Talk:Love handles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Love handles.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

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.

[edit] Merger

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

[edit] 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.