Talk:Sponge

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)

I edited the article to include that and Arimasia. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

"Freshwater sponge" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Rename to Sea Sponge

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

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)

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)

How would I do that ? I'm fairly new to wikipedia, any help would be appreciated. &RezAlt! (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

Thank you so much ! &RezAlt! (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2026

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)

---

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

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)

Thank you, much appreciated. &RezAlt! (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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 ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, Maltazarian. I did not realize there was a Move Request last month. &RezAlt! (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per consensus at last month's RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support but only if the DAB is moved to the base name otherwise Britannica uses just Sponge. Given there was clear consensus against this last month (I was the nom) I think you should have waited a while for this but I'm fine with leaving this open given we have a different target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sure. I'm sorry about the requested move so early, I am new to wikipedia and was not present. &RezAlt! (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: sea sponge is 1) a minority usage and 2) inaccurate as there are freshwater sponges. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I see the point of 2, but do not agree that this is a minority usage. Why do you think that &RezAlt! (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  1) because I can't recall when I last (if ever) saw "sea sponge" used outside this discussion, and 2) according to Google Ngrams "sponge" is vastly more common than "sea sponge" (even after discounting for other meanings it seems unlikely to be even close). Lavateraguy (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am sure that other meanings (sponge as tool) represent ~99% &RezAlt! (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  In Google Ngrams "marine sponge" alone is 3 times as frequent as "sea sponge", which would put the ceiling at 97%. "Porifera" is 4 times as frequent as "sea sponge", and works mentioning Porifera are likely to also mention "sponge" (the organism), perhaps with "sponge" mentioned more often than "Porifera". Lavateraguy (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ok . I see your point. But Also, why not Sponge (Organism) like that sponge (tool) can be renamed to Sponge. I can't argue with google Ngrams, sadly. Irrefutable evidence. &RezAlt! (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  If one were to make the tool the primary topic then sponge (animal) would be the conventional placement. But the consensus is that the animal is the primary topic. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  You know what ? That sounds like a good idea. How to change RM ? I appreciate the help, Ngramsguy &RezAlt! (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Now this I could Support 2007GabrielT (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Terms like "glass sponge", "coralline sponge" and "freshwater sponge" add up to about as much as "sea sponge". On the other direction "bath sponge" is at about 40% of "sea sponge". Lavateraguy (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Animals and WikiProject Marine life have been notified of this discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life as well. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning opposed due to freshwater sponges. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  It is the common name however, and Wikipedia has been known to prioritize the removing of ambiguity over technicalities &RezAlt! (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pageviews indicate this is clearly the WP:primary topic. - Station1 (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and move DAB to basename. I don't see how the creature is PRIMARY by long-term significance over the daily used sponges.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This does not fall under WP:NATURAL as it makes the scope smaller. Not all sponges live in the sea. And it has far higher pageviews than the tool, as shown in the last move discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Extensive discussion during the last RM did identify some dissent but ultimately no compelling argument that Sponge is not the primary topic nor that Sea sponge or any alternative title is better. Though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, sea sponge may inaccurately be interpreted as suggesting that all sponges live in the sea, which would exclude freshwater sponges. Overall the current situation is not broke and does not require fixing, and the proposed "fix" results in a less accurate title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't see the compelling argument for why it's primary. Ask the average layperson, and a good chunk will say the cleaning tool comes to mind first. This should be moved to Porifera, with a DAB at basename.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

    Ask the average layperson, and a good chunk will say the cleaning tool comes to mind first – Primary topics aren't just the first thing you think of. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)enjoyer (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

    • Sure, but in those cases the DAB should be at base name then if it's not at the most obvious thing people think of.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    Even if it was moved, "sponge" would still need to be a primary redirect for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    The average layperson certainly does not use the word "Porifera." See WP:COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    • Sponge (organism) then or whatever get consensus.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

      Well the average layperson doesn't think of this when they think of a sponge 2007GabrielT (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

    Again, there was a very long discussion about this a month ago. I have not repeated all the arguments here. I can see now in re-reading my comments that it looked like the only reason for my opposition is because of the problems with sea sponge, but that is not the case. (It's annoying when people say "per prior RM" without elaborating but it's also annoying to have to repeat or summarize everything when the last RM was very recent and very long…) My primary reasoning is based on pageviews and usage in other tertiary reference works including Britannica and The Columbia Encyclopedia. Primary topic by usage and long-term significance is difficult to untangle since the organism and the 'tool' are inextricably linked but the organism gets substantially more attention in scholarly and reference works and is the far more popular page. WikiNav for "Sponge" shows that Sponge (tool) is the #4 most popular destination (≈‍5% of outgoing clicks) and the dab page is #16. This suggests that the hatnote is working and there is no significant navigational problem—most readers are ending up at the intended page with the current set up. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC) (Note: Something strange happened when I use the reply tool and it inserted my response in the middle of Chess enjoyer's signature. I am refactoring this now.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

    I apologize. I did not realize there was an RM so recently. &RezAlt! (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

    It happens. No need to keep apologizing. It's not obvious from looking at this page. In the future, consider looking at the talk pages of the other one or two pages that are likely contenders for the base title/primary target. But there's no fool proof way to know if a change was recently discussed on a different page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

    I would note that Chess enjoyer mentioned this in their pre-RM response to you. I think instead of suggesting that you start a new RM here, better advice would have been to suggest to review the prior RM and then consider whether or not a repeat RM now is warranted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

    How to close RM ? Consensus is Opposed &RezAlt! (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

    I would just let it go for a couple more days and an uninvolved editor will come along and determine whether consensus has been met and will close or re-list. There is guidance at WP:WITHDRAWN and WP:RMEC for withdrawing a nomination. However, since there is some support for your proposal, this cannot be withdrawn. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.