Talk:Sponge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sponge 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: 1, 2

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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).

Animals High‑importance

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:

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

Marine life (inactive)

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

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, 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 been mentioned by a media organization:

Annie Rauwerda (2023-08-13). "tears streaming down my face as i try to read these names aloud". Depths of Wikipedia.

Helicolocellus

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

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

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]