Talk:Coprolite

message: I can't believe that this page makes no mention of the fact that Othniel Charles Marsh named coprolite after Edward Drinker Cope, his rival in the Bone Wars.  I read that in a book on the Bone Wars, but even if it were only a false rumor, it should still get a mention.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is indeed spurious. The name was originated in 1829 almost a half century before the bone wars. I have added a short section on the history. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin 

message: Coprolite as used in relation to the coprolite mining in Cambridgeshire refers to phosphatic nodules. These nodules commonly found in the Gault Clay are not true coprolites (fossilised faeces), the term is merely used as a mining term for nodule
see: Grove, R., 1976, The Cambridgeshire coprolite mining rush, Orlander Press, 51 p.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.91.143 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coprolite mining in the UK 

message: The articles mentions urolites, "erosions caused by evacuation of liquid wastes and nonliquid urinary secretions." How can a urinary secretion be alleged to occur in a non-liquid form? Urine is a liquid by definition, otherwise wastes would not pass successfully through the urethra. — O'Dea (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be a slurry or a colloid, i.e. a mixture of solid particles suspended in enough liquid to be able to flow. --Teratornis (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Interesting, but it would need a good quality source to support inclusion in the article. Personal recollections have insufficient authority .  Velella  Velella Talk   13:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of urolite needed 

message: this article:
" It was these observations by Anning that led the geologist William Buckland to propose in 1829 that the stones were fossilized feces and named them coprolites."
Mary Anning article: "It was to him she made what would prove to be the scientifically important suggestion that the strange conical objects known as bezoar stones, were really the fossilised faeces of ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs. Buckland would name the objects coprolites."
.... Anna Pinney, a young woman who sometimes accompanied Anning while she collected, wrote: "She says the world has used her ill ... these men of learning have sucked her brains, and made a great deal of publishing works, of which she furnished the contents, while she derived none of the advantages."[32] 
is wikipedia doing the same? more careful editing is needed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.1.78 (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  anning properly credited? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Coprolite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trimley-st-martin.org.uk/downloads/TSMCMR.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Coprolite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008170433/http://www.trimley-st-martin.org.uk/downloads/TSMCMR.pdf to http://www.trimley-st-martin.org.uk/downloads/TSMCMR.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is an issue that, in Victorian Eastern England at least, the meaning of "coprolite" is broader than fossil faeces and referred to any phosphatic nodules found. For a significant period, there was a commercial mining industry for these.
Should the article include these, or exclude them?  Either is possible, we just have to write the same coverage as a separate article, with links. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dino dung, or broader? 

message: Why? --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ...because it's a plausible search term by people who don't know what it's called? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, why is one of the redicrects "Dinosaur shit"?