Talk:Tongue/Archive 1

A question about languages

Is this English?

Coated tongue

What causes a tongue to be coated for long periods of time? Is brushing the tongue after brushing teeth healthy? Or could it damage taste buds? --bodnotbod 02:22, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

comment: it is a tounge on a ship My sister says that it's bacteria collected after eating. Also from drinking liquids such as milk and juice, e.t.c. There are things called"tongue scraper" in the oral care section of pharmacies. This helps scrape the white stuff off, usually not most of it. They say it's one of the causes of bad breath or halitosis. Brushing your tongue can help to clean it off. I'd say it's useful but it doesn't do damage. Edit by: Kristen [age 11]68.162.216.144 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piercing

Someone may consider replacing the pierced tongue picture since it may risk offending somebody. - Jerryseinfeld 17:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How on earth is a picture of a pierced tongue "offensive" to anyone? The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, and in many cases a picture is worth a thousand words. Since the tongue is one of the body parts most commonly pierced/modified today, I believe this is worth mention. The fact that the human tongue is an organ that so many people today are having pierced is an interesting point to note when discussing the tongue as a subject. Furthermore a picture of a pierced tongue does more to demonstrate this fad than a description could. An encyclopedia should be objective, and therefore not place value judgements that restrict information. The purpose is to say "here is information about the tongue". The mention that the article might say "by the way, in modern society the trend of piercing the tongue has increased in popularity exponentially over the years; here is a picture of what a tongue piercing looks like" is completely informative in nature and (at least in my estimation) completely benign and inoffensive. Unless of course you have a problem with tongue piercings for some reason. But then again that should really be your own issue. For example in an article on the human ear, I would naturally expect that there might be some mention of the ubiquitous ear piercing trend among humans today, and I would expect to perhaps see a picture of an ear with an earing in it. If someone was offended by an ear piercing photo then most people would likely say that was their own personal belief and that Wikipedia shouldn't have to cater to every possible thing that someone might find offensive (unless it is something which is specifically and directly offensive in nature). When the image is completely informative in intent, it should be allowed. An article on Nazi's for example would be expected to show a picture of a swatztika, and this would not be meant to offend or promote nazism, but merely to show a picture of something that is commonly related with the subject. If a swatztika is tolerated, I think a pierced tongue should be no big contraversy. But it is all a mute point as I don't even see an image of a piercing on the article. - AnonUser

But the Picture may be offending to some people such as myself. Of course i do not see any "pierced tongue" picture anyway. - Anonomus User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.193.200 (talk • contribs)

Oral sex

Why does this discussion include an oral sex link? Since children often use wikipedia for science research, shouldn't we remove the sex reference?

Adults familiar with oral sex know the tongue plays an important role----and if they want to know more, they can enter "oral sex" in as a search.

The oral sex reference strikes me as entirely valid: it is a clear secondary use of the tongue after its involvement in eating and speech and is worthy of mention. Children do indeed use Wikipedia, which is a good thing, but you should remember that Wikipedia is not bowdlerised or (as some would have it) "child-safe". See our content disclaimer for more on this. Also I'm afraid I don't see the logic that this mention of oral sex is in any way harmful to children. Wikipedia is here to educate and I don't consider such knowledge to be damaging to children, and I think many if not most Wikipedians would agree with me. There are parts of Wikipedia that are best kept from children - graphic images of Holocaust victims and such - but I don't think the tongue article falls into that category. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. One powerful thing about Wikipedia or any online electronic encyclopedia is its ability to *relate* information and subjects. A mere mention to fact that the tongue has a secondary use in oral sex in addition to its primary roles in speaking and in eating is completely legitimate. Besides, it does not go into detail, it merely mentions this and then includes a pointer to the article on oral sex where the reader can learn more on the tongue's role there. This is no different than for example to mention in an article on the knee that the human knee is sometimes used as a weapon in certain forms of combat and martial arts such as thai kick boxing and then linking to relevant articles. The desire to exclude the oral sex link stems from a value judgement on the topic of sex, and an implied assumption that sex and anything sexual is somehow "innapropriate".

There is no call for oral sex to be mentioned. Certainly wikipedia is here to educate, but I wouldn't neccessarily call a little lesson on the role of the tongue in oral sex educational. Besides that, this information WOULD be harmful to children. Sex is a powerful and dangerous tool. Children that see this paragraph and are NOT familiar with the terms are suddenly thrust into the concept, which is not healthy, especially at young, but comprehensable ages. It gets them on a wrong start to understanding sex and using it safely and appropriately. They see this stuff, gain a desire to experiment with and emulate it, and that throws them on the track of becoming one of the pregnant or fathers we've seen through high school. Parents should be able to send their kids on a research quest without being exposed to this trash.

Well if you have such a problem with the mere mention of the tongue having a role in oral sex, you're really going to be upset with the article on "Clitoris"! Take a look around Wikipedia; it's never been intended to be "kid friendly". There's an article on the word "fuck," after all. There is no room here for your POV on sexual ethos. The goal is to comprehensively include as much information as possible. Just because some people, you included, aren't open about sexuality doesn't mean that the world should be cleansed of such information. Objectively, there is nothing "harmful" or "dangerous" about sex, oral sex, or mentioning the tongue's role in the latter. It is natural, it is true, and it is informative. Anthropologically speaking, the role of the tongue in oral sex is not only valid and interesting information, but also DOES have significant educational value--worth mentioning. The moralization of sexual activity is POV, plain and simple, and operating under the pretense that a mention of oral sex is "offensive" is not what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is an exchange of knowledge and information, free from the repressive and inhibitive effect of value judgments. No "offense" intended of course :)

-Thelastemperor 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with parents? If you have a problem with the content your children are accessing on wikipedia, well here is a novel idea, *supervise* their online activity instead of leaving them to their own devices at the PC and expecting other wikipedians to play e-nanny and sanitize any "unsuitable" entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.187.139 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A lot of teachers all over the world send their students to look up on Wikipedia and make an exposure of innocent topics like a tongue for their biology subject. The tongue only main purposes is to help on chewing food, and speech. Cleary between the contributors of this site, there individuals that want to stress out their fantasies as a "fact" in an encyclopedia. It's like saying that FEET are part of sexual intercourse. My daughter is disgusted with the references to "oral sex", she is 18 years old but I've took good care of her that she wouldn't approach these topics during her teens, until she becomes an Adult with a good judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.134.131.60 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we mention foot fetishism in the foot article. So? There's little use being in denial about it. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A foot as part of sexual intercouse? - By that logic then every physical object secondary use is to be used in a sexual intercouse, the hair, for hair fetichist, arm pits, ear, etcetera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.134.123.217 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia is NOT censored -- "'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content" (see WP:Sexual content, specifically -- "Sexual content cannot be removed from Wikipedia just because it is sexually charged."). It is completely acceptable to reference oral sex on this page, should it be reintegrated in the future. ~rezecib ^(talk) 18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic muscles of the tongue

The claim that "the tongue is the strongest muscle in the human body proportional to size," is disputed at the strongest human muscle.

and what is the scientific name for "tongue"? we should include it as well

The scientific name for "tongue" in the US is "tongue." :) However, if you see the word or prefix "glossal" or "glosso-" in anatomical articles, it comes from glossa, the Greek word for tongue. Robotsintrouble 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the entire section about tongue rolling and genetic inheritance be moved to the main article about Muscles of tongue?

For some reason the entire list of four intrinsic muscles was removed last year. I wikified it, checked links, and replaced it. Jonah Winters (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Is it remotely possible that someone in the world has never seen a tongue? If its not (which I believe) then what information does this image convey?--Light current 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose its removal--Light current 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get a better image, I'm all for it. A cross-section of the tongue would be ideal. -Harmil 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas:

I'm changing the images a little. Check the page and see what you think. Robotsintrouble 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed as it does not illustrate anything other than what a person would see in a mirror. A illustration pointing out the locations of taste would be optimum. Mace 09:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think locations of taste on the tongue has been agreed to be false.92.4.109.185 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dr Bock plate33.jpg
Image:Gray1013.png
Image:Gray1024.png

Article rating

I placed the article as having a top rating since the tongue is a significant landmark in dentistry and greatly influences the location of teeth by providing a force to antagonize lip and cheek muscles. Also, I based my B-class rating of the article because of the large amount of information, but lack of in-line references and no section on diseases commonly affecting the tongue. - Dozenist talk 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a very important structure... I've added a lot of anatomical information today, but there are a lot of problems in the structure and flow of the article... most noticably at the beginning, where there's a paltry introduction that is actually shorter than the long list of the word for 'tongue' in dozens of languages. I feel I've added enough technical details, other editors are needed to work on the intelligibility and flow of the article. Let me know if you have any questions about the muscles or whatnot. They might even deserve their own article if this one improves. Robotsintrouble 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct statement?

It is the primary organ of taste.

The majority of "taste" actually comes from the nose. The tongue can only sense certain things. Perhaps that statement should be clarified. I mean what can the tongue actually "taste" v. the confusion with the nose and taste. There also seems to be missing the structure of the underside of the tongue as well... --Hitsuji Kinno 17:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that from? For me, I taste food with my tongue, I don't stuff it in my nose to taste it. If you have citation for that, please add it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.255.175.53 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He is absolutly right, you can look this up a million different places.. one of which including here. http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/your_sense_of_taste/index.html A huge portion of what you preceive as taste is actually due to your sense of smell.XXLegendXx 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is absolutely wrong. In scientific terms, taste is described as differentiation between sweet, sour, bitter, salty, etc. What you are referring to taste is the detection of flavour, which is done with the nose. What is colloquially referred to as the taste of the food is actually the smell or flavour of the food, not the taste - in scientific terms this is the olfactory sense. This is an issue of semantics or nomenclature and seeing as this is a scientific article, I think the tongue should remain the primary organ of taste. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biting Off One's Tongue

Is it actually possible to commit suicide by biting off one's tongue as is frequently referenced in Japanese media? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.131.202 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ew. Y'know, I think it'd be possible. I saw this movie once (a really dumb movie) where they had to reset this guy's leg and they made him bite down on a stick to keep from biting his tongue...but since it was a really dumb movie who knows if it's true or not. But I would think it'd be possible due to blood loss. --Kiwi 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've bitten my tongue off before when I was very young. I don't think it would kill you unless you walked around for a long time until you bled to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.74.115 (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reptiles

What about reptilian tounges? Secondary uses mentions nothing about them, even though they are very unique in the fact that reptiles use them to taste air.(I think, perhaps it's all been a lie for these years) Well, most reptiles, from the way I see it. Snakes and most lizards. It should still be mentioned, since you are mentioning dogs.-Dragonryth 10:57 PM PST

healthy tounge?

the image of the toungue looks alot different than mine.. most notable is that it's crackly like a cookie in the center and has notable lines like a handprint, mine is crackly around the edges and real smooth in the center, with no lines? is my toungue healthy?

LOL, don't worry about that, everyone have a different looking tongue, it's in your DNA. So if you see someone else's fingerprint, will you say your finger isn't healthy?! Anyway, if you are still worried, you can always see a doctor.

I agree. That tongue is weird-looking. I glad I'm not the only person who noticed that. Regardless of DNA, something is definitely off here. 69.87.180.209 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a condition known as fissured tongue. I have a slight case of it, although not as bad as the pic. The official line from mainstream medicine is that it's part of natural variation in tongues, and is totally benign and not a big deal. (Although personally I'm not sure I'd agree with that, mine is painful every now and then, and it can be extremely sensitive to hot or acidic foods). --Krsont 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tongue length

i'm curious how long is the tounge anyways? average - smallest - largest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.25.104.250 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

All tongues are precisely 13.5 mm long, as long as your reference point is 13.5 mm from the tip. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page says that the longest female tongue is 7 cm which is a joke. Sites like femaletongue.org and even youtube have hundreds or maybe even thousands of tongues way longer than Annika Irmler's. I personally know someone who can touch her tongue to the eye and I don't think it's THAT uncommon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.9.238 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-human tongues

The part about the thermoregulation of the dog.I thot it was evaporation from his longs that helped him cool him self.What surface is more important for exchanges,the little tongue or the 2 tenis fields of lung surface?Isn't that why he breads fast?--87.64.0.234 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow Licking

It is one of those 'common knowledge' "facts" that it is impossible to lick ones elbow. I can do this however, I was just wondering if anyone knows if this is a true fact or just a common misconception? --TheNobGoblin 15:58, 1 April 2007 (GMT)

I think you answered your own question. --Krsont 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture

Is this picture useful anywhere? -bladebot 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tongue tastebuds.jpg

nice, thank you. --75.41.34.231 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...it clearly shows the fungiform papillae scattered among the filliform. Place it in the article, if you wish. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of tongue in pharmacy

The article currently claims "The sublingual route ... is the only convenient and efficacious route of administration of nitroglycerin capsules to a patient suffering angina pectoris, chest pain. If the caplet is swallowed, the medication is completely neutralized by the detoxification process of the liver."

I slapped the {{fact}} tag on this last sentence, because I suspect it is wrong. I thought the liver detoxifies the blood no matter what route something got into the blood? I suspect there is some other reason why doctors recommend placing nitroglycerin capsules under the tongue.

Could someone post (preferably with supporting references) the real reason?

--75.41.34.231 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the real reason. This is referring to first pass metabolism - when drugs are ingested, the hepatic portal vein passes the absorbed drugs straight to the liver without hitting any other organs in the body. When the drug is absorbed through the mucosa underneath the tongue, the veinous drainage of the floor of the mouth returns to the heart before the blood hits the liver. So you are correct, the liver does detoxify the blood, but the route of intake of a drug does determine what organs it passes through before it hits the liver. Many times drugs are administered to avoid first pass metabolism such as IV or sublingual routes. This statement should get a reference so the fact tag is relevant here, but not for the reasons you stated. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fascinating! -bladebot 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of languages

Do we need the list of translations of "tongue" into a dozen languages? Marnanel 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article is great

I just wanted to say that as a student, this article fills in a lot of the gaps that the professor manages to forget to mention during his lecture. Articles like these are very helpful in bringing in the big picture. So thanks to everyone who works hard to keep these articles accurate and up to date. Umd101 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)umd101[reply]

Can the tongue be swallowed?

I can bend my tongue over on top of itself, pointed towards the back of my throat, and somewhere I got the idea that if I kept pushing and applied suction, I would swallow my tongue, the whole thing upside down and pointed towards my stomach. What would happen next, whether or not I'd be able to retrieve my tongue, or if in fact I'd suffocate . . . I don't know. Is this even possible, in the first place? It's really turned into a neurotic sort of fear that makes me shudder and get jumpy.

Also, and I realize this may seem off topic, but is there a name for that weird sort of fear that you yourself are going to do something dangerous or destructive unless you actively stop yourself? For example, being atop a bridge and being afraid that if you don't consciously concentrate on NOT doing so, you will jump off. Or (this example comes from Daniel Clowes's Eightball), being behind a police officer, and being afraid you'll grab his gun and shoot him in the head, thus ruining your life forever.

The reason I ask, of course, is because I have this fear about swallowing my tongue and suffocating on it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be asking such an off-topic question. Thank you.

--63.25.23.150 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably suffocate, but not WHOLLY swallow it (it IS attached to your mouth, after all). And that's call "psychotic impulsivity". AKA UR NUTS. 98.151.195.132 (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted two images

I know deletion is generally frowned upon, but there were three images in the short non-human tongue section, and they were forcing the rolled tongue image into the tongue as food section, which was not appropriate. The parrot picture didn't illustrate anything much as the parrot wasn't doing anything too strange with its tongue, although the giraffe did have a long tongue and so was an interesting picture. Leaving the third picture in still shows a very long animal tongue, and the tongue rolling image is now correctly in the tongue rolling section and not the food section. It was very odd to see a picture of a young child in the tongue as food section. I apologize for deleting, I know people are sensitive to having their contributions deleted, but the layout did more harm than good. And of course you can revert my changes if you think I am out of line, but really take a look at the layout -- perhaps there is another way it can be improved without deletion. If so, go for it, but this was the only thing I could think of. I also think a lot of this page could use cites (but no I don't know tongue cites, it's not my area).--Wmjames (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different taste regions of tongue

"Contrary to the popular myth and generations of schoolbooks, there are no distinct regions for tasting different tastes. This myth arose because Edwin G. Boring replotted data from one of Wundt's students (Hanig) without labeling the axes, leading some to misinterpret the graph as all or nothing response." Is this statement really true, even Britannica states different regions of the tongue have larger concentrations of certain taste receptors? Jack (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's really true. Britannica is wrong.

1. Collings, V.B., Human taste response as a function of locus of stimulation on the tongue and soft palate. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974. 16(1): p. 169-174.

2. Duffy, V.B., et al., Taste: Vertebrate Psychophysics, in New Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, L. Squire, Editor. 2008, Elsevier Ltd. Oxford: Oxford.

Jeh25 (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN YOU BURN YOUR TONGUE ON LIKE HOT SOUP OR SOMETHING

HOW DOES IT REACT?

IDK, maybe u should try and tell us 189.1.128.83 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup needed

Wow, I love mature people Dobelover12725 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Licks Man's Face?

What? Seriously, what is with that image? All the caption says is: A Woman Licks A Man's Face. How odd and seemingly unnecessary.60.229.15.167 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue 'fur'

There are many sources that claim the so-called 'fur' on the tongue may be a symptom of some diseases or conditions, especially gastrointestinal ones. But I couldn't find any explanation as to what that 'fur' actually is. What is the composition of the tongue 'fur' and how is it produced? I think the article would be even better if these questions had been answered. Tulilihum (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Tulilihum: I guess "tongue fur" could refer the to the lingual papillae themselves or to the tongue coating. A degree of tongue coating is normal and not (necessarily) associated with any disease, although persons with heavier tongue coating are more likely to suffer from halitosis. Excessive tongue coating and overgrowth of the lingual papillae might represent black hairy tongue, but that is usually a harmless condition. Agree this could be mentioned in this article, although I trimmed down all the pathology content of this article and linked to tongue disease instead. However it could be argued that since tongue coating is normal, we should mention it here. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piragov's triangle

There is no need for a page or a See Also on the (almost unsourceable) "Piragov's Triangle". While it seems to be real, it is best explained in the text. The page in question seems to be protected somehow, or I would redirect. Newt ^(winkle) 07:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture

The front tooth to the right has a chip in it, can we get a picture without a chip, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.23.143 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frenulum linguae not mentioned on main tongue page

I was trying to learn what the part of the tongue that tethers it down is called (the frenulum or frenulum linguae) and it was nowhere on the main tongue page. I found the answer elsewhere, and then discovered it has its own wiki page, but is not referenced at all on the main tongue page. Perhaps a tongue enthusiast editor can fix that. (note I'm commenting this on both the frenulum linguae page, and the tongue page) 24.230.137.165 (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Matt S.[reply]

Tongue rolling

Content about tongue rolling was removed without discussion in May 2010 (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tongue&oldid=363033070#Tongue_rolling_and_genetic_inheritance and the edits immediately following). I've restored the material as Tongue rolling, someone might wish to restore a mention into this article. Fences&Windows 21:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School Student - 008.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School Student - 008.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School Student - 008.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling For Pictures about Papillae

There is no good picture about papillae in the current article.

Pictures are needed for papilla vallata, papilla filiformis and papilla fungiformis. Some pictures about the rudimentary papillas, papilla foliata, can be useful too.

I will do it when I get a preparate next time to my hand - about 10 months from today. Let's hope someone is faster than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaminTietokirja (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Big tongue fetish"

My ISP blocked me from visiting the following EL:

--Website removed-- "Big Tongue Fetish"

so I just removed it because it did not sound encyclopedic from the description. Lesion (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Posterior tongue

Needlessly fragmented to have articles on the anterior and posterior aspects of the tongue, this content would be better presented in a single place, with context given by the rest of the article. LT910001 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nom. Lesion (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this merge (Anterior tongue also) --LT910001 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Muscles of tongue

I have proposed this merge, between the muscles page and this article, because:

Musculature is already covered on the main article, 'tongue'.
Musculature is an essential part of the tongue
There are only four external and four intrinsic muscles and it is detrimental to the quality of both articles to have them in this separate, fragmented form.
There is no unique anatomical structure called 'muscles of tongue', 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.
If necessary, the article on musculature 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) 07:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- Yes, agree with that rationale. I would go further than saying musculature is essential part of the tongue, it is basically all muscle... Lesion (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this merge. --LT910001 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should more aptly be named Human Tongue

Atleast untill it is extended or split and rewritten more generally. --MeUser42 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved I rearranged the article's content and reheaded the sections, so that it's clear what is human tongue and what is not. — Molly-in-md (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Median sulcus of tongue

Most already on target page where Surfaces section might be a better location Iztwoz (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Tongue posture and relation to dental alignment

It is held science that the tongue plays a vital role in orthodontic alignment of teeth. There is a direct relationship between the posture of the tongue and the growth pattern in hominoids. This should be included in this article.Jamesniederle (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would think Mouth or Orthodontics would be more appropriate places for such information. I recommend discussing such addition on the talk pages of those articles, listing reliable sources you intend to use. - Donald Albury 13:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Spots on the tongue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lead paragraph

Besides the grammar change I made to the lead sentence, I made a substantive change to the the second sentence, which had stated, without a relevant cite, that "[The tongue] is the primary organ of taste in the gustatory system." I don't have a cite to the contrary, but it might be common knowledge that olfaction plays a bigger role. Accordingly, I changed the wording to, "Tongues are primary among taste organs..." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Taste article you will see it is one component in the perception of flavor. Tongues taste, noses smell, and the trigeminal nerve also plays a role. N.B. gustatory system redirects to taste so I've removed it. Just plain Bill (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your observations are substantively right. If this is your area of interest, you might take a closer look at the lead in the Taste article since it seems to arbitrarily conflate its use of the technical meaning regarding "taste" and the generic meaning regarding the taste of food and drink as a matter of perception. I.e. its lead should probably refer merely to "flavor" rather than to "taste (flavor)". Otherwise, I'm not quite satisfied with the syntax of the lead here. I'm set to tweak it to remove the semicolon. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invertebrate tongues

For example, New World bumblebee species include both long- and short-tongued types, occupying different niches. Short-tongued bumblebees are absent from the Old World, with that niche being occupied by honey bees. Here is an opportunity for WP content creation... Just plain Bill (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]