Talk:Lloyds Bank coprolite

Conservation
How did it got preserved in English soil? --Error (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your enquiry. If you care to read the article, you will see that it was fossilised. Follow the link to find out what that means. Storye book (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * From Fossil:
 * Specimens are usually considered to be fossils if they are over 10,000 years old.
 * The term subfossil can be used to refer to remains, such as bones, nests, or defecations, whose fossilization process is not complete, either because the length of time since the animal involved was living is too short (less than 10,000 years)
 * I doubt it is fossilized. Whatever kind of preservation it went through, I wonder how it survived English weather. --Error (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a reference for "fossilised." I should add that the object is always described as a coprolite, and that the definition of "coprolite" is fossilised dung. Regarding your last question about preservation in English soil: I understand that a de-oxygenated environment (which does not have to be dry) does help to preserve animal remains, and that cesspits such as the one where the coprolite was found can be de-oxygenated environments, so that that may be a possible reason for preservation in this case. Storye book (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Fossilised
The article does indeed contain a citation for "fossilised", and the citation is here. That is The Guardian: "Paleoscatologists dig up stools". The Guardian is a respected and authorititative source. If you have a reliable source which says it is not fossilised, please show it here, and we can add it to the article saying that there are two views on the matter. Please do not start an edit war. And by the way, this is a British English article, where the word is "faeces", not "feces". Thank you. Storye book (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This article, for lack of a better word, is shit. Newspaper sources, which this article entirely relies on, are unreliable for discussing scientific topics per WP:SCIRS. There's zero attempt to engage with the academic sources that have actually discussed the stool, showing a lack of effort in constructing the article. Reading the academic sources, the original paper indeed says the stool has undergone mineralisation, making it reasonable to describe it as fossilised in the strict sense of the term, but this is currently not explained properly in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is the WP guidelines. We cannot write facts which are not clearly written out in the sources. There is no mention of this particular specimen in the document that you link above. Using a document search, I cannot find any reference to mineralisation or mineralization. If it is there, please let us know the exact page and quotation, so that we can add the source and update the article. We cannot use sources which do not mention the specific subject of the article, when dealing with the question of whether or not it is fossilised. I am not saying that you are wrong about whether or to what extent it is fossilised. I am saying that regarding this issue, we need a clear source which mentions this particular specimen. If you have a better source which mentions this specimen, please let us know. Storye book (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some parts of the document are not character encoded properly. The actual paper (which is towards the end of the document) is only 5 pages, so it's somewhat lazy of you not to have tried to read it. It very clearly states on the opening page of the paper: ...biological investigations have shown it to be faecal, a mineralized stool. emphasis mine, with mineralization clearly mentioned again on page 226 (as labeled in the header of the document), where it is contrasted with dessicated native American stools. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, will you please stop using insults on this talk page. You have already called the article "shit" and you have called me "lazy", which is unacceptable on this platform, and it does not forward any discussion. Secondly, no-one here is obliged to trawl through long scientific or specialist documents, where the editor offering that reference has not previously included a page number and/or quotation. Many editors here already work very long hours for no material reward. It will not help you to make unreasonable demands. Storye book (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)