Talk:Soft palate

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Merge

Time to merge soft palate, hard palate, and palate into one article? DiverDave (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would say no. I like that there is a article for almost every specific anatomical term. I my opinion the articles should stay separated, even though they are stubs at the moment. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I also oppose this merge. As nothing has been done in the 9 months since the last comment, I'm removing the tags. LT90001 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, thinking that adding all the details about muscles would bloat the suggested mega-palate article.Mvsmith (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Muscles of soft palate and fauces

Musculature is already covered on the main article, 'soft palate'.
Musculature is an essential part of the soft palate
There are only five 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 the soft palate', 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) 07:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle function

In section Muscles, in the bulleted list, the third item Palatopharyngeus: it is said here that this muscle is involved in breathing. I went to the article, and all statements about its function are about swallowing, and none about breathing. Thinking that if all are involved (solely involved) in swallowing, then why not just state this at the top and delete the parallelism? So I looked at the articles for the other muscles in this list:

Tensor veli palatini: this article (Soft palate) says involved in swallowing, but Tensor veli palatini says both swallowing and hearing.
Palatoglossus: this article says swallowing, but Palatoglossus says involved in swallowing and (eeew...) saliva-spilling.
Levator veli palatini: this article says swallowing, and Levator veli palatini says swallowing. (Although there's non-parallel heading structure.)
Musculus uvulae: this article says moves the uvula, but Musculus uvulae redirects to Palatine uvula, which says that the muscle is involved in swallowing.

So...hmmm. Breathing isn't mentioned in any of the five articles in the list, even though muscular control of the palate is important for breathing. Deleting the paralellism wouldn't work, either, as the Tensor veli palatini also helps with hearing, the Palatoglossus also does spit-control, and the Palatopharyngeus supposedly helps with breathing. I'm not an anatomist and can't offer an informed opinion. Came here to find out what the resting state of the palate is (open or closed) and its connection to conscious or half-conscious control of the muscles, and haven't yet found an answer anywhere! Mvsmith (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Function::Modelling section is unclear

There's a lot of technical jargon describing something, but it's not clear what the point of the section is. If the section started with a high-level summary of the goals of the research and finished with a summary of the significance of the findings, it would be more useful to Wikipedia's general audience. Aminomancer (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]