Talk:Brine shrimp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
[edit] "They are more closely related to zooplankton than to true shrimp"
This phrase makes about the same sense as saying "They are more closely related to flying creatures than to xx". It should be replaced with something more precise, or left out entirely.
- I was just about to write the same thing. Let's get rid of it. Jimp 04:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we should state that they are really NOT closely related to "true" shrimp. I agree the comparison is weird. --vossman 04:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for removing that bizarre sentence, but I would warn against adding something like "not related to true shrimp". All life is related, but some things are more closely related than others. "Not closely related" would probably be OK. --Stemonitis 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
This probably needs to be merged with the article for Sea-Monkeys.
This Sea-monkey article desperately needs to be merged into Brine shrimp. It's _totally_ inappropriate for this much genuine informational material to be located under the increasingly obscure trademarke name used by one manufacturer. The material that is of a biological nature needs to be merged into the existing Brine shrimp material; the material on keeping them as pets should be its own section; and the material on the Sea-Monkey brandname and its history should be another section, under Brine shrimp, with Sea-Monkey becoming a redirect to Brine shrimp. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added merge {{tags}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Most – if not all – of the material regarding different types of brine shrimp and their biology and systematics should be sorted under, well, Brine shrimp, for the same reasons as why for example Automobile is not sorted under Cadillac, but has its own article. The current Sea-monkey article is confusing and close to misleading. As SMcCandlish I vote for keeping both articles, but making the boundaries between them more solid; one article for the scientific and biological data, and one for the brandname. — Tommy Kronkvist 15:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Sea-monkey should be about the stupid fad of having brine shrimp with pictures from the comic book adds showing Sea-monkey as humanoids. Brine shrimp on the otherhand should be about the animal including its contribution to sea life and scientific research. --vossman 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I propose we remove all information about Brine Shrimp from the Sea-monkey article and state:
- This article is about the product Sea-monkeys, for information about the animal see Brine Shrimp
- Oppose — Any biologically important information about Artemia can (and should) be copied to brine shrimp. It need not, however, be removed from Sea-Monkey provided it is relevant there. The marketing fad relies on certain aspects of the crustacean's biology, so some information is relevant. If the two were merged, I fear that the Sea-Monkeys information would overwhelm the Artemia information (especially considering the amount of text that sometimes gets dumped onto Sea-Monkey ([1]). Speaking as a biologist, the importance of Artemia does not lie in their being sold, and so the whole Sea-Monkey business should not be allowed to swamp the brine shrimp article, particularly since Sea-Monkeys are only one species (or hybrid between species?) out of dozens. --Stemonitis 07:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose — I believe that many people will come to Brine Shrimp from a search involving Sea Monkeys, which is the brand name that made them famous in the first place. I think that keeping two separate pages linked together is the best option. --Doppelgangland 12:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
