Jump to content

Talk:Feces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I was about to correct the spelling as a misspelling when I saw that this is a known issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences

The argument seems to be that because feces is spelt that way in US English that is OK.

The etymology is from Latin faeces "sediment, dregs", which, to me, means that feces is a mis-spelling fallen into common US usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timp21337 (talk • contribs) 12:49, December 9, 2014‎

It seems that many English readers find the alternate spellings to be jarring. So, Wikipedia has found compromises and built policies to avoid edit warring over spelling - see WP:ENGVAR.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a misspelling, if we were using Latin. We aren't. We use one national variety of English in each article, as explained in WP:ENGVAR. As the subject does not have strong ties to any one country (everybody poops), we go with the variety first established in the article. In this case, that's American English. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to add to what SummerPhD already explained, the idea of a "misspelling fallen into common US usage" is not correct. It is not a mistake that American English chooses "e" instead of "ae" or "oe" in many words of Latin origin that are now "naturalized citizens" of English. It's an intentional choice. Read more at articles on, for example, phonemic orthography, spelling reform, æ, and œ. Although English orthography does not have regular spelling to the extent that Spanish or German have it, English-language spelling reform has effected a few changes over the centuries, such as this one, although they are not all adopted in every region. To sum up, the "it hurts" in the heading of this section reflects discomfort born of misapprehension. Once the misapprehension is cleared up, the pain subsides. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New photos of feces for the lead

[edit]

Hi DawnDusk, I quite like your idea of using these two photos for the lead (I have made the background white though, I think that looks better). However, we have had quite a debate about using an image of a "real, fresh human feces" on the page of human feces (see talk page). In the end, I found a compromise that seemed to stick: no photo in the lead, and rather a photo of dried human feces later on. When they are dried, they are less repulsive. Personally, I don't have a problem with showing raw human feces (but I work in the sanitation field), but we don't want to shock others too much. So if there are objections to your collage of two photos, I would say we either move them from the lead further down or we replace the human feces photo with one that shows dried human feces. Thoughts anyone? EvM-Susana (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I checked out that talk page; the debate rages on from 2005 and is still fresh now in 2015. That's half my life. Jesus! Anyway, it seems you're right; the consensus is that WP:NOTCENSORED, but there is shock value to wet human feces. I'm all for either one - though I'm curious to know what you think - will people get upset about it as it is now? Does its juxtaposition and comparison to the elephant feces lessen the blow? What should we base the decision on? You definitely have far more experience than I - I will defer to you, my friend. DawnDusk (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am also undecided. The thing is, I deal with sanitation in my day job so such photos do not shock me at all. But not sure about the average Wikipedia reader... Perhaps we wait and see if some more reactions come in? I can also ask Doc_James who always has good advice on such matters. If we decide that the human feces need to be more in a dried state, I have plenty of photo options (like the one I inserted in the page for human feces. In any case, how can we make the two images in this collage the same size? It doesn't look so good that the image of the human feces is bigger than the image of the animal feces. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think we can get them the same size because their image proportions are different ratios. Instead, I made them the same height - how does that look to you? Anyway - I hear what you're saying. Something tells me the 10-year old war will come back and blow up on the two of us making innocent additions, lol. However, it sounds like you have the best plan we possibly can in this landmine. Tell me as you need my help at all, my friend. DawnDusk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Bristol stool chart in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good one for the lead of this article for two reasons: this article is also about animal feces whereas the Bristol stool chart only focussed on human feces. Secondly, it is already used on the page for human feces (where it could be put in the lead if people prefer that). I actually quite like the two images side by side (elephant and human), I think it looks quite good now. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

[edit]

Feces Lovethelord801 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC) I want to change,,, the picture of horse poop[reply]

True, not a good one, as it's mixed with straw. I will delete it, do you have a better one to replace it (on Wikimedia Commons)?EvM-Susana (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015

[edit]

2601:243:A03:46E6:B89C:1542:61AA:69DA (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC) i would like to edit this cause no-one knows what "poop" means.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

 Not done You have not requested a change to the article. Please use a "change XXX to YYY" format. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a dinner plate. Really!

[edit]

Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.23.232 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a toilet bowl, actually.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

[edit]

With respect, yes, we do address major spelling distinctions in the WP:LEAD, usually in the WP:LEADSENTENCE. If the rather twee faeces is becoming deservedly less common in British English, the phrasing should change from ~ (US) or ~ (UK) to something along the lines of fetus ~, also spelled ~,. — LlywelynII 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as far as I know faeces is British English (and not diminishing!) and feces is American English. I just don't like your use of abbreviations here (US and UK) as people from e.g. developing countries may not be as familiar with these abbreviations as you are. Shouldn't it be U.S. anyhow? I just think it doesn't hurt to spell it out: American English and British English, rather than just US, UK. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, what's the point in mentioning that there are different names and then interlinking to another section that follows the lead. I just think it's not sufficiently important to mention this in the first sentence. It's also not done for urine where we immediately mention that there are different names in the very first sentence: "Urine (from Latin Urina, ae, f.) is a liquid by-product of the body secreted by the kidneys through a process called urination (or micturition) and excreted through the urethra." We are not saying "and it is known under different names (pee, piss and alike). EvM-Susana (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring, moved content to page on human feces

[edit]

I have done a bit of a clean up and restructuring here. I moved some content to the page on human feces as it fitted better there if this is meant to be an overview page about feces of humans and animals. Am considering moving some more content across that is currently here under "society and culture" but that's specific for human feces like the part about caste in India. Do people agree? EvM-Susana (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Feces. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All, - a series of edits

[edit]

I am planning on making a series of edits. A series, as if anyone does not agree with one, they can just revert the edit. I have listed the changes I have made below. If you would like to reword any of these, go ahead.

1. A Japanese sewage treatment facility mines the sewers for metals. This idea was also tested by the US Geological Survey (USGS) which found the sewerage generated by 1 million people contained 13 million dollars worth of precious metals. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-sewage-odd-idUSTRE50T56120090130, https://www.rt.com/usa/243377-mining-sewage-precious-metals-studies/.
2. 200 species of ants farm fungi for food, fertilising it with their dung. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8049221/QI-Quite-Interesting-facts-about-bugs.html
3. Llama dung has been added to water treatment lagoons in Bolivia to remove dangerous metals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1793381.stm
4. Kitchen refuse can be reduced by more than 90% in mass by using bacteria extracted from the faeces of giant pandas. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389172301803261
5. Penguins when pooing to avoid messing up their feathers and nests, point their bottoms out of the nests and shoot it up to 40 centimetres away. This is used by scientists to track them from space. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141210-surprising-use-of-penguin-poo, http://qi.com/infocloud/penguins
6. In WW2, German soldiers ate horse poo to treat dysentery. http://mentalfloss.com/article/23998/7-creative-uses-poop
7. Physicians used to taste patient faeces to better judge state and condition. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qsv_Y0DOVUsC&redir_esc=y
8. In Malaysia, tea is made from the droppings of stick insects fed on guava leaves. http://qi.com/infocloud/dung
9. Washington DC has unveiled a faeces powered power plant which will save 13 million dollars a year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/poop-flush-power/2015/10/07/d0c9c6de-6c3a-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html
10. Adding baby faeces to sausages makes the sausage taste the same, but makes it lower in fat and salt. http://qi.com/infocloud/sausages
11. A dung-fired power station ahs been operating at Holsworthy in Devon since 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2135431.stm
12. If harnessed as an energy source, the biogas from faeces could be worth as much as 9.5 billion dollars. http://news.discovery.com/human/will-the-future-be-powered-by-feces-151103.htm
13. Ambergris is still used for perfume manufacturing. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/ambergris-treasure-of-the-deep-01122012.html
I don't agree with most of your edits here. This seems to be a list of "trivia", some of which is from doubtful sources. Some of them don't belong to this article anyhow but rather to the article on sewage or sewage treatment, for example. EvMsmile (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but to me this looked like an arbitrary collection of "facts" about feces. The kind of thing you can find all over the internet with usually dubious sources - but not relevant for a Wikipedia article on feces. I have moved those sentences that dealt with feces as an energy source to the right section, although even those sentences should be double checked and perhaps deleted. Just referencing a newspaper article is hardly a reliable source. EvMsmile (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

[edit]

The following opinion is presented as a fact and requires a citation: "In all human cultures, feces elicit varying degrees of disgust, a basic human emotion." Dstrodtman (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done clpo13(talk) 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

[edit]

Many animals can also be trained by using cotton pad squares that they can do their business on. 2607:FCC8:D440:D600:856B:B131:6666:7CB1 (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

[edit]

Will you please change the word "reestablish" to "re-establish"? Thanks

Deathclaw409 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Dane2007 talk 00:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrKay (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feces → Crap – More common name. Who calls it feces? 99.101.56.68 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would certainly be interesting. I think we should stick with Feces though. Crap is a bit imprecise. Ajpolino (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"shit" is a more common name than "feces", but is profane. "poop" is a more common name than "feces", but is childish sounding. "crap" is the most common name that doesn't have the issue of being profane or childish. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NB - Even in medical books published in America the Latin/British/Canadian spelling "faeces"/"faecal" is common. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Streamlined this article with human feces

[edit]

I've just moved quite a bit of text from here to the article on human feces, particular in the section on uses. There was a mixture of uses of animal and human feces, and I felt it was neater to keep that information in two different articles. So the article is now initially an overview article for feces in general, but when it comes to uses it focuses on animal feces uses; for human feces uses the reader is referred to the other article. I hope others agree that it is better like this. EMsmile (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add references for information on content of feces?

[edit]

Thanks, User:Cruithne9 for your recent edits to the lead where you clarified aspects of the content of feces. Are there any references that could be cited to substantiate what you wrote? Also, this strikes me as quite interesting so I think we should also explain that more in the article itself not just in the lead (the lead just being a summary of the article). Could you help with that? EMsmile (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you for the compliment. I have not added anything to the article itself yet (pressed for time!). But any decent physiology textbook would allow any editor to make the relevant contribution. Cruithne9 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with new content added to lead

[edit]

I disagree with this content which was added to the lead recently by User:Morosulo. I have already removed it once but it was reinstated:

The process requires pressures that may reach 100 mm Hg in humans [1] and 450 mm Hg in penguins as measured by Meyer-Rochow and Gal. The forces required to expel the feces are generated through muscular contractions and a build-up of gases inside the gut, prompting the sphincter to relieve the pressure on it and to release the feces. [2]

Firstly, it does not belong to the lead. If anything it could go somewhere in the main article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the most important points. Secondly, it is not understandable. A lay person will not know what 100 mg Hg is! It might fit better on the page of excretion. Secondly, why these wiki-links?: by Meyer-Rochow and Gal. Makes no sense. Thirdly the references are not well done - there is no way for someone to check them (using a reference from 1958 - surely something more recent is available. EMsmile (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the content in question could be moved to the article on defecation where it fits much better. EMsmile (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a new short section on physiology and added it there. I still don't like the "100 mg Hg" for laypersons - how could this be done better? At least with a wiki link? EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ cite book|last1=Langley|first1= L.I.|last2=Cheraskin|first2= E.|title= The Physiology of Man|year=1958|publisher= McGraw Hill, N.Y.}}
  2. ^ Meyer-Rochow, Victor Benno; Gal, Jozsef (2003). "Pressures produced when penguinsnpoo - calculations on avian defaecation". Polar Biology. 27: 56–58.
I agree with EMsmile that this phrase needs to be restated: "requires pressures that may reach 100 mm Hg in humans and 450 mm Hg in penguins." Interesting, but too scientific for the general reader. Could this be rephrased to "penguins are able to exert 4.5 x more pressure than humans." Also interesting that this enables penguins to excrete outside of their nests without leaving their nests. But are we leaving the topic of feces and getting into anatomy?PlanetCare (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

[edit]

The link for the Tulane article 'Cars Could Run on Recycled Newspaper, Tulane Scientists Say' should be updated to 'https://news.tulane.edu/pr/cars-could-run-recycled-newspaper-tulane-scientists-say' for easy access. The current link (http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_082511.cfm) does not work and you have to search the Tulane website for the one I provide above. Thanks. Pwinzer (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - ~Thank you for reporting this. All the best, Taketa (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

[edit]

Under the 'Feelings of Disgust' subtitle, the word 'flishing' in the sentence, 'Disgust toward feces appears to be strongest in modern Western cultures where flishing toilets make olfactory contact with it minimal.' should be changed to flushing as I believe it was a typo. FWESC (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

[edit]

There is a Pile of Poo emoji represented in Unicode as U+1F4A9 💩 PILE OF POO, called unchi or unhci-kun in Japan.[30][31]

TYPO: "unhci-kun" should be unchi-kun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.134.198 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should move it to Stool.

[edit]

Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body Waste listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Body Waste. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body waste listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Body waste. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whopee listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Whopee. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove hatnote?

[edit]

I am just wondering if we really need this hatnote or if it could be done differently. I think it gives too much emphasis to a little-known American band: ""Fecal matter" redirects here. For the American punk rock band, see Fecal Matter (band)." What do you all think? EMsmile (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. Sryforprtyrockin! (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on the word "Feces" as a plural noun

[edit]

The word "feces" is a plurale tantum, meaning that it has no singular form. Pluralia tantum are still plural and must be treated as such. So, one would say "Feces are" and not "Feces is". Perhaps the confusion has to do with singular collective nouns (e.g. the family is large) or mass nouns (e.g. the water is cold), both of which are singular (with some exceptions, of course). The Google Ngram Viewer is a good tool for this. – Vonkworm (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vonkworm.

Incidentally, if you do look up the Google Ngram Viewer and see that there are entries for "feces is" and "faeces is", you need then to look at the sentences they come from: almost always the "is" is agreeing with another word in the sentence, not the word "feces". For example, "a sample of feces", where the agreement is with the singular "sample".

As this issue has come up multiple more times in edits, here is carefully researched evidence that supports this.

The word "feces" is a plural noun. "Feces" therefore takes a plural verb inflection ("are", "were", "contain" etc., rather than "is", "was", "contains" ...) and plural pronouns. This is a well researched grammatical edit with strong evidence in multiple varieties of English from reputable publications in multiple English speaking countries and from multiple dictionaries. The article itself as well as the above talk page contribution refers to the fact that the word is plural (indeed a plurale tantum because there is no singular) and provides a reputable reference. Despite this, some editors have used "feces" as if the word were singular, which is not unknown but is non-standard usage. Please be very thoughtful of maintaining high standards in Wikipedia and keep feces as plural. The following examples drawn from reputable sources of high standard English usage may help editors understand how the word is used in good, standard English.

  • Government of Victoria, Australia: "Faeces are usually firm, moist and easy to pass."
  • National Institutes of Health:
  • "Feces are composed of water, protein, undigested fats, polysaccharides, bacterial biomass, ash, and undigested food residues."
  • "Mite faeces are a major source of house dust allergens."
  • "... if the moist faeces were completely burnt out to gas products and ..."
  • University of Massachusetts: "Feces are mostly made of water (about 75%)."
  • East Devon District Council, UK government: "Dog faeces are unpleasant and can present a serious health hazard, particularly to young children."
  • UK Government: "The life cycle of the tapeworm involves an adult stage in canids, eggs in the environment where faeces are present and an immature, ..."
  • NHS, UK Government:
  • "This occurs because faeces are pushed through the bowel until they reach the affected part."
  • "Soft bulky faeces are easier to push out of the body."
  • USDA: "Indeed, faeces are common to all detritivores, and a large part of organic matter is transformed into faeces in many ecosystems."
  • The Lancet (leading medical journal):
  • "... animal faeces should be considered potentially hazardous, just as human faeces are ..."
  • " Faeces were processed <6 hours post defecation, ..."
  • Nature (leading science journal):
  • "giraffe and impala faeces were almost identical with 27 and 30 ..."
  • Irish Veterinary Journal: "Faeces were obtained directly from the rectum using swabs ..."
  • Veterninary Research communications: "The faeces were examined for the presence of campylobacters, salmonella and Giardia lamblia."
  • New England Journal of Medicine: " In this study, donor feces were infused in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection and ..."
  • Smithsonian Magazine: "the feces were almost certainly produced by humans."
  • Wikipedia itself, elsewhere (night soil) uses feces as plural: "Feces were excreted into a container such as a chamber pot"
  • CDC: "the raccoon's feces were not tested"
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Feces are normally removed from the body one or two times a day."

SciberDoc (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Dropping" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dropping. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 25#Dropping until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Low importance?

[edit]

How can something that every normally functioning human being produces at least every couple of days be of "low importance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.178.203 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Poop is very important, even though we don't like to see it often. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "pp small=yes" is supposed to be in the source of the article and might need to be removed Cool-person27 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Hello Cool-person27. That coding is for the template that creates the small lock icon near the top of the page. The lock icon is a standard practice on Wikipedia, and it helps notify editors that the page is under semi-protection.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The worlds biggest dinosaur poo

[edit]

I’m not sure if the record has been broken but I do know that once a guy who collects antique dinosaur feces once broke the world record of the biggest dinosaurs fece Wikilover126 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

[edit]

Change line "Birds (individual) droppings" to "Birds (individual) Droppings Arsijan (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is already a discussion at Talk:Bird droppings regarding its status, and such a link would have to depend on that consensus. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

[edit]

I am sujaan and i am 22 years old and I would like to be and editor because i am good in English 2001:8F8:1B6D:12A:DC77:6E52:CEE3:E34D (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Remember, you can already edit the vast majority of articles without even registering. Only certain ones will require making an account or achieving a number of edits. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

[edit]

In the final paragraph of the “Uses of animal feces” heading, the paragraph pertaining to the Middle Eastern usage under the subheading “other uses,” is unfounded and not cited. The paragraph holds no truth and is likely vandalism. Foedit (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The claim was added here without providing any source, I've reverted it. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

[edit]

Feces is a plural noun. The opening definition should use “were” instead of “was” and “have” instead of “has”.


"Feces are the solid or semi-solid remains of food that were not digested in the small intestine, and have been broken down by bacteria in the large intestine." 138.88.69.220 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You're parsing it wrong. "Feces are the...remains of (FOOD that...has been broken down by bacteria)". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

[edit]

The word poop is not linked to the Wikipedia page on poop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poop). I can not complete my Wikipedia speed run from "anything" to "poop" because of that. Please help change that urgently.

Thank you :) Bytebanterer (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: DAB pages are almost never directly linked per WP:INTDAB. Liu1126 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human feces not actually necessary

[edit]

I understand that wikipedia is not censored, but given that a photo of human feces is pretty much unnecessary, especially of fresh human feces, why not just use the photo of elephant poop? Some people read Wikipedia while eating for example. I am interested in reading more of it but don’t really want to stare at a photo of someone else’s fresh poop. Censorship is bad, but maybe taking into account the experience of readers should matter? I’ve seen a photo of someone’s fresh self harm (a cut-up arm) on the general Harm page, and obviously removed it because it was irrelevant and horrible. I say we replace the image of human poop with an image of a cow pat or something similar: still have a comparison, don’t have someone’s human feces on display. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with a cow pat, which I think provides equal value. Recognize that e.g. sanitation workers (above) don’t get bothered by human poop but I don’t think I’m removing value here. Maybe lizard poop or something similar could be used if elephants and cows were deemed to similar, or even owl pellets? I think there’s no reason to choose the most disturbing image just because it was there first. Recognize I’m going a little against the not-censored policy but other images provide equal value and I’m not saying it’s inappropriate, just unnecessarily disturbing. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why no picture of human feces?

[edit]

Everyone reading the article is human, and it would make more sense, and be more relatable (and obvious), than pictures of elephant feces. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because ever sighted person reading the article knows what human feces look like. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feces&oldid=1263474969"