Talk:Cecotrope

Untitled
Hi, I've got a problem with the spelling of so-called "cecotropy" ... every book I've ever read spells it "caecotrophy". Obviously "caecotrophy" is the original English spelling, and "cecotropy" is the American spelling. Frankly, as an Aussie, I've got a real problem with American spelling - if anyone in the world enters the English spelling, how are they going to be directed to this page with the American spelling?

Cheers, look forward to your replies!

I have set up a redirect page for the word "Caecotrophes". That should do the trick. Gadev 11:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm adverse to them too.. In a question that simply avoids me having to trawl the wikiguidelines, is there a stipulation as to which should be used as the main page default; the american or english spelling? I've noticed they are nearly all in the american format, is this correct?.. Anyway, the marsupial/primate links should link to the actual cited mammals, not to the page of their infraclass, or should say 'a suchasaurus-link, a marsupial-link' etc


 * Yeah, does anyone know what marsupial and what primate these are? :C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In this situation, I believe that there is no preference for either spelling according to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia Policy on English Dialects Gadev (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Simplification of spelling by replacing "ae" with "e" is standard, but isn't replacing "ph" with "p" just an error? Yuhani (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mammalogy
— Assignment last updated by Plg1399 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

add info from other articles to this article
Many articles have information about cecotropes. If you want to learn about cecotropes, it is difficult to find all these articles. And even if you did, the information is scattered & incomplete. I thought it would useful to gather all of the info & put it into the cecotrope article, plus add more details.

I thought I would write it for people with a broad range of knowlege about this subject. It has basic info for those who know very little & just want an overview. For those who want a detailed understanding, there is a lot of specific information. For those who just want a basic understanding, they do not have to understand all the technical terms but can still understand the main concepts.

Then, in all the articles that briefly discuss cecotropes, I could add a one line summary with a link to the cecotrope article. Comments?

Sunandshade (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sunandshade It looks like you're doing a good job here. I'll make some very minor comments to the effect that the lede sentence needs to clearly specify what a cecotrope is - it doesn't at present. References should follow a full stop without a space, nor should there be a space between references. Otherwise, keep it up! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I'm new here & this is the first time I've made major changes.  I wrote it in my Sandbox.  After reading it over a hundred times, I published it.  Then I noticed a bunch of minor things I wanted to change.  Funny how that works.  I will re-write the first sentence to try to make it more clear.
 * For references, I find it virtually impossible to read an article in the source code editor when the citations are on the same line as the text. So I use the "enter" key (which I assume adds a "new line") before each citation.  Makes it so much easier to read.  Didn't realize that added a space.  Is there a code I can use so in the source code editor the citation starts on a new line but does NOT add a space?  That would be very useful.  Sort of like "&nbsp" (space, no line break), but the opposite (line break, no space). Sunandshade (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed the first sentence to try to explain what a cecotrope is. It's actually hard to do in a concise way.  Nick Moyes, what do you think? Sunandshade (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sunandshade Yes, that's the challenge of writing an encyclopaedia article! It's not bad, but could still be improved, I feel. I'll leave that one with you, but you're on the right track and doing ok. Because the WP:LEAD is meant to be a succinct summary of the entire article, I'd recommend thinking about increasing the lead to reflect the new extensive content you've added. Use bold text to highlight alternative names, and ensure the first use of a term is wikilinked. I think you could enhance the lead with more wikilinks, too.
 * Did you know you can toggle off and on the colouring of the reference code? See the 'Syntax Highlighting' button in the Source Editor toolbar. You then get in the habit of ignoring everything other than the black article text. I'm not aware of a tool to find spaces between citations, but using Ctrl-F to look for certain erroneous combinations (such as ". <ref" instead of ".<ref") might help.
 * You've obviously relied on ref 1 as a major source of information. As this looks like it might be a huge book, it would be hard for another user to quickly Verify any statement based upon it. I'd recommend using the template to add a specific page number after each use of the same reference. Ref 16 (de Blas) is a 404 dead link, so needs fixing. And I'd always advise against using blogs linked to commercial websites, such as this one, especially if non-spammy links exist that offer a more independent alternative.
 * If you want to ping me when you think your work is over, I'll happily pop back and give you contructive critical feedback if you would like it, and then revise the article assessment, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your input. I'll keep working on the article.  I have syntax highlighting on but still find it difficult to ignore all the colored words.  I didn't mean to use a tool to find all the unwanted spaces, but rather a code to use in the article that will input a new line but NOT input a space, like "&nbsp" but the opposite.
 * Fixed the link. Had a slash at the end.  Thanks for pointing that out.
 * Ref 1 (Quesenberry) is a reference text that veterinarians use. The copy I used is not the latest edition.  If I put in page #s, it would be different for the latest edition so not sure how helpful that would be.  Can I put in chapter #s instead?  If the chapter #s stay the same, then people could more easily look it up.
 * Thanks for offering to answer further questions. When you say "ping" you, do you mean to ask at this Talk page, or should I ask at your User Talk page, so as not to clutter up this page. Sunandshade (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)