Jump to content

Talk:Paleofeces

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

Gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.164.200 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that 9th century Viking guy thought to himself, that one day.. One Day...37.229.68.152 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

[edit]


Edit by: Courtenney Mills (S/N: Valkyrie0911) I can understand the confusion of the term "Paleofeces." However we must keep in mind that organic secretions have been found in many excavation sites which varied in age. Paleo refers to the Paleolithic Era 10,000 BC to 2.5 MYA. Anthropology has many sub fields and niches, with new findings & studies that follow, more is being added every day. Perhaps placing it in a subgroup would be appropriate under Medical Anthropology due to its organic history and the fact that it is a byproduct of a once living organism. It can also be added to Archaeology, was is it as is fossilized matter and like bones & eggs, still worthy of cataloging, exhibition, and studying.

As for the edit in this article. Under "Method of Analysis" the eighth footnote is hyperlinked to http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/073/Ant0730086.html, is no longer functioning. This commonly occurs when updates occur and files are migrated to a new area changing the directory. This was to substantiate the laboratory procedures used based on lipid panels to process the feces for identification purposes. Given the link has been exhausted. My recommendation is to remove it and/or replace it with the correct link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie0911 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC) — 22:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Valkyrie0911 (talk)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

{{movereq}} Fecal anthropologyPaleofeces

  • Palaeofaeces is the correct spelling, not only in the UK, but Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and India; all of whom use British spelling conventions. As for it being "not used within anthropology", I could show hundreds of published works that do indeed use "Palaeofaeces". In fact I'll make the claim that far more scholarly works use the British spelling, than the American one. Because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, rather than solely an American one, I see no problem with having a title in British English and the body of the text in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.214.4 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]