Talk:Feces

Human Feces Color Correction

I was reading the part about human feces and I noticed an error.

It says that the brown color of feces is due to a combination of bile and bilirubin and that a baby's feces is initially yellow/green from the bile, but becomes brown due to the addition of bilirubin. This is not exactly correct. Bilirubin is yellow (it's why people with jaundice often have a yellow tone in their skin; the liver quits working and bilirubin is no longer secreted in the bile and begins to accumulate in the body). Feces is brown because bilirubin is converted to stercobilin (which is brown) by the bacteria in the gut.

Also, (and it's been about 3-4 weeks since I lectured on this, so I'm unsure of this, but) if I'm not mistaken bilirubin is secreted as a different compound which is green and results in bile's green color and that compound is what gets converted to stercobilin. So to say Baby's feces is greenish-yellow and not brown because they are not disposing of red blood cells and therefore not excreting billirubin is likely incorrect. In fact, erythrocytes (Red blood cells) wear out after roughly 120 days (or 3 months). Since the gestation time for a human fetus is typically 9 months, It stands to reason a baby is certainly secreting bilirubin at birth. A more likely explanation for why a baby's feces isn't brown is that a baby doesn't have any bacteria in its gut and therefore isn't producing stercobilin from the excreted bilirubin.

I'm not good at writing concise statements (obviously), nor do I know how to properly cite things. This is why I haven't edited the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.112.45 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, could you post references here to make it easier for someone to update the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

MISLEADING PHOTO

The photo that is titled "Horse Feces" is actually a pile of straw with probably some feces mixed in. While cow feces is "continuous", horse feces is "quantized", meaning that it consists of individual oval shaped lumps - all of approximately the same size. You need a better photo. There are some available online. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcrply (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How about editing the caption to state it is a mixture of Feces and straw Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2012

Please change: In Islam, washing of the anus with water using the left hand is part of the prescribed ritual ablutions. To: In Islam, washing of the anus with water using the left hand (not necessarily a bare hand) is part of the prescribed ritual ablutions.

The left hand is used to hold the water, paper, wipe etc. that one intends to use to wipe the anus and water is required to be used at some point (usually after) for "purity". Years ago a bare hand may have been used (before wipes, paper etc.) but this is a very uncommon practice now.

122.102.100.177 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done — Your explanation is slightly confusing, but the request is not extremely relevant because the main article for the section in which you wish to change is Anal cleansing. As long as the blurb is correct it does not need to be changed, but you are welcome to edit the other article. If you have a reliable source for this change to be made (as required by policy for potentially controversial changes), please reopen the request. — Jonadin^(talk) @ 03:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dog feces

It is disappointing that this article has so little about dog feces and its proper disposal, and the legal issues of leaving unbagged or bagged dog feces on the sidewalk, and health issues with dog feces. Perhaps I will do some investigating and add to this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Doody Services

I would of liked more information on dung and dropping cleaners. With regaurds to cat feces, the ammonia from the them is very dangerous is mixed with the wrong cleaning agent. 208.91.137.58 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC) james jessee April 22, 2012 2:37 pm

Ammonia is a product of the decomposition of mammalian urine. Yeah, sure, if you save up a few gallons, dump in a bucket of bleach and concentrate the fumes, you might have a problem. Of course, if you're doing that, you already have a problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

i love this chain i sttgs

Edit request

Image of butterfly on the top of the article states "Cyclosia papilionaris enjoying bird droppings". Can a butterfly really enjoy eating? Suggest change to "consuming bird droppings". 124.148.212.93 (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that butterflies have no capacity to enjoy something? I don't think enjoy vs consume makes any real difference in the context of this article of course, but I don't see any reason to adopt an anthropocentric view that 'lower' life forms are not capable of feeling emotions. That is pretty 19th century thinking anonymous. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While you are welcome to continue this discussion at your convenience, please do not re-activate the {{edit semi-protected}} request unless you have a specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming butterflies can "enjoy" something is anthropomorphizing. We know they consume it, we do not have any indication there is "enjoyment". (We say "The cat jumped onto the chair" because that's what the cat did. We do not add in assumptions that the cat made calculations based on body mass, gravity and air friction, though it is "anthropocentric" to assume cats cannot handle high school level physics calculations.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard the term cloaca before?

First sentence? is that the same as arse?Sevendigits (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That term is linked in the article: (cloaca). It's kinda like a "3 in 1 anus" :)) TMCk (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoopie redirects to feces?

This may be vandalism because I was unable to find a connection between "whoopie" and feces on any other web information resource. 16:00, 18 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.146.33 (talk)

Ha!

"Non-human animals" obviously. Animals are good at one thing in particular; lions are courageous etc. but human talents vary from person to person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.86.250 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Link Location (I'm new and can't edit this article myself, sorry).

I noticed that under the "Gut Flora Transplant", subheading, the "Hippos", link redirects to this page, rather than the correct Hippopotamus page; here , this link is also not followed by a comma as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletalclown (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Coprolite, fossilized feces

At the moment the article doesn't mention Coprolites or fossilized feces at all, I may work it in myself if I can figure out how to work it in. If anyone feels they can do a decent job go ahead. It deserves at least a few sentences somewhere.  Carlwev  15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why US spelling, it hurts

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)

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)

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)

New photos of feces for the lead

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

Feces Lovethelord801 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand which edit request has been made here? EvM-Susana (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

Feces Lovethelord801 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015

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.

 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)

On a dinner plate. Really!

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

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

WP:LEAD

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)

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)

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)

Restructuring, moved content to page on human feces

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011200318/http://abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200307/s900527.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200307/s900527.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019175930/http://www.rohmhaas.com:80/history/ourstory/innovation_leatherbreakthrough.htm to http://www.rohmhaas.com/history/ourstory/innovation_leatherbreakthrough.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello All, - a series of edits

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

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)

Done clpo13_(talk) 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

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

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

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2017

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)

---

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

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)

• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA. "crap" can mean anything, including parts of en.Wikipedia. "Feces" means solid or semisolid metabolic waste from an animal's digestive tract, discharged through the anus or cloaca during a process called defecation. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOT and User:In ictu oculi. This is an encyclopedia and "crap" could just as easily refer to this nomination as to feces. If sexual intercourse gets moved to fucking, I'll reconsider. —  AjaxSmack  01:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose; but my spelling for it here in England is "faeces". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is another "More common name" for feces which has its own Wikipedia entry. Its hatnote explains, "This article is about the word "shit". For the bodily waste, see feces. For the egestion of bodily wastes, see defecation. For other uses, see Shit (disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• Oppose My Collins dictionary lists 5 definitions for the word crap:
  1) A losing throw in the game of craps
  2) Another name for craps
  3) Nonsense
  4) Rubbish
  5) A taboo word for faeces
  Faeces/feces has one definition: bodily waste matter derived from ingested food and the secretions of the intestines and discharged through the anus. Thats what this article is about. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose You're shitting me, right? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Snow Close someone snow close this as not moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2017

LET ME EDIT THIS SHIT!!! (PUN INTENDED!!!) Elaine.jacobs13 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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 will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Add references for information on content of feces?

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)

 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)

Disagree with new content added to lead

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 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.

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)

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)

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)

References

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

change talk page to discussion page 172.91.104.43 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: "Talk page" does not appear in the article. The link at the top of the page cannot be edited, if that is what you want to change. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

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)

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

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

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

• Human Feces.jpg

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

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)