Talk:Chewing

message: Merged chewing article with this mastication article --Djanvk 03:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A monkeymasturbate masticates while others watch. Really?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.177.214 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Caption

message: I just thought I would outline this. I thought it rather hilarious.130.220.79.99 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhymes with Masturbation

message: :This is my first time actually creating an account and logging into Wikipedia. I was hoping that after I logged-in there would be some way to flag this article. I'm not sure I should edit this, but in the first paragraph at the top of the page, someone has placed some "garbage" in there. Can I just edit this myself? How does this work - I'll go read the docs or whatever - but I just thought I'd place it into someone else's "knowing" hands before taking matters into my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoellyB (talk • contribs) 
::Wikipedia has the same slogan as Nike - just do it.  WLU 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random talk

message: Some of the terms here are in boldface because they are redirects to this page. Because this article is intended to encompass terms like muscles of mastication without having a separate article for the term, the boldface is used so those arriving from redirects are able to find what they were looking for quickly. Without this, the redirects may cause confusion and defeat the purpose. I've replaced the boldface on the aforementioned muscles of mastication, because I was the one who unlinked it as a redirect to mastication. BigNate37(T) 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen this before, is there a policy?  I don't think the boldface is necessary and would prefer plain text - boldface gives the term an added importance or cues the reader to pay more attention to it, which isn't really the purpose you give above for bolding the terms.  Besides, in this case, there's a section heading.  Better might be to correct the redirect link to go right to that section.  I'll do so.  WLU 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to me it seems like the term could be in boldface as the subject of that section, much like the subject of an article is in boldface in its introductory paragraph. However, it is fine as it is. As long as you're aware of my reasoning as you remove the bold markup, it's fine with me. BigNate37(T) 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I really think the bold is distracting to readers, and I've never seen a page with similar bolding.  What I did was every link that was directly to the muscles of mastication redirect I corrected to link directly to the section - no need for bold if it goes right to a section named for what the link is.  WLU 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that may not be the best solution. Easter eggs are bad (yes, that was ironic). BigNate37(T) 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh, hadn't seen that before.  I'll think on it, but if I recall correctly, all my piped links are from Muscles of mastication to Mastication#Muscles of mastication, so it's not too traumatizing.  Good policy though, it'll affect my wikilinking from here on.  Thanks! WLU 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you've put them side-by-side and I see the difference between Muscles of mastication and Mastication#Muscles of mastication right infront of me, I don't think piping muscles of mastication could be considered an easter egg anyways. Glad to have pointed it out, though. BigNate37(T) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldface terms 

message: Let's include certain things that are good to chew. We could have a list.  Areally awesome list of all our favorite things to chew. Let's do it. Feel free to post up a few things you like to chew. Chewing rocks!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.143.96 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good 

message: Just throwing this out there.
JL used this in place of "masturbation" in the lyrics for Give Peace a Chance. Don't know if any notes belong on the article or if it's relative, but I wouldn't mind if someone put it in there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.129.191 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song 

message: I wanted to look for people called Chew, I am directed to a page on Mastication. It has a subsidiary link to a disambiguation page. There are 22 articles listed on that page, including 16 biographies. Why is Chew(Mastication) far more noteworthy than the disambiguation page?Brunswicknic (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that most people typing in "chew" or especially "chewing" would be looking for this page. Having said that, doesn't greatly matter if they have to go through a dab like everyone else who is not looking for this page. Lesion (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Mastication" of higher value than people? 

message: I have proposed this merge, between the muscles page and this article, because:
* Musculature is an essential part of mastication that should be covered on this article
* There is no unique anatomical structure called 'muscles of mastication', except in Gray's Anatomy, so this article would be better displayed where it is useful.
* There is no need for the information on musculature to be hidden away on a separate article. This means the information is not presented as it could be, and it is needlessly fragmented. 
* Additionally, this page is small and it would give more context to have the information displayed in a central location, rather than hidden on a separate article. 
* If necessary, the article on ossification could be expanded at a later date.
* As can be seen, by having two separate articles content is already duplicated and/or displayed on one or either article, rather than displayed in a central place on just one article LT910001 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It could work... my only concern is that ideally the page muscles of mastication should discuss things other than mastication. E.g. temporomandibular joint disorder, bruxism, spread of odontogenic infection (in which they present barriers to the spread of infection) and I am sure there is more I cannot thin of right now...do we merge the muscles involved in swallowing with deglutition? Not sure... Lesion (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  The use of the term "muscles of mastication" extends far beyond Gray, and the term is still in use at medical schools to this day.  These muscles are a unified group, all working together for one main purpose, all with the same innervation, etc.  It's like "rotator cuff" or "ligaments of the knee" - a group of discrete structures unified by a common purpose. HCA (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose the anatomists of the world have seen fit to create a page for almost every muscle in the human or animal body.  While the practicality of this approach could be questioned, it goes far beyond this discussion and we'd be breaking with precedent.  I stumbled across this page looking for muscles of the face.  As a "for-instance" check out muscles of the neck. Omohyoid, which I think is a fine muscle but imo doesn't deserve a page bigger than the masseter has it's own prolific page. Ian Furst (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Muscles of mastication]] 

message: Sec effetgfe 81.30.240.231 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ssssssss