Talk:Nasal mucus

Effect of water

Water is a good expectorant, as it thins mucus. This effect of water on mucus is also relevant to articles such as nasal mucus and sinusitis (logically, and based on personal experience). However I can't find suitable sources. --Singkong2005 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booger merge

Booger is never going to be a real article that is more than an etymological footnote (at least not without adding a load of unencyclopedic crap). I therefore think it should be subsumed under the larger heading. Mgekelly - Talk 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the Booger page wishes to remain an "etymological footnote". Ewlyahoocom 14:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by this Mge kelly 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at the histories of the two pages, starting around 9 April. Ewlyahoocom 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I don't really know what you're getting at. Nasal mucus used to redirect to Booger - so what? That doesn't mean that Booger shouldn't in fact redirect to Nasal mucus. It doesn't seem to me that you have any cause to remove my merge tags as it does not seem to me that a full discussion as yet taken place. Mge kelly 07:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look! I've moved Booger to Booger (word), and redirected Booger to Nasal mucus. What more do you want? Ewlyahoocom 08:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let's chill out a little, and try not to contribute to each other's wikistress. I must say, what you've just outlined is not what I wanted. Firstly, I would have liked the merge tag to stay up long enough to get some other opinions - though I think one could argue that this is an obscure topic on which there are not many interested parties, so immediate action might be reasonable. However, in that case, my position is that booger the word does not require its own page. So I'll probably AfD that page you've created. But not before you come back to me with your thoughts on this. mge kelly 08:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look! Two weeks ago I felt the same way[1]! I even created the original redirect at Nasal mucus! Another editor didn't dig it [2][3]. Good luck with your afd (see here and here.) Ewlyahoocom 08:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am again somewhat unclear - please bear with me. Are you saying that you used to think as I do about this and have now changed your opinion? Or would you still support a merge? If the latter, then let's just redirect Booger (word) too. mge kelly 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I thought it could work -- or I wouldn't have created the redirect. But the folks at Booger don't want it. And now I'm pretty sure all the fun facts about the word Booger just wouldn't fit into an article on mucus (nasal or otherwise) so, yes, at this time, I oppose putting them back together. Ewlyahoocom 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have the "folks at booger" made their voice heard on this? mge kelly 10:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, c'mon now! You've been editing Wikipedia long enough to know how to read a history log. I'm done talking about this but I look forward to voting Oppose or Keep on whatever you wind up proposing. Ewlyahoocom 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm just going to leave it as it is. I looked at the history log for Booger and am none the wiser. The only thing I could imagine you were referring to is a totally inconclusive straw poll on the booger talkpage which happened sometime last year.mge kelly 11:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booger is too important to be subsumed under the larger heading, especially since it is the only real term to describe the unwieldy phrase "dried nasal mucous." It should be left as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.221.48 (talk • contribs)

This justification doesn't make sense, since enquiries about "boogers" will simply redirect to "nasal mucus". Mge kelly 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main article tags

These tags are pointless. For them to be added into the article, they need to be proved as needed. Not to belittle anyone, but any user who can not clearly see that there is a wikilink to each article after reading the paragraph is probably not capable of reading the encyclopedia in the first place. If there is any decisive reasont include these tags, they need to be stated.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that if, Nose-picking and Snot rocket each had their own section, instead of combined into the single section, then the Main article tags would be appropriate? Ewlyahoocom 02:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably then, yes. because It would be more effective than inline linking. I'd see that as a problem though because you'd have to do it for all of the methods, and really dont think there is enough detail for that. Faced with that alternative over these tags, the tags in their current state, although unsightly and apalling, are still better. I've been spending too much time on something this aesthetic as it is, so do what you please. With some of the horrible weasel words, fancruft and bias wars going on this should probably be the least of our concerns.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture on this page is excellent. JaymzSpyhunter 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nose-picking

I am removing the nose-picking guide. It has a number of problems. Firstly, this is an article about nasal mucus, not nose-picking. I think it warrants a separate article, given that it is in interesting practice which is taboo in some cultures. What is in this article, however, is nothing like what that article should be. It's a guide. Wikipedia is not a guide. Moreover, the info here is unreferenced in to some extent probably unverifiable. mge kelly 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Rhinolith

According to this, a Rhinolith isn't just a dried booger, but is in fact a calcareous concretion that is formed by the deposition of salts on an intranasal foreign body. http://www.ghorayeb.com/Rhinolith.html

Should we change the article then? Asarelah 01:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great picture.... 67.185.99.246 22:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really great.... Flora 06:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Picture?

Where is the picture? Every page should get a picture even the booger page.Moonwalkerwiz 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is mucus greenish yellowish??

Does anyone know?

This article provides an explanation: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=643906 (unsubstantiated by me tho)

Snivel

Just a point of interest... Snivel redirects here, but the page has no reference to Snivel - I've no idea what it is, but I'm sure the good people here in Nasal Country know all about it... --Mortice 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinolith revisited

The definition of rhinolith in this article is incorrect, as is the redirect from Rhinolith. The image is also non-representative. Will fix. Erielhonan 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

From WP:IMAGE

Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic). Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator (e.g. in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artefacts), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Images that aren't properly identified (e.g. images with descriptions such as "a cuneiform tablet", "a medieval manuscript" etc.) are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia.

This image fails on notability and on being properly referenced. There is no authority behind the image, and therefore no reason to believe that it is what it is purported to be. It could be a piece of chicken fat or gelatin - there is no way to verify the content. The only source reference is to a user named User:Booger Eater (the uploader), who has provided nearly no information about the image and has not otherwise contributed to Wikipedia.

I am removing this image and will continue to do so if it is restored without verifiable qualification. If another user can provide information that verifies the content of the image and its compliance with WP:N (keeping in mind that, "[n]otability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly"), please do so before restoring this image on the nasal mucus page. Erielhonan 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Relevant to the topic? It's a picture of a booger on the booger page.

Notable relevant to the articles topic? Yes. Being notable by themselves is not a requirement of an image whatsoever. Notable to the topic, it is the topic.

Authority, honesty of the uploader. If you honestly think it is not what the uploader claims, go read WP:AGF. It looks like a booger, might as well be a booger, even if it is gelatin. Again though, Assume Good Faith.

I'm restoring it now.

SchmuckyTheCat 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about nasal mucus, a medical topic. It's not about boogers. This is Wikipedia, not third grade. And assuming good faith does not mean being gullible or uncritical. Good faith doesn't mean leaving content of questionable veracity or value in an article. The fact that the account that uploaded the image seems to have been create solely for the purpose uploading the image (check out the contribution page) makes it highly questionable.

If you move the image to nose-picking I won't question the move (I'll leave that up to the people who keep an eye on that page). But leaving it here is inappropriate. This is not the "booger" page. Please be serious about the integrity of the content here. E riel honan 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that merge, go for it.

If you have a better picture, replace it.

SchmuckyTheCat 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Mucus

Merge as suggester. Suggesting this merger because:

Nasal mucus is not broad enough a topic to warrant it's own page.
There is considerable content on this page that deals with other forms of mucus, including phlegm, which is defined as respiratory tract mucus originating below the nose.
This page is a target for childish edits and vandalism in its current narrow-topic format; merging would help to forestall some of the unseriousness that this page attracts. E riel honan 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there were no objections to the merger I've moved all content to Mucus and created a redirect from this page. E riel honan 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]