Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:Sponge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sponge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives : 1, 2
This article is written in American English , which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articles Sponge has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review : December 14, 2008. (Reviewed version ).
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon Animals High‐importance
WikiProject icon Sponge 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:
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive .Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Catfurball (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.
The rationale behind the request is: Important.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions

Helicolocellus

[edit ]

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) [reply ]

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

Tonian

[edit ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]
Probable then? 2001:1308:268B:D300:4039:FC80:320A:801E (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
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) [reply ]

Placement of images in the article

[edit ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]
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) [reply ]

Move discussion in progress

[edit ]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sponge (tool) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The redirect Freshwater sponge has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 21 § Freshwater sponge until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 02:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Move discussion in progress

[edit ]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sponge (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Rename to Sea Sponge

[edit ]

Perhaps renaming "Sponge" to "Sea Sponge" to remove ambiguity ? Open to discussion &RezAlt! (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I second this. Given the prevalence of sponges as a tool, rather than animal, this is a better way to disambiguate between different pages. Additionally, I feel "sea sponge" is a more common term for the animal than simply "sponge". End (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
This has been discussed in the past (see also the section immediately below), and also in a more recent requested move. I don't think this should be moved because the phylum is the primary topic of "sponge", and "sea sponge" would be a less concise title (not to mention that not all sponges are marine). If you still think the article should be moved, I suggest opening another requested move. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
How would I do that ? I'm fairly new to wikipedia, any help would be appreciated. &RezAlt! (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Instructions can be found at WP:RSPM. You can also open them through Twinkle, if you choose to enable it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Thank you so much ! &RezAlt! (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Requested move 22 May 2026

[edit ]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus against the proposed move. Opposers demonstrated that the proposed title is inaccurate because of freshwater sponges. Furthermore, evidence from pageviews, Google Ngrams, and tertiary sources reaffirm the WP:PTOPIC. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]


SpongeSea sponge Sea sponge – Removing Ambiguity. This is an official move request for the Rename to Sea Sponge Topic. &RezAlt! (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: I took the liberty of converting the requested title to sentence case, assuming that was just a typographical error. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Thank you, much appreciated. &RezAlt! (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Information Note: There was a recent discussion about this proposed title at Talk:Sponge (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 April 2026. —Myceteae 🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
And boy did this confuse me when I just happened to end up at this article while reading about different phyla and seeing an active requested move discussion that I thought there should be no way for to still be open...⹃Maltazarian parley {\displaystyle \lor } {\displaystyle \lor }investigate 21:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Sorry for the confusion, Maltazarian. I did not realize there was a Move Request last month. &RezAlt! (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: WikiProject Animals and WikiProject Marine life have been notified of this discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
WikiProject Tree of Life as well. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
I have no opinion on to what this page should be called. But what I do know is that people think of the tool when they hear the word "sponge". And don't say "yea sure more people look for this page or whatever", because that's just due to the fact that most people already know the basics about what the tool is. 2007GabrielT (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
That seems to me to be an argument that the organism is the correct topic for the sponge. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
There is sometimes a discrepancy between the most common everyday usage of a word and the encyclopedic topic that is the greatest subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that count towards Wikipedia primary topic status. That may be the case here. This is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect that our Sponge (tool) article could be improved. —Myceteae 🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /