Talk:Tardigrade/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seashell5300. Peer reviewers: Bguti02, Devonwebb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Ionic" radiation?

At best this term is vague; at worst it is meaningless. Also, much solar radiation - like visible light and infra-red - is all but harmless. So, I changed "along with solar radiation, gamma radiation, ionic radiation" to "ionizing radiation —". Gamma radiation is a form of ionizing radiation.Leveretth (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do they live

How far have they spread across the world, which countries are they in? (129.12.155.173 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC))

I suspect you would be hard pressed to find anywhere where they do not live.

194.176.105.153 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Rearranging

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.82.228 (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC) 

I have added some sections and rearranged the paragraphs to make it a bit more logical (hopefully ;) GregRobson 23:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not happy at the reversion of my "good faith" edits. Yes, outer space is a combination of the other conditions, but that is exactly why is cannot be subsumed under any one of them, such as radiation. There is also too much detailed information about space experiments in the head of the entry which ought to be in a specific section of the article itself: details about individual space flights are not appropriate in the summary of a zoological article. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tardigrade sketch or image

A sketch or an image of how the tardigrades actually look like would improve this article a lot. Preferably a sketch, as it is often hard to make out the details on images on such tiny creatures. Jens Nielsen 22:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You can google search an image of the Tardigrade and obtain a microscopic image of the creature, however i am not familiar with the proper process for uploading images and what not, so if any are aware of it please help

f1r3r41n 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a cool one here http://tardigrade.acnatsci.org/tardigrades/pic311.png Suppafly 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted. Pavel Vozenilek 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have several images i'm willing to upload, they're from my BSc dissertaion, some are hand-drawn specifically detailing the general anatomy and CNS of the tardigraede. I will investigate the uploading process. 87.114.11.142 18:15, September 5, 2006 (UTC)

-272.8 degrees?

I have been unable to find anything on the 'net saying that tardigrades can survive -272.8 degrees Celsius. I have been able to find the following site: http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/tardigrade/index.html, which says that they can survive -200 degrees Celsius, which sounds much more reasonable considering that "the Boomerang Nebula, with a temperature of -272.15 Celsius ; 1K, is the coldest place known outside a laboratory." (Absolute zero) Could someone change this? I've found a site: http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/tardigrada.html --Quadraxis 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

the water bear as a polar bear

I took a second year university circumpolar history class where the water bear was mentioned, definately not as a tiny creature. I remember the range to be as far south as Cape Cod. The waterbear was hunted to extinction since it competed for the blubber on seals and walruses. Also,the water bear was fearsome to whalers and settlers. The water bear was most probably the polar bear. Can anyone confirm this to be true? H. Lorne 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. Doo-dle-doo 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya they were probably thinking of polar bear because the scientific name of polar bears is Ursus Maritimus, which means "sea bear" or "water bear" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.226.85 (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No evidence for 100-year survival of tardigrades!

It is amazing how difficult it seems to be to give up old views. I find the story about 120-year survival of dry tardigrades repeated again and again, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that a tardigrade can revive successfully for such a long time. The paper that I wrote together with R. Bertolani in 2001 (cited in this page) had the specific aim of killing this myth, but nobody seems to be willing to accept the fact that a tiny movement of a leg is not equivalent to successful recovery of the animal. I would appreciate if the text after "Dehydration" could be replaced by the correct information that tardigrades have been shown to survive nearly one decade in a dry state, with reference to Guidetti, R. & Jönsson, K.I. 2002. Long-term anhydrobiotic survival in semi-terrestrial micrometazoans. J. Zool. 257: 181-187.

There is also a reference to "recent experiments" on chemobiosis by Cai and Zabder, without any reference to a publication. I think this is not acceptable, so should be deleted. In addition, someone has refered to our paper (Jönsson & Bertolani 2001) in this context, which is completely incorrect.

I hope somebody can change the text to make it more in line with current knowledge.

K. Ingemar Jönsson 04:22, May 25, 2007 (UTC)

I saw a show that says the longest living water bears, without water, was 127 years. 192.28.2.6 13:24, September 13, 2007 (UTC)

I saw a show where they autopsied an alien in real life. Lots of shows publish common misconceptions. Peer reviewed journals are what is needed here. --69.178.7.34 (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From Manga Science Volume VI by Yoshitoh Asari, ISBN-05-202039-1 published in 6 March, 1998, a tardigrade survived over 120 years from a dried state and lived for 2~3 minutes before it actually died. The info was supplied to the book by a professor from 東京女子医科大学 named 宇津水和夫. If a specific paper could quote this to be wrong, by the five pillars of wikipedia, namely the WP:NPOV, this info should still be in the article, but immediate followed by sources with evidence stating it is in fact not considered survival. The sentence should be something like: "Although the tardigrade was said to have survived over 120 years after being in a dried state and lived for 2~3 minutes after being given water, and died afterwards,[ref 1] some further research doubt its accuracy since it is only a small movement in the leg.[ref 2]" Wikipedia should present all views, not a specific one. Especially when it is controversal. MythSearcher^talk 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a common misconception, then it should be mentioned as such, not deleted. — Omegatron 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! But the article is still listed as "twelve decades" under dehydration, no mention of the "controversy". Tweil (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Normal life span? What do they feed on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.165.101 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer: tardigrades are suctorial feeders. They mainly eat plants and small animals though some are gut parasites of molluscs and echinoderms. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geologyrocks101 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

normal lifespan is about 2 years, although the tun sttate can significantly increase the life span.(since this is a phylum with diverse range, it probably differs for each species.) hope this helps too.103.114.211.67 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Space. The Final Tardigrade Frontier

These little water bears can survive direct exposure to space environment with no protection.

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1054351/Tiny-water-bears-creatures-survive-space.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Root Beers (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ONLY while they're in suspended animation as desiccated resting-stage cysts, and the same is true for a large number of other animals adapted to temporary waters, from rotifers to some crustaceans. The most well-known organism producing "can survive in space" type resting-stage cysts is probably the small crustacean Artemia ("sea monkeys"). None of these organisms survive space or desiccation or high temperatures or lack of oxygen while actively moving and feeding. 213.112.195.70 (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Extremophile

From a very technical perspective, the Tardigrade enters cryptobiosis in hostile environments, which is very different from thriving in them. Does this not exempt them from extremophile status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.155.184 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(2.5 years later) Yes, I agree, so I have removed the dubious unsourced claim. -84user (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tardigrades are not segmented

In the introductory section to the article it states that tardigrades are segmented animals, which is wrong, to the best of my knowledge. They are monomeric with four pairs of unjointed chelate legs.

Tardigrades in popular culture?

Mal Webb (Mal Webb, http://malwebb.com), an Australian performer, has a song on his "Trainer Wheels" CD about waterbears, listing (most of) the various extreme environments they can survive. Is this worth noting on the page? --PaulWay (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

food of water bear

What do they eat? How long can they live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.108.167 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

they eat food and they live for ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.185.189 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess thats true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.168.34 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the species of tardigrade they'll generally have one of three means of getting their nutrition. Suctorial feeders sucking fluids out of cells, carnivorous eating rotifers, and other tardigrades, or omnivorous consuming mosses and algae from its habitat. Wholdenwood (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Chemobiosis

I'm currently wondering about the section on the resistance against environmental toxins. It states that tardigrades can undergo "chemobiosis", which is told to be a form of cryptobiosis. The thing is, you can't find anything at all about chemobiosis in the web except quotations of this article and the article about Cryptobiosis. So I've asked the guy who added the section about chemobiosis in this article and he told me, he got the information from here. So, does chemobiosis really exist???

Besides, the evidence about chemobiosis does, like already told above by K. Ingemar Jönsson, not belong at all. I assume this to be a mistake, because the two references were already there before the line about chemobiosis was added (in January 2006 by user Kimmylee).
--Johannes Rieke 16:21, 14. April 2010 (UTC)

Many sites say that tardigrades can undergo chemobiosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.202 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Genome

The section states "is being sequenced" without mentioning a date. It is quite common in Wikipedialand for the present tense to be used without any indication of when. I wonder what the policy is with this. Obviously it cannot remain true indefinitely, but does the usage imply that the writer will monitor progress and update the article when the sequencing has been completed? Dawright12 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This practice is generally discouraged as is the use of words such as "recently". If it is to be included it should be qualified with "as of XXXX" or something to that effect. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As Mgiganteus1 says, writing in that way is discouraged for precisely that reason. Relying on somebody to update it when required is not a reliable approach. It is better to make a statement that will remain true, e.g. "A sequencing project was started in 200x". In this case, the reference link provided says that the work is still ongoing but I am not sure how we can tell that this is kept up-to-date. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mosquito survived in space

I removed the bit about tardigrades being the only animals that survived in open space based on these news: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Mosquito_Survives_In_Outer_Space_999.html

Modern tardigrades?

Why is the image labeled 'Modern tardigrades'? Kingturtle = (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps as opposed to fossil tardigrades? I'll change the caption to the species name. --Danger (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Much nicer, and more clear. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Microscopic?

In the first paragraph it says that tardigrades are microscopic animals, but it then says that the size ranges from 0.1 to 1.5 millimeters. Should that be macroscopic? 1.5 MM is definitely visible to the naked eye, but .1 might not be. Silenceisgod (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• totally agree, changed microscopic to 'small' Aperseghin (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WTF?

What the... What has been done to this formerly well done page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.128.11 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit

I changed, "Freshly hatched larvae may be smaller than 0.05 mm." to "Freshly hatched tardigrades may be smaller than 0.05 mm. Tardigrades do not have a larval form. The young ones resemble adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.59.192 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction:

“Since 1778, over 500 new tardigrade species have been found.” yet Description: “About 1,150 species of tardigrades have been described.” Is this a contradiction or were 650 species of tardigrade species discovered during the five years preceeding 1778 – surely not? Dawright12 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's likely a case of using different sources to cobble together this wiki page. The two are not mutually exclusive. 1,150 is indeed "over 500". --2001:980:A4CB:1:B136:BFC6:29DD:A81C (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Millimetre instead of mm

In "Tardigrades are 1 millimetre (0.039 in)" why "millimetre" instead of "mm"? If inches are written as "in" millimetre should be written as "mm" as they are, in fact, most generally known an more widely used. Inches, are generally only used in USA. There are more people who know what "mm" is than people who know what "in" is. EnriqueCadalso (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I see now this it the default behavior of the *convert* template from Wikipedia, so the claim should be done to Wikipedia instead. My point stands though. EnriqueCadalso (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

paedophiles

I mean really did someone mess up this link or what!! Please fix this or remove as this is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.43.236 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

request help with reference 27

Could someone please fix reference #27? The |authorlink= parameter isn't correct, but I'm not sure if it shold be changed to |title= or |chapter= or something else. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Life Span

For such a resilient creature with DNA repairing abilities, I wonder if they have a know life span? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.3.15 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

i think dna repair doesnt extend to the point that they become immortal. i think it is similar to our dna repair. or if you mean dna protection, that usually wouldnt prevent "normal" aging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.114.211.67 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Lots of contradictory information...

I don't know much about editing on Wikipedia, so I am not certain how to flag this for review or anything, but there is highly contradictory information contained in each subheading. Size is the most glaring example...within 300 words, there are no less than three different numbers quoted for typical adult size. I don't want to go banging around without knowing what I am doing and messing the article up, nor do I know which data is correct, but it should be reconciled and consistent across the article. Perhaps using a range when describing average adult size in all cases in order to avoid conflicting info? Thanks!

Generalizations

[I don't quite understand how the last section, "Lots of contradictory information..." does not have any editor's info.]

Science writers should be very careful about how information is presented. The way the second paragraph is written it appears to indicate that all tardigrades can withstand all the extremes mentioned, which I doubt. If an expert is able to review this article, I suggest that the language be changed to reflect more precisely what is true. Something like "There are species that can survive temperatures up to ..." and "Species have been found living under conditions of ...".Lisapaloma (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to make an almost identical comment! I looked up tardigrades in the generally reliable Invertebrates (1990) by Brusca and Brusca, and they included some of the same points, but not the specifics we were looking for.Martino3 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion

I vividly recall seeing my first water bear under a microscope about 35 years ago and being captivated by the motion of the animal among detritus gathered from the bottom of a pond. It had an almost comical locomotion which was surprisingly bear like. It would very nice to have some moving images available so that readers can judge how apt the common names are for these little creatures. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference 54 is not correct

The reference 54 refers to the sentence "The genome of R. varieornatus has already been sequenced" in the "Genomes and genome sequencing" paragraph. However the cited article refers to a study on a specific DNA repair enzyme, not to a genome project page. Furthermore I was no able to find the genome project that describe R. varieornatus genome.

I think that this reference, and the sentence "The genome of R. varieornatus has already been sequenced" should be removed. Nanogutul (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity

These creatures are indeed fascinating. It just dawned on me though that with the widespread access of the Internet and multiple methods of manipulation, I can never again be sure of things I read like this without seeing them for myself. These creatures are equally as likely to be a hoax as not, and I guess I have to take ya'lls word for it because it is on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.34.121.65 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that they are a hoax? Do you have any trust in Neil deGrasse Tyson? Although these little guys were mentioned early on in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (episode 1, maybe?), they were discussed more in depth in the 6th episode that aired tonight in the USA. They are indeed fascinating. The show animated them, showing them pink in color. In case you missed this episode in the US, it will appear tomorrow night (Monday) on the National Geographic Channel at 9P Eastern time. Otherwise, in about two days, the full episode is available online at the show's website for about 90 days or so: http://www.cosmosontv.com/ Yours, Wordreader (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: I don't think a specific species was mentioned, but were discussed as a group. Wordreader (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to take our word for it. They're remarkably easy to find. If you can find moss, you can probably find tardigrades. If you go on YouTube, you can find all sorts of videos of amateurs showing off the tardigrades they found, and explaining how easy it is to find them. Confirming the existence of tardigrades is a fun little experiment that pretty much anyone with access to a low-powered microscope can perform. Xtifr _tälk 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Survivability in what state?

The Tardigrades are most famous for being able to survive extreme conditions. Its unclear, tho, from this article what conditions they can survive without contracting into their hardened state. That would be really interesting to know. Fresheneesz (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

synthetic bio system?

Just wonder why no one trying to replicate the skins structure and the creature system in large scale so that people can live within such environment. or just suits or skin attachment to a human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.96.14 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The "first known animal to survive in space"

The article mentions that the tardigrade is the first known animal to survive in space. Does this mean there are others that were found to be able to survive in space later?The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

well in another section (see above) someone claims to have found an article about a moisquoito surviving in space. you can check it out. so to answer your question, apparently, yes. hope that helps. --Quiet Wanderer (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

percentage of water

In the Physiology section, it states

• "While in this state, their metabolism lowers to less than 0.01% of normal and their water content can drop to 1% of normal"

I don't have access to the cited ref (a book by Ross Piper), but maybe someone who does can sort this out, but I have a couple problems with this statement. Note that the lede says

• "They can go without food or water for more than 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water"

and elsewhere in the Physiology section it says:

• "When exposed to extremely low temperatures, their body composition goes from 85% water to only 3%"

First of all, not that happy with "1% of normal" being mixed in with 3% total as this is confusing. Let's either stick with one or put them side by side, e.g. "...become just 3% water, which is 1% of their normal water amount" or whatever.

Second of all, and much worse, if they're normally 85% water, then 1% of that would put them at .85% water, not 3% water. Right? Unless I'm missing something. So one of these statements is just flat wrong if I'm not missing something. Not sure which one and so I'll leave it someone with more expertise.

FWIW a drop in mass from 85% water to 3% water would also put them at (about) 3% of their normal water mass, while a drop in mass from 85% water to 1% water would also put them at (about) 1% of their normal water mass... Herostratus (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Anoxybiosis

This is a suggestion: perhaps this article could say more about the tardigrade's requirements for oxygen? It refers to Anoxybiosis but other articles I've found online say that when the % of oxygen is reduced, though they go into a turgid state, they can't survive long in this state, unlike the dessication state, and will die after a few days. See Tardigrade facts.

I'd be interested also to know what the minimum % of oxygen is that tardigrades need in order to survive and not be killed by anoxybiosis, so - did a quick search and couldn't find the figure but that also might interest readers of this article. Robert Walker (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

More details here (though it doesn't say what level counts as "low oxygen"):

"Anoxybiosis is not a true state of cryptobiosis and does not involve tun formation (Figure 59). Unlike true cryptobiosis, anoxybiosis involves the uptake of water. The lack of oxygen results in the inability to control osmosis, causing water to enter the cells in excess. The animals become turgid, immobile, and retain fully extended bodies that are perfectly bilaterally symmetrical (Figure 60). Even animals in a molt can enter anoxybiosis

Revival to normal state (Figure 62) relates to the duration of the dormant state. However, the success of that recovery is controversial (Wright et al. 1992), with some researchers finding that they can survive for only 3-4 days (Crowe 1975) and others finding survival of Echiniscoides (a tidal zone genus) up to six months in closed vials (Kristensen & Hallas 1980). " Tardigrade Survival

Robert Walker (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference 19

does not support claim: "Tardigrades can be found throughout the world, from the Himalayas[19] (above 6,000 m (20,000 ft))"

There's nothing about the Himalayas in that linked reference.

VANDALIZATION - this page has been repeatedly vandalized.

See history. John Brosin (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Some real contradictions regarding size.

"Usually, tardigrades are about 0.5 mm (0.020 in) long when they are fully grown"

"The biggest adults may reach a body length of 1.5 mm (0.059 in), the smallest below 0.1 mm. Newly hatched tardigrades may be smaller than 0.05 mm."

"Most range from 0.3 to 0.5 mm (0.012 to 0.020 in) in length, although the largest species may reach 1.2 mm (0.047 in)."

Justthisguyatx (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Need access to relevant and interesting journal article on the subject

I found this article in the Acta Physologica, which is clearly relevant here, but I dont have access. In particular it could help with the "However, as of 2001, these laboratory results have yet to be verified." claim for toxin resistance. Can someone find access to this journal? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-1716.2011.02252.x/abstract;jsessionid=9142A9266C67F77C63A048BFE84CA66C.f03t03?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= Flekkie (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

[RESOLVED] Trehalose is not how tardigrades prevent cellular damage

The article claims that

Their ability to remain desiccated for such long periods is largely dependent on the high levels of the nonreducing sugar trehalose, which protects their membranes.

However, multiple investigations have turned up little to no trehalose in their systems. A recent study by UNC Chapel Hill indicates that this was only a guess as of 2008 and no follow up work was ever to support the claim as recent as 2014. Their research linked in this comment have proven that they use Intrinsically Disordered Proteins to survive.

The article should be modified to reflect the new research and remove the fallacious claim that trehalose is responsible for their survivability. Axium Cog (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, sounds pretty uncontroversial. Go ahead and update, I'd say.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Do they carry diseases?

Are they vectors for diseases? 86.145.35.196 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference to them being "most resilient" is circular

The statement "tardigrades are one of the most resilient animals known" is supported by reference to the article "The Resilience of Life to Astrophysical Events" by Sloan et al. ( doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05796-x). However, that article simply states that they are one of the most resilient animals known (quoting other sources for this claim), and then estimate what magnitude of astrophysical event would be required to destroy them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.184.102.131 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture

Should this section threaten to overwhelm the article, we can always make it a separate article. I have to say it grew quicker than I thought. In the meantime, let's stick to things that can be reasonably sourced (which IMO includes the current 4 items). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Multiple writers for multiple Cartoons, TV Shows and Movies, all being inspired by the same crazy creature all at the same time creating a moment is worthy of note. The lack of scholarly sources mentioning cartoons does not negate the impact. The Star Trek, Voltron and the Deep appearances all happened within a couple months TardigradesofDoom (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And on WP, it's only worthy of note if reliable sources noted it. But the internet is bigger than WP, there's other places to write. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the sources used were hardly "scholarly". IMO the "screenrant" you added is a pretty weak source in this context, but better than tumblr (don't use that). I don't know what xtreams is, but imdb is also a crappy source around here. We'll see if other editors have opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You say all of that like Wikipedia is a reliable source. No one in academia is willing to take Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is just a collection of bullies protecting their fiefdoms. The whole internet is a place to write about things, but there is no more centralized place to mention the diverse pop culture appearances of Tardigrades that the Tardigrade Wikipedia page. Also, the IMDB page and Tumblr pages have screenshots showing the tardigrades. And the Tumblr screenshots included Netflix info pause frames showing which episodes those screenshots came from so a person could hop on Netflix and verify that those episodes did in-farct include Tardigrades. Another was the subtitles for the Tardigrade episode of the Deep where the characters talk about Tardigrades. And the ScreenRant interview with a creator on the Voltron cartoon talking about adding Taridgrades to the cartoon is a great source. But yeah, sure, throw a tantrum and delete the whole section because your mom or boss yelled at you, so you felt the need to exert your finite power over someone else to feel mighty. TardigradesofDoom (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking to anyone in particular or the people who have reverted you in general? Also, se Wikipedia:Edit warring, and pehaps Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. WP welcomes new editors, but you have adapt to the policies and guidelines, if you want to learn how to make edits that "stick". If not, that's moot.

Popcult sections like these are common but often disliked by many on WP. They are possible, if reasonably well sourced but hardly ever necessary. If you check the article history, you see that I started the one in this article, BTW (I was inspired by Ant-Man and the Wasp, great film). Others added to it, before you came along. So I think it could have one, it has some interest that these creatures are noticed beyond biology, but I am one editor. Again, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for what counts as wellsourced on WP. Then see WP:PROPORTION, which matters here.

Popcult/trivia/whatever sections can be reasonably WP-decent, even expand to separate articles like Donald Trump in popular culture and Christopher Marlowe in fiction. But sourcing is the the key. Basically, we don't want everything, we want a summary of the good stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to echo that. I'm generally ill disposed towards pop culture sections, but some topics do have a significant showing in contemporary entertainment sources, and may be able to sustain one. Tardigrades - possibly. Yet in no case do we want every single instance of one being used as a backdrop in a Saturday morning cartoon shoehorned into the article. Please try to restrain your zeal to cases where the occurrence is relevant AND well-covered by independent sources. That excludes fan blogs, BTW. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"You say all of that like Wikipedia is a reliable source. No one in academia is willing to take Wikipedia as a source." — No-one wants them to. Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. It's a tertiary source that aims to accurately summarise reliable primary and secondary sources. I do hope academics also don't recommend Encyclopedia Britannica or other general encyclopedias, because they are also not suitable sources. Please drop the personal attacks because they will not help you here.

As for the actual content, Screen Rant is a reliable source but the others are not. They fail WP:RS by a country mile. We need secondary sources that show tardigrades are widely discussed by creators or reviewers in order to include items in IPC.

I think only one of the South Park reviews cited mentions water bears, and only once – the SP content should be removed. The Screen Rant interview also doesn't look like it features tardigrades significantly enough to warrant mention in this article. I haven't looked at the other content closely. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

True, the other just mentions the title. Being European, I'm not allowed to read this [1], does it help? Vulture [2] may be too blogish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hah! There's a videogame too:[3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

CBR.com, borderline, probably:Ant-Man and The Wasp Has a (Microscopic) Link to Star Trek: Discovery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

[4] (for Cosmos) is also forbidden for Europeans, does it help?

IMO, Star Trek and Ant-man are sufficiently sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, Tardigrades get cute nicknames like "water bear" and "moss piglet" but if you put "trash panda" on raccoon it's vandalism. :/ —DIYeditor (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Blatant specieism, obviously. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You understand you are doing the world a HUGE disservice here? People come to Wikipedia for information. And more and more there is less and less information. You are not fighting the fight of if something is true or not, you are fighting the fight of finding a "reputable source" that deigned to lower themselves to cover such a topic. That is elitist censorship of information. You know what is better than deleting? Putting a "questionable sourcing" note after it so the reader can decide how much they trust the information. Over and over I come to this site to learn and find nothing. TardigradesofDoom (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"You are not fighting the fight of if something is true or not, you are fighting the fight of finding a "reputable source" that deigned to lower themselves to cover such a topic." That is pretty spot on, more on that at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. WP is not for every piece of info, and we are good with that, and sometimes we disagree wildly about which info to include, it's part of life here. "True" is also a tricky concept, people view it very differently, especially when you get into topics such as Jesus, Muhammad, Donald Trump and Professional wrestling.

Elitist censorship of information? If you like, but to many of us it is an important part of what makes WP have some value and is worth spending our time on, and probably one of the reasons readers keep reading it.

Luckily there are alternatives such as personal webpages, Wikia, Everipedia, Infogalactic and many others. If those alternatives turn out to be better, they will get the readers and editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Something that has not been mentioned in this discussion is that the sources should establish its significance (WP:POPCULTURE). Just a link that shows it exists somewhere in the Internet is not enough. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Can the Octonauts episode about Water Bears added under this section? It's an educational cartoon for kids about mostly sea life. I would add it, but seeing this discussion I figured I check first. 108.58.92.34 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for asking. The bar we put here is not if The Octonauts or the episode exist (never heard of them, but found the episode on YT). It is "did a reliable source independent of the series notice it and bothered to write something about it?" Something like this [5] or this [6] but for the Octonauts episode, not a blog, wiki, youtube or some site selling it. I looked, but didn't find anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Would this count?: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/18/1879302/-Take-A-Break-With-Tardigrades-Sunday-Morning-TheVillage 108.58.92.34 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Regretably, Daily Kos = blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest I'm pretty sure https://unity.edu/unity-college-news/unity-college-professor-discovers-another-new-species-of-tardigrade/ should service to establish WP:IPC inclusion. If necessary I can provide other sources as well. Yitz (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Fwiw, it's the Unity College (Maine). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

More popcult

TardigradesofDoom, welcome to Wikipedia. about [7]. What is needed is a reliable, published source that noticed that there were tardigrades/something that looked like them in those shows/whatever, and bothered to write about it. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is the houserule and goes into detail. Not something usergenerated or selfpublished, a good newspaper/newssite or something like that. Look at the sources used in that section, that's the level you should aim for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"This" species?

Article says, "Tardigrades share morphological characteristics with many species that differ largely by class. Biologists have a difficult time finding verification among tardigrade species because of this relationship. These animals are most closely related to the early evolution of arthropods.[35] Tardigrade fossils go as far back as the Cretaceous period in North America. This specific species is considered cosmopolitan and can be located in regions all over the world."

Which is "This specific species"? I think a sentence must have been lost somewhere. Or is that supposed to mean "This phylum"? IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it's the latter, but not sure :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Jargon

The article has in the Taxonomy paragraph

Two plausible placements have been proposed: tardigrades are either most closely related to Arthropoda ± Onychophora, or to nematodes

What does the symbol ± signify here? (Let's have it in words a high-schooler can understand, please)

86.135.129.34 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@86.135.129.34:It means, in the most jargonous terms possible... more or less/give or take... ~ R.T.G 11:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary which gves a good detailed explaination, [8]. It's not jargon really, it's nonsense. The reality was the plus symbol (+). I have replaced it with the "and" word (and). And it makes sense now. ~ R.T.G 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Cretaceous

The Cretaceous is mentioned a few times in relation to how old these creatures are. Such mentions should probably be accompanied by a parenthetical date range because it should not be neccessary to leave this article just to find out when the Cretaceous was. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cenozic evidence

New findings…

A tardigrade in Dominican amber

Marc A. Mapalo , Ninon Robin , Brendon E. Boudinot , Javier Ortega-Hernández and Phillip Barden Published:06 October 2021https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1760 Greenineugene (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio

Note: the material just reverted by CAPTAIN RAJU is stolen from Gizmodo's article here: https://gizmodo.com/genes-hold-the-key-to-the-water-bears-indestructibility-1786814698 IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

BBC source on "tubeworms" in mud volcanoes

Concerning this BBC source, I questioned whether the tubeworm described is actually a tardigrade, a term not mentioned in the BBC article or listed among tube worm species. I don't think the BBC article applies here. Thoughts, Mindmatrix or anyone? Zefr (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Tubeworms are polychaete annelids in every usage I've ever seen. No one would describe tardigrades as "worms" at all. They have legs! The article also says the animals in question do not have an anus, which tardigrades do. Conclusively not tardigrades. IAmNitpicking (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I only restored the reference as I thought it had been deleted solely because it was a dead link. I didn't actually verify that the content supported the claim...so...mea culpa for restoring it. Mindmatrix 23:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)