Talk:Tardigrade

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tardigrade in a chair.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge from Tardigrades on the Moon

There is no need for this small article. It should be merged into this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - It is definitely a little ridiculous to have it as its own article, knowing that it could be its own section in the tardigrades article. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Against - Slightly obscure articles are one of the most important parts of wikipedia in internet culture FigureOfStickman (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - short enough to work as a section in the main article. (No, "making funny targets for listicles" is actually not one of our mission statements.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - The lunar survival article is not, IMO, significant enough nor long enough to be considered a separate topic. Wikipedia is not required to have a separate article about every cool fact in the world. IAmNitpicking (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - And it's also polite to ping the primary contributors, Herpetogenesis and GuguboWIKI, for their awareness. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Against - This single event is not about the properties of tardigrades (and thus doesn't fit into its article except for a mention under survival after exposure to outer space) and if anything should be merged into Beresheet, although it's different enough from both these topics to merit its own article. GuguboWIKI (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it fit into its own article? It doesn't have to be a property anyway; we have a section called Ecological Importance in the Tardigrades article that doesn't have anything to do with those mentioned properties either. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The ecological importance makes sense; to me adding an event related to the animal is like merging Electrocuting an Elephant into Elephant. In any case if the article had to be merged, it should be added to the spacecraft's article where it's more relevant than in the tardigrades' article. GuguboWIKI (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Electrocuting an Elephant is a standalone work of art, a topic for which we routinely have separate articles. I actually do agree that perhaps most of the content is better merged into the spacecraft article, although the bit about researchers shooting tardigrades out of guns can certainly be added here, if it's not already. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Pop Culture irrelevant?

There's an "in popular culture" section to this article and to it I added a reference to Tardigrades from the TV show Futurama. @Elmidae: has deleted it claiming it is "irrelevant trivia". I think it is no more irrelevant or trivial than the other items in that section. If we're going to keep the section, we should include it and if not the whole section should be removed. [On a related note Elmidae, if you're going to re-undo a revision by someone after they address your concerns, the polite thing to do is to reach out to them on the talk page, their talk page or via a message first - not just undo it again]. Volcycle (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion on popcult section: Talk:Tardigrade/Archive_1#In_popular_culture. Not much on Looper (website) at RSN [1], but appears a bit weak to bother including. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the challenge with this one is that the given source doesn't really analyze the Futurama reference itself, and so the reference isn't that notable. The article is more like "Futurama mentioned tardigrades! What are they? Here's what tardigrades are". And the article's coverage of tardigrades doesn't really add anything new itself, so it's all a bit eh. There's a guideline for all of this at MOS:CULTURALREFS. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

See above. The instance does not add anything that someone reading about tardigrades would want to know in this respect (e.g., why is it significant that they were mentioned in this work?) but is just another of a thousand "hey look, we put a tardigrade in!" non-events. Relevance is a two way street - this may be relevant to Futurama, but it is not relevant to tardigrades. Obligatory link to what we are trying to avoid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Biological jargon

As I read through the article, I felt the descriptions of the tardigrade were more focused on introducing biological jargon than being clear. It's great when the concepts are hyperlinks, as it offers a chance to learn something new and maybe go down a rabbit hole, but when the article is peppered with endless unknown technical words, it's distracting and annoying. 77.124.3.123 (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent info with no citation

the tardigrade largest size is inconsistent from 1.2(cited) or 1.5(uncited) 96.78.45.37 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not saying these [2][3][4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)