Talk:Tardigrade

Tardigrade is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap (talk) at 13:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: Phylum of microscopic animals, also known as water bears

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tardigrade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

Animals High‑importance

Tardigrade is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

MOS:POPCULT

Um, MOS:POPCULT states directly that "Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist."

This means that this article's 'In popular culture' section should not contain any item which just says "And episode XXX of show YYY contained a tardigrade." On inspection, almost all the items are exactly of that sort. I suggest we delete the section, unless one or two of the strongest of the items can be saved by beefing them up with some actual content. At the moment even the "Bathybia" item from 1909 says almost nothing other than that a tardigrade was encountered, making it an exceptionally trivial section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree they are all just of that sort, "just exist" is no source or a primary source. Look at for example the Bathybia source, that's way beyond "there's a tardigrade in it." Their place in fiction has a place per WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. As I said, the "Bathybia" item is a little better than the rest, but the current text still says very little - the tardigrade was big and scary, wow - and as I also said, the item can perhaps be saved by adding something a bit more substantial. Most of the other items are far weaker and I doubt they can be improved to the level required by MOS:POPCULT at all, but you're welcome to try. I suggest we wait a couple of days and if the material is no better than now, we remove all the weak ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying these [1][2][3] are substantial mentions, but they show that tardigrade pop-cult is observed outside pop-cult.

I argue for keeping

Bathybia
Marvel
Harbinger Down
Sheldrake (it doesn't matter, but fun fact is that he's the son of Rupert Sheldrake)
Star Trek

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see what substantial facts can be added to each of those, then. "Observed outside pop-cult" doesn't prove anything as far as the MOS is concerned; nor do "fun facts". Substantial claims beyond "contains a tardigrade" are what are required to salvage any of what currently is a pure trivia-list. As I say, let's give it a couple of days, and anything without a decent claim to fame gets deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POPCULT doesn't call for substantial facts added to this article, it calls for decent sources supporting their (the examples) mention. And local consensus. I don't want a lot of detail on Harbinger or Star Trek, the specifics are not important, I want them there as solidly sourced examples of these creatures in fiction. It doesn't have to be a list, a sentence or two of prose is fine too. Ping to @Elmidae if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I quoted above, it calls for claims beyond mere existence. Unfortunately, nearly all the current claims are just that. They're also exactly what the MOS deprecates, a list of mere mentions; contrary to your supposition, the desired result is an informative narrative, not multiple mentions of things which might really honestly turn out to be really interesting honestly if only the reader looked up the sources: no, that won't wash. The job of an encyclopedia is to inform, in clear summary style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've beefed up the Bathybia mention, as tardigrades are fairly central to the tale. I hope we can similarly document a few of the other mentions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think you broke current ref #40. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, temporarily restored, it's not an ideal source and seems always to be redundant to more scientific sources, but one step at a time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Would advocate a pretty hardline stance here as well, as generally with pop culture sections about taxa that just get dropped in all kinds of media because of their distinctive looks. Semi-substantial discussion by a third party should be the main criterion; otherwise we eventually end up with my go-to humorous reference to the problem (which actually makes the point quite well). By that yardstick, the Star Trek mention, for example, comes with decent sourcing, but the Sam & Max one does not. The problem with the highly popular ones, like tardigrades, is also that if you soften the criteria for special "fun facts", you open the door for endless discussions with the next 20 people who saw one in a video game and can't see why their example should be treated differently. Precedence matters. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pictures (bless the Dutch)! I do remember that a previous plushie got deleted per COM:TOYS at [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some support for Star Trek and Harbinger:[5] (added as ref). Wasn't aware that WhatCulture was on RSP. Also added another source for Sheldrake. Marvel is weaker than I'd like, (there's a nice vid by Marvel, but it doesn't help), but IMO the existing refs are good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the expansion into more than pop-cult, but I find it a little odd to have a separate section for Bathybia. How about one "Literature and music" and one "Film and TV"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pop stuff still feels a bit wobbly to me; maybe a bit of copy-editing ("massive size"?) will help. 'Film and TV' or 'Motion pictures' is a reasonably coherent s/section, despite the unwelcome presence of "and", but "Lit and music" seems a bit incoherent really. But perhaps anything is better than "In pop culture". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]