Talk:Carcinisation

Some questions for future edits

What are the main drivers of carcinication on a genetic level? Why is decarcinication less frequent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.227.208 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Convergent evolution?

This is a form of convergent evolution, right? I'm not certain, so I won't edit it. 75.157.56.59 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it isTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carcinisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425232740/http://www.crustacea.org.br/artigos/728_25_18%281%29_95-102_-_Hiller%2C_Viviani%2C_Werding.pdf to http://www.crustacea.org.br/artigos/728_25_18%281%29_95-102_-_Hiller%2C_Viviani%2C_Werding.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit looks good! Iloveroxy13 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Gibberish caption

“Porcelain crabs resemble crabs, but are more closely related to squat lobsters and hermit crabs” —- regular, non-specialists will have no idea how it could make sense to say that a type of crab is like a crab, but is actually more closely related to a type of crab. This is nonsense without context. 2601:647:CD02:88A0:8552:31CC:8888:9321 (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I (a lay person by your standards) understand what they're saying perfectly. Pretty sure most people will get it just fine. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope 2601:647:CD02:88A0:C963:A742:E71B:9F63 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Slightly more reading into porcelain crabs and hermit crabs (which people on Wikipedia are prone to do) would show that they are not true crabs, which would explain the caption. Adgoat (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The word "true" is useful here, I added it to the caption. InspectorMendel (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article "Top-Importance" in the Evolutionary Biology WikiProject?

At most, carcinisation is an interesting example of convergent evolution. It seems misplaced, but please let me know if I am missing something. GazpachoInCups (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe they were just copying the importance that this has to the arthropod wikiproject, or maybe it is some sort of joke along the lines of how on the internet people have been joking that everything is becoming crab. Regardless, convergent evolution itself is only high-importance, and carcinisation being an example of convergent evolution feels like it should be lower in importance, so for the time being I have changed its ranking to mid-importance. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of its status as an internet meme, I think that this article from Scientific American has some info worth including in this article in it, although I'm not really sure if it should go in a new section or an existing one: Wolfe, Joanna (27 February 2025). Vergano, Dan (ed.). "Crab Memes Amplify Mistaken Ideas about Evolution". Scientific American. Retrieved 28 February 2025. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

At the time of my writing this, I'm similarly confused by this article's ranking as Top Importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods and Wikipedia:WikiProject Marine Life. I'm going to set both of these to "importance=Mid". For all three WikiProjects mentioned, I think a case could be made for demoting them to Low Importance, but they're certainly not more important than Mid Importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobdgm (talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Internet meme? Internet memes?

@Chiswick Chap, you changed "...having been the subject of several popular internet memes" to "...having been the subject of a popular internet meme". Know Your Meme includes several screenshots of posts mentioning carcinisation that were widely shared, as well as links to an XKCD comic and a YouTube video. I think it's accurate to view these as several internet memes. If carcinisation itself is the meme, then this clause should read "...having become a popular internet meme".

Your "around 1.0" edit summary was cute, but a "well, technically..." sort of edit like this should, ideally, consider the entirety of the sentence that's being modified.

It's worth noting that this confusion also exists in the "Cultural impact" section, where carcinisation is referred to as a meme per se and then, in the next sentence, as the subject of several memes:

Beginning in 2019, carcinisation has found popularity as an internet meme. These memes parody carcinisation...

Jacobdgm (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated, but @Jacobdgm did you use an LLM to help generate your lead expansion to this article? NicheSports (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not! Not in the slightest. Jacobdgm (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks Jacob NicheSports (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Weird. But I see no sign of actually more than 1. Happy New year. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)