Talk:Tardigrade

message: — Assignment last updated by Andrewhoy (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Invertebrate Zoology

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Tardigrades on the Moon]] 

message: There's an "in popular culture" section to this article and to it I added a reference to Tardigrades from the TV show Futurama.  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)
replies: text: Previous discussion on popcult section: Talk:Tardigrade/Archive_1#In_popular_culture. Not much on Looper (website) at RSN , but appears a bit weak to bother including. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pop Culture irrelevant? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biological jargon