might have seemed sensible at every step, but the end effect is destructive. I can't support the elimination of this page unless visceral fat is first restored. 24.79.89.34 ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Restoring this page doesn't really help deal with visceral fat. Currently the only content we have relating to visceral fat is in the adipose tissue article. I renamed the section to make it clearer, and fixed the visceral fat redirect so it goes directly to the appropriate material. So far there isn't enough material about visceral fat to warrant a separate article, as noted above, once there is we can split it into its own article. Rather than duplicating content in a lot of articles, seems to make sense to have a few articles cover the content that we have, and expand/improve them to the point where makes sense to split. Zodon ( talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)