Talk:Nasal mucus

message: 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)
thread_title: Effect of water

message: 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)
replies: text: Apparently, the Booger page wishes to remain an "etymological footnote". Ewlyahoocom 14:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean by this Mgekelly 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to look at the histories of the two pages, starting around 9 April. Ewlyahoocom 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Mgekelly 07:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. mgekelly 08:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look! Two weeks ago I felt the same way! I even created the original redirect at Nasal mucus! Another editor didn't dig it . Good luck with your afd (see here and here.) Ewlyahoocom 08:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. mgekelly 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Where have the "folks at booger" made their voice heard on this? mgekelly 10:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.mgekelly 11:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This justification doesn't make sense, since enquiries about "boogers" will simply redirect to "nasal mucus". Mgekelly 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booger merge 

message: 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 AlfadorTalk|@ 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 AlfadorTalk|@ 04:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article tags 

message: The picture on this page is excellent. JaymzSpyhunter 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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. mgekelly 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nose-picking 

message: 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)
thread_title: Definition of Rhinolith

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Snivel 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rhinolith revisited

message: 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. Erielhonan 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with [[Mucus]]