# Talk:Sponge

As of writing this, the oldest known definitive sea sponge (to my knowledge) is Helicolocellus, a Late Ediacaran crown group sponge apparently related to Hexactinellida. Other early putative sponges have had their poriferan identity questioned, such as Otavia, which has had its sponge affinity and even biogenicity questioned by Antcliffe et al. 2014 (Giving the early fossil record of sponges a squeeze). This genus does not appear to be referenced in this article. Should it be? Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I edited the article to include that and Arimasia. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Add possible tonian record to sponges and other confirmed huanian animais Wirth their highest non-kingdom valid group.
Like this:
Animal-history-cryogenian to present-possible tonian record. 2001:1308:2798:6500:E05C:23CF:2C3A:968B (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It isn't obvious that a "possible" record should be added to any timeline; that's for known reliably-attested records. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Probable then? 2001:1308:268B:D300:4039:FC80:320A:801E (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
This isn't a negotiation. The timelines in all taxon articles are meant to be based on solid scientific opinion, cited in the article, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned about the placement of the images in this article because I believe they do not comply with MOS:ACCIM and MOS:IMG. Some images are not placed in their related sections (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Image placement). Additionally, some images sandwich the text (MOS:SANDWICH), while others spill into the next section (MOS:LAYIM). Furthermore, certain sections contain an excessive number of images (MOS:PERTINENCE). I attempted to address these issues twice, but they were reverted by @Epipelagic and Chiswick Chap. How should this problem be addressed? ZergTwo (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Only one of the three images you removed was reinstated. That was the image depicting the bathymetric range of certain sponge species, which was repositioned next to a related section discussing deep-sea sponges. You were asked why you thought that image should be removed, but you didn’t provide a coherent reason. However, I see, because of mobile phones, the guidelines have become very specific about image placement within sections. Thank you for highlighting that. I’ve made an edit with relevant adjustments to comply with those guidelines. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the change in guidelines is significant, I'm certain we'll have to do a good bit of checking across the piece to comply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)