Talk:Ingestion

Shouldn't this be a redirect to eating? Isomorphic 06:22, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * *shrug* You can "ingest" medicine, that's the thing. Is it referred to as eating? Don't know. Dysprosia 06:26, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I added a link to eating. I wasn't claiming they're synonyms. I'm just not sure what should go in this article that would make it more than a dic-def. Not a big deal either way, of course. Isomorphic 06:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the best thing to do :) Dysprosia 06:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there some way we can redirect this to Wiktionary? --NoPetrol 17:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meanings, disambiguation
The additional meaning, a figure of speech in which ingestion is used in a non-biological sense, is a dictionary definition with no hope of becoming an article of its own. Therefore, two things come into play - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and disambiguation entries are only for subjects with the potential to have articles or that already have articles (the article is currently in a disambiguation page format, although it does not have the template at the moment).
 * Also, even if someone comes here looking for the figurative meaning, he or she will almost certainly be able to figure it out from the primary meaning.-- Kjkolb 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By my age I have learned too often the hard way: Don't assume that the reader or listener will make a logical deduction step that may seem obvious to you. Nothing "goes without saying". "Nothing can be guaranteed to follow automatically, not even a dog which is called to heel.". The derived (mechanical) meaning should be stated explicitly, even if only briefly. Anthony Appleyard 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We make assumptions all the time and it would be impossible to write an encyclopedia without doing so. For example, we do not define or link every term in an article. We assume that a reader has some basic knowledge that will allow him or her to understand commonly used words. In the rare situation that a reader does not understand a commonly used word, he or she is expected to use a dictionary or some other resource. People should make assumptions when writing articles. They just need to make sure that the assumption is reasonable. -- Kjkolb 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, many other terms with articles also have multiple meanings, but it is not considered necessary to include them in the articles. For example, inhalation does not have such meanings, even though it is used in the same sense as ingestion when dealing with machinery. Instead, when there is enough material for an article on an additional meaning, it is written and a link to it or a disambiguation page, in the case of multiple articles, is put at the top of the page. For these reasons, I suggest that the page be turned into an article on the primary meaning. If an additional article is created later, a link to it can be put at the top of the page. -- Kjkolb 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Work to be done
This article definitely has lots of potential beyond a dic def. It seemed virtually unsalvageable (was it an article? disambig page? stub? wiktionary redirect?), so I rewrote it as just an intro paragraph. I commented some possible links that could be used for expansion. Topics for expansion could include foreign bodies (special concern with children), recreational drugs (dangers thereof), accidental ingestion of poisons & treatments (e.g. induced vomiting, activated charcoal), pathogens & how many are specifically adapted to get ingested, administration of medications & considerations thereof. --Ginkgo100talk 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)