Latest comment: 1 month ago by 2405:201:E012:5924:1979:22DF:4AB5:9722 in topic Slang terms

Slang termsEdit

I am inclined to remove the entire list of examples from the "In language" paragraph. It suffers from a very bad lack of verifiability, and there are numerous attempts to popularise newly coined terms by adding them to this list, usually without evidence of usage. JFW | T@lk 15:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scalpy (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the term "shouting to Huey". When Googling for this term, one needs to embrace it with "quotation marks" to get the actual number of uses. I get 18 hits with this, none of which appear to be reliable sources. It isn't even on urbandictionary, usually an indication that it is one of thousands of colourful terms for vomiting that does not belong on Wikipedia. I am waiting for a response. JFW | T@lk 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navjeevan Express Navjeevan Express — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:E012:5924:1979:22DF:4AB5:9722 (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user has not responded here, but in an edit summary makes the fair point that many of these terms listed have exactly the same problem on being of unverifiable relevance. I have now removed the entire paragraph, and await responses here. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To my knowledge, the phrase "call for Hughie/Huey" (and "call for Ralph") for vomiting originates in a sketch by the well known Scottish comedian Billy Connolly almost 30 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I made the templates. figured Fecal vomiting had very little to add and so should be merged here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

technical terminology from heroin article.Edit

Side effects of heroin were described by the first one to synthesize it as creating a "...slight tendency to vomiting in some cases, but no actual emesis." Emesis and vomiting are given as synonyms here in this article, is there / was there ever a technical distinction for the two? In the side bar in the article it also gives: "Vomiting (protracted)", any explanation as to what protracted vomiting is? Does it have something to do with "vomiting...but no actual emesis"? (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emesis = vomiting
"Slight tendency to vomiting" is known to normal people as nausea. Whoever came up with that convoluted phrasing. The error is there, not here. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative spelling of the wordEdit

Isn't the British spelling of the word "vomitting"? It might be worth adding a Spelling differences template. (I am not sure if the alternative spelling is standard British English, but it definitely does exist.) --NetRolller 3D 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it's not. Perhaps it should be, but consistency has never been the hallmark of British English. (I'm English, so I should know!)


I do not agree that a "tactical chunder" is performed so that the person regains enough room in his stomach to continue drinking alcohol. Main usage of the term is at the end of an evening's drinking, to prevent a hangover next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't think that they should be merged, as they are separate things (vomiting and regurgitation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regurgitation better describes what a [rumen] does. Rumens are grass eating animals with multi-chamber stomachs that "chew their cud" for this reason. RonEJ (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I posted the following on the Regurgitation discussion page before realizing the "Discuss" link redirected to this one. Disagree with merge. Despite the colloquial definitions in the dictionary, regurgitation refers to (among other things) a specific behavior of birds, by which they feed partially-digested food to their young and also sometimes as part of courtship. As nurturing behavior, it is the bird equivalent of the mammalian lactation. If anything, this article needs to be expanded with further details and some pictures added. At any rate, it is not the same as vomiting, which birds also do in response to poison, and trust me, the output looks very different from regurgitated food. Mbarbier (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose merger of Vomiting and Regurgitation (digestion) because they are quite separate reactions in humans to medically recognized conditions. Vomiting caused by toxins or diseases, and regurgitation caused by GERD and other conditions. I have expanded the regurgitation article to reflect that difference. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs CitationsEdit

Not sure about the original research limitations on something that is clearly verifiable. I hope to add citations in a few weeks when I get back to my medical notes and texts —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConvertfromIslam (talkcontribs) 05:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been well over three years since the above comment on the need for citations was added by User:ConvertfromIslam; and, this article still needs references. The bulk of the material on "Pathophysiology" and all of the material on "Differential Diagnosis" is not supported by citations. Where did the author get this material? Health Maven (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drawing of Man VomitingEdit

I agree with some other comments on here: the picture should be deleted and replaced with a picture of vomit, chunks and all. After all, there is an arguably more disgusting picture of Meconium on here, so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this here? This is not an illustration which is up to Wiki's standards. I vote to remove. C.anguschandler (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it any worse than that 14th century painting? (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just my opinion of course but I think it is an accurate and clear depiction of the act of vomiting. I haven't got a problem with it. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree it should be removed. (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crappy art? (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)monzReply[reply]

I also agree it should be removed. I would argue for a much more modern, explicit depiction of vomit. I know it's gross and icky and what-have-you, but neither of the images in this article actually depict vomiting or vomit very accurately. The top one, the "14th century painting", seems to show a woman pouring blood out of a man's head. And the second one seems to be a guy lying in a pool of blood, or just leaning his head on a toilet. Neither image is "an accurate and clear depiction of the act of vomiting." Fuzzform (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The pictures don't seem to relate to the article's topic, and they are kinda disturbing. I vote to replace it, or even better, delete it. We all pretty much know what vomiting looks like. And for those that don't, you are really lucky and don't need to know what it looks like. I say we put it to a vote. Vote in the section below this one. The majority of the votes will decide whether or not it is deleted. Voting will end by 4/1/09 (April 1, 2009). If there is a tie, it stays. Rob657 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Rob657Reply[reply]

I happen to know somebody who has agreed to a photo of him vomiting. I know it's disgusting, but this is Wikipedia. If you all want, please specify a stance and all that. We, between fits of laughter, have discussed a side view outdoors, (not too close up), plus another photo of the vomit itself. Sooner or later this article will get a photo, so why not something, er, tasteful. Any thoughts?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems unnecessary, we've all vomited or seen someone vomit. The article on defecation does not have, or require, a photograph of a human being taking a dump. WP:Profanity states:
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
--CliffC (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but wikipedia also has the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. This must be looked at as an individual case, and not compared to other articles on bodily functions. After all, the Human feces article has a picture OF a dump having been taken, so under that logic you are ok with a picture of vomit, but not of the vomitting act.
I think using a video of someone vomiting as a tracer to draw an animated diagram of the stomach, esophagus, and mouth and show the entire act in a not so disgusting way would be the best way of presenting it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I must agree with CliffC. The Autofellatio image is a case in point. Nobody could say "Ohhhh, I see. It's like that. I thought it would be the other way." Ideal would be Floydian's suggestion, but animation would be laborious. Maybe some kind of frame-by-frame thing showing the convulsive action. A simple still image of vomit or of a person vomiting does not seem like it would be useful.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Get your friend to do the deed then (You couldn't pay me to do that, geez), and it can be slowed down.
Is he up for multiple takes? :P - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the best image we could get here is a video of an x-ray of someone vomiting a barium meal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should it stay? Vote here.Edit

I say remove it. Rob657 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Rob657Reply[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to have an actual photograph of someone vomiting, but the picture we have right now is definitely not a realistic enough portrayal. So yeah, I guess it should be removed. (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Reasons for VomitingEdit

What about intense physical activity, I think many people who have been on sports teams will vouch that sometimes people throw up after they have been made to do some sort of extreme training - usually in the form of vigorous running(suicides come to mind). I didn't think any of the other causes included this unless the emesis in these cases is because of one of the other causes, anyone else's thoughts? (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choking/aspiration of fluids e.g. water, smoke. Is this due to irritation of the pharynx, or nasopharynx? Does direct irritation of respiratory tract also cause vomitting? The article should be emended with the inclusion, under 'Digestive Tract,' of "irritation of pharynx/nasopharynx" and/or a new listing of "respiratory causes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anish1411 (talkcontribs) 11:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image currently availableEdit

Okay, I see they have removed the old illustration in favour of this rather nasty image on display. Wikipedia is not censored, sure, but the bloody guy is on a toilet and there is like a TORRENT of vomit coming out of his mouth. To me this is just gratuitous and there must be some other image that can depict the same act in a less vile manner. Please don't consider me a prude or anything, but it feels to me like someone was taking the piss out of Wikipedia here. This is more of a picture to share among mates, and I think a better image could be found for an encyclopaedia. Do you think you would find this image in EB? I doubt it. Also to support my idea that the person who posted it was taking the piss: it says "Human male" and "siting" [sic]. Human male sounds like the sort of thing someone would add to the image to make it sound more educational than it really is. - (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree and have removed the images. I previously suggested an mpg. I have since had second thoughts. I really think the article needs an image, but what? A pile of puke on the ground or a guy on the loo does not serve the article. Suggestions? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[[1]] This image to me seems to depict vomiting in a very clear cut manner (one which no one can mistake for anything else) and doesn't depict an actual person, which might cause problems (even citing fair use, it seems unfair to use someone's picture for this purpose). Does anyone else feel this image is helpful and that we could claim a case for fair use? - (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (Rapturerocks)Reply[reply]
I feel the same way it shows someone vomiting i don't think you will get any better that that! it should stay. (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Apparently there is an editorial dispute regarding the pictures currently available on this page. Wikipedia does not censor and so therefore some people seek the inclusion of these pictures. I am going on the record as saying the two pictures currently visible on this page as of Tuesday November 03 11:35 GMT are unnecessary. Please view [[2]] and consider my arguments:

  • The image available, especially the first, is a gratuitous depiction of graphic vomiting where another less offensive image might be available.
  • The image is under a CC license for non-commercial uses with attribution, but this person may not want to be the "face" of vomiting when people search the web. Even if he agrees to display the picture, he may change his mind about it. While he has no legal basis to complain, we could easily provide another image where an illustrated person is depicted doing same act.
  • The second image, while less offensive to me personally, seems unnecessary. Does it add anything of real value to the article?

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored."

  • To me it just seems that keeping this particular image because of Wikipedia's policy is misguided. Just because Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus when images of equal merit but which are less controversial are available.

I am willing to hear other people's opinions, and I am not going to remove the picture because I think it defeats the purpose of actually discussing its merit. But I also don't think you will come to the conclusion that this picture is particularly necessary, or at the very least that another substitute couldn't be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturerocks (talkcontribs) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. It's true that Wikipedia is not censored, but that policy doesn't require us to use the most tasteless images available to illustrate our articles. Sexual intercourse, anal sex and analingus are effectively illustrated without resort to offensive/disgusting images, and similarly tasteful images could surely be found or produced for this article. In the meantime, the current images should at the very least be put in collapsable boxes so that readers have the option of enjoying the article without having to look at a picture of a man vomiting while shitting. Yilloslime TC 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah seriously, people just want these images here "for the lolz," and then use the arguement that Wikipedia isn't censored so that they look legitamite. Come on, everyone knows what vomit looks like. (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyone knows what an apple or a hammer looks like too. Everyone knows what the majority of common things look like. Having drawings and not real images of sexual related things is censorship. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is a difference between censorship and using something that still conveys the meaning without being distasteful. For example, the feces article shows pictures of other animals feces, which are less distasteful in a larger context. The human feces article does not show anything more than a chart and a plunger. Its not to censor the article, its to make it appeal to a larger audience. If people want to see pictures of vomit, there are plenty to be found on the internet. A poor quality photo of a pile of gunk is hardly informative (vomit can take on many appearances after all), and seems to be there more for someone to say "LOL look puke" than to provide critical commentary to a textual visual description. As such I am nominating the picture for deletion and removing it from the article for the time being. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image really doesn't add much to the article. I agree with its removal. EVula // talk // // 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "act itself" of vomiting isn't the ideal image for an article like this (be it a real photo or an old painting), as it's just the consequence and does not show the whole process that took place. A diagram of the process wold be much more ilustrative and educative. MBelgrano (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reason we should have a limit of one image. We should have a real image of vomit, which we already have, AND we should have a diagram. We should have both. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll stop adding the image, but I think it's rather dumb not to include a free image of the subject of the article. Distasteful is subjective. I agree it isn't an appealing image though. The drawing doesn't add much either except for being interesting art. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the drawing likewise adds very little, but it at the least shows it in "action". Needless to say, a diagram needs to be made by someone who is very knowledgeable to the whole vomit response cycle. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other speciesEdit

I think a section regarding other species is needed. The House mouse article, for example, states that: "House mice, like other rodents, do not vomit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was wondering who had gone through the process to get this article semi-protected? Was it because of the image problem? To me there's two things we need to address now with images.

1) Does this page require images to better illustrate it, or does it at least stand to benefit from images? (in other words, it may not be necessary, but it might prove helpful)

2) If so, which images should we use?

I want to focus on images immediately because there were a few people besides myself who expressed dismay at the images previously available. After there's some consensus regarding images, we can go about selecting one (or more) and determining fair use.

After that, there is more to address (such as species with no ability to vomit, or those species which expel their entire digestive tract, and the difference and similarities between vomiting as an evolutionary response and regurgitation as a feeding mechanism.) But first I think we should address the image issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturerocks (talkcontribs) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add the following...Edit

I could not find the button to add this but it should say "Ralphing redirects here." JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should only say that if there are other uses for the term "ralphing" (in which case it would link to those uses), and if Ralphing redirects here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a few words to redirect here too. I'm sure they will be contested for removal only a matter of time. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome[[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsomepalli (talkcontribs) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2.2 DehydrationEdit

After vomiting, it is wise to drink Gatorade as both restore the electrolytes. It is better than soda pop as it has potassium as well as sugar. If you sip on ice chips or popsicles, it will help to replenish fluids as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandie Bryan (talkcontribs) 12:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vomiting and High AltitudesEdit

Visiting a country with a much higher altitude than to which one is accustomed will result in vomiting and dehydration. Drink plenty of fluids, rest and drink Gatorade to restore the body's equilibrium. If you flew to your destination, once you get back on a plane, you will no longer experience the altitude sickness. The effects are more pronounced if you are pregnant, dehydrated, sick or elderly.Sandie Bryan (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I suggest to use this picture (File:Airsickness bag 20090626 002.JPG) to illustrate the sentence "On airplanes and boats, special bags are supplied for sick passengers to vomit into." --Bin im Garten (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caption under Renaissance pictureEdit

Is there really any need for such a profound and detailed (and unintentionally hilarious) analysis of what's going on in the picture? How about: "Renaissance-era illustration of the act of vomiting." (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to have been a broken alt (explanation of the image for visually impaired users / screen readers).I've fixed it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you—much better! (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Under the heading "Pathophysiology", within the final line of the 9th dotpoint, it states "The stomach itself does not contract in the process of vomiting except for at the angular notch, nor is there any retroperistalsis in the esophagus." From the source that I have read, retroperistalsis of the oesophagus may be activated by higher brain centres - but not by the ENS. The Basal Electrical Rhythm is suspended. My source is: Lange Physiology Series - Gastrointestinal Physiology. Kim E. Barret. Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill. 2006. Page 149. Kitty kat87 (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks.Reply[reply]

What animals can vomit?Edit


And why?

Apparently rats can't. A horse is more likely to explode than vomit. Everyone knows rabbits can't. Cats and dogs can.

So, are there any taxonomic correlates to vomiting? Like carnivora and primates can, everything else can't? Or is it to do with omnivory/carnivory vs herbivory? Or is it to do with the chemical architecture of the digestive tract? Or the flexibility of the neck? Is the ability to vomit adaptive? Is the inability to vomit adaptive?

For bears, vomiting comes as natural as pooping.

Cats eat grass in order to help them vomit their hair. Some cats overeat to the point of vomiting, just like the Romans did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely some zoologist, physiologist, or veterinarian will have written a monograph on this at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit for clarityEdit

The sentence "For people not in the habit of exercising the abdominal muscles, they may be painful for the next few days. " under Phases is needlessly confusing. A better phrasing would be: "Individuals who do not regularly exercise their abdominal muscles may experience pain in those muscles for a few days." The new phrasing increases sentence readability without changing meaning. It also removes any confusion as to whether "they" refers to "muscles" or "people."

(Yes, I would love to make this change myself, but due to the semi-protected page I am incapable of doing so without creating an account, waiting four days and making 10 changes to other articles. I'm not willing to do that just to implement such a small change.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 13 March 2012Edit

Consider editing the following sentence to whichever is correct (the current sentence leaves this ambiguous): "It is thought that disgust is triggered by the sound of vomiting to protect food from those possibly diseased nearby" (in order of most-likely to least)

A. The people nearby ("those") are protected from the "possibly" diseased food. (i.e. "It is thought that disgust is triggered by the sound of vomiting to protect those nearby from, possibly diseased, food."


B. The people "possibly" nearby ("those") are protected from the diseased food. (i.e. "It is thought that disgust is triggered by the sound of vomiting to protect those, possibly nearby, from diseased food.)

- or -

C. The food is protected from the "possibly" diseased people ("those"). (i.e. "It is thought that disgust is triggered by the sound of vomiting to protect food from those, possibly diseased, nearby")

Jonathan Caldwell, Columbus, OH 06:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  Done The link is dead, so I changed it to your most likely interpretation until we can find the source and verify it. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slang againEdit

The section enumerating the slang terms is not encyclopedic. That kind of content belongs in a thesaurus. It also attracts vandalism. I remain unconvinced that this article is greatly enhanced by such a section. JFW | T@lk 17:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally agree, peurile, inane and unfitting for an encyclopaedic article, Urban Dictionary exists for this purpose. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request edit on 25 September 2012Edit

In the section headed "Dehydration and electrolyte imbalance", the second sentence includes the formula HCO3 wikilinked to the bicarbonate article. This formula should include a negative charge, that is should appear as HCO3 ([[bicarbonate|HCO<sub>3</sub><sup>−</sup>]]). The formula later in the paragraph correctly shows the species as charged. (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done. Given what I remember from high school/college chemistry I believe this is correct; feel free to correct if I'm wrong. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit please on 10 December 2012Edit

In the section Social cues, the sentence beginning the forth paragraph: "Most people try to contain their vomit by vomiting into a sink, toilet, or trash can, as both the act and the vomit itself are widely considered embarrassing; vomit is also difficult and unpleasant to clean." is a mixture of fact and opinion and should be replaced with: "Most people try to contain their vomit by vomiting into a sink, toilet, or trash can, as vomit is difficult and unpleasant to clean."

People who are undergoing chemotherapy or have other medical reasons to vomit are not embarrassed about it. Parents who have sick children are not embarrassed by their vomiting, nor is the sick child embarrassed, but rather relieved, and quick to go to sleep. I have moderate to severe Crohn's disease with hospitalization about every three years. When I walk into the ER I do not care if I vomit in front of the whole room, in fact I hope I do vomit so that the triage nurse gets me to the doctor sooner rather than later. When either of my boys are sick, again, their vomit is messy and a drag to clean, yes, but embarrassing? no.

Thanks, Kevin (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, and I have done further edits as well. -- Dianna (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remove dubious, unsupported, inconsequential, unencyclopedic sentence re. fecal vomiting.Edit

"Though it is not usually [[fecal]] matter that is expelled{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}}, it smells noxious." (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds factually correct. How do you expect faeces to reach the stomach, other than some bizarre fistula? JFW | T@lk 19:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An obstruction or paralysis of the GI-canal which makes the content stand still can make bacteria normaly living in the large intestines travel up through the small intestines. This makes the conversion of food to faeces (or similar) occur sufficiently high to be expelled by vomiting. (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I clicked this link on May 31, 2015 (before I knew what would happen), I threw up later that day. REPLY IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOU Alan (My talk) 01:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vomiting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who does and does not vomitEdit

Hi. Do we detail anywhere that, for example, dogs, cats, and humans can and do vomit, but that horses cannot vomit? I'm somewhat curious which other animals vomit and which do not or cannot. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mammals that CANNOT vomit (i.e. rabbits)Edit

Just read that rabbits cannot. It would be interesting if someone with the knowledge would post a list of mammals that also cannot.

Projective vomiting listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Projective vomiting. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021Edit

Please change "color" to "colour" and "center" to "centre" and "esophagus" to "oesophagus". The article already has some Commonwealth spellings, such as "centre", so this change will establish consistent usage, rather than changing one consistent usage to another. (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Partly done: I changed the two uses of centre to center, since most of the article uses American English. Seems odd to change over a dozen spellings to match the two uses of centre, rather than the two uses of centre to match the dozens of American spellings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gastric wallEdit

Please change "gastric wall" to "gastrointestinal wall," whoch has an entry in Wikipedia 2605:C900:2:DFE0:E547:D11D:5DC9:86E4 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]