Jump to content

Talk:Brine shrimp/Archives/2023/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Resolved
 – Needed edits were made.

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)

Sea Monkeys

Aren't Brine shrimp used as sea monkeys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgwt..bbq (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Sea Monkeys are indeed a type of artemia salina (brine shrimp), but they aren't "just brine shrimp" (as many people assert) any more than a toy poodle is "just a dog." They are a specialized, trademarked hybrid of brine shrimp, bred to grow larger and live longer than "wild" brine shrimp. --HamatoKameko (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Resolved
 – Just an editing note, with no objections.

I think that it is a very relevant article. People likely search " sea monkey " more frequently than one would expect. It will then lead them to Brine Shrimp. I copy editied. My primary focus was making a fair deal of long or run on sentences shorter. This will add to the simplicity of the article. Askeens (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you eat them?

Resolved
 – Fluff

The article states that brine shrimp are rich in nutrients, so could you just fry up a pile of them or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDS2005 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Or microwave a pile of them. Trust me, it smells really bad. No, I did not do this for entertainment value, but rather I had a baggie of them frozen and "nuked" them to thaw them out for some aquatic pets to eat, and DANG that smell was funky. For several days. If you intend to ingest them, I would really strongly suggest doing it as part of a stew/soup/gumbo of some kind, where they'll blend well with spices and whatever else is in it. But, yeah, you can eat them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Unresolved
 – Issue unsettled after over two years.

First nomination

Resolved
 – First nomination closed with Result: No consensus.
  • Merge: The 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)
  • Keep The Sea-monkey brand name is distinct enough for its own article. It is more on the clever marketing than on brine shrimps. And if there are any informational material here that applies to the brine shrimp article, it can simply be added there. --Dodo bird 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I address this idea in more detail below, but will add here: 1) The merge would not prevent anyone from finding information about the brand, as Sea-Monkey would redirect to Brine shrimp which would discuss Sea-Monkeys in detail in the ==In popular culture== section. 2) More importantly, the rationale you give here is not reflected in reality: The vast bulk of Sea-Monkey is about the biology and lifecycle of the animal, and very little is said about them as a clever marketing phenomenon. If the material that is effectively redundant with Brine shrimp were removed, the Sea-Monkey article would be a quite small stub. That alone is a powerful merge rationale. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and keep. 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 with 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 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 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)
  • Comment. 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
-unsigned
  • Reply comment: There's no point. Once the biological information is removed from that article and (where necessary) moved into this article, there will be nothing left at Sea-Monkey but a tiny stub (there is very little info in the article about Sea Monkeys as a marketing phenomenon, despite that being the alleged purpose of the article), and we have clear AfD precendent to merge such stubs into parent articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and keep — 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)
  • Comment: This would be a valid concern, except that Brine shrimp is actually a fairly well-developed short article of 7 paragraphs (as of this writing), while Sea Monkeys, when duplicate info is removed, is hardly an article at all. It would probably be 1-2 paragraphs under "In popular culture", while the merge would also probably produce at least another para. or two of biological information not exclusive to Sea-Monkeys. It has remained in this stub state with virtually no addition of new information for well over a year. What we have is what we are likely to always have, unless the world's foremost authority on Sea-Monkey kitsch happens to stop by. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why should it matter that many people would come to this article looking for the other? Many people arrive at GEICO looking for GEICO gecko, and this hasn't seemed to have any negative effect on anyone or anything. This merge proposal is actually quite routine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Addressed above; just because it is a "merchandising phenomenon" does not automatically mean it needs its own article. I don't see any rationale anywhere in policies/guidelines or AfD precendent that suggests that just because something is a "merchandising phenomenon" that it deserves its own (stub in this case) article, much less one filled with garbarge; for example the section presently called ==Life cycle== (formerly ==Use==) is a blatant violation of WP:NOT#IINFO #4, and there are many other problems, especially the fact (or should I say {{fact}}) that most of the material is unsourced. The Sea-Monkey article, even if fixed, is a classic example of what ==In popular culture== sections are for in articles like Brine shrimp. PS: WP:SPAM actually militates against the idea that things like marketing memes should have independent articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Second nomination

Resolved
 – No consensus for merge.
  • Merge (2nd nomination): The anti-merge rationale offered so far amounts to little more than "the marketing phenomenon needs its own article, or people will get lost" without any support for that rationale (please note that GEICO gecko is a redirect to GEICO, as it should be; good marketing does not automatically make an encyclopedic article, and no one gets confused by being redirected to a larger article with a section about what they are looking for or we wouldn't be doing it that way); without addressing the fact that vast bulk of the Sea-Monkey article is biological information and not about the marketing/brand; and seemingly without understanding that ==In popular culture== sections exist in articles like Brine shrimp for a reason. However a good case is made below that such a section will attrace WP:OR/WP:NOT edits relating to minor mentions on tv, songs, etc., so the section should be called ==Sea-Monkeys==. If any form of the Sea-Monkey article is kept as a separate article it should be about the marketing/brand, not the biology. But I am going on the record as opposing the keeping of any form of that article as a separate article - brandnames and products do not need articles unless there is something quite encyclopedically noteworthy about them and there is enough sourced information to actually build an encyclopedic article about them. The former is debatable and the latter is clearly not the case. If enough material does become available, a Sea-Monkey article could be split off again at a later date. This is really just a very routine stub merge, per extensive AfD precedent. (PS: The resulting merge will need a different DAB template, the one reading something like "Sea-Monkey redirects here; for uses other than the animal see Seamonkey", or better yet DAB them all more clearly and w/o a DAB page, since there are only three.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Revised 13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — I am not opposed to a merger, but I do despise "In popular culture" sections. They get filled very rapidly with every time the topic has appeared on any television programme, ever, and rarely contain any encyclopaedic content. I also suspect they fall foul of WP:OR; unless someone else has observed that "Sea-Monkeys are frequently featured in TV shows", we should not be stating it. So, by all means merge, but please don't build a popular culture section into your plans. --Stemonitis 08:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: I can see that. Just call the section #Sea-Monkeys. I haven't had any problem with IPC sections in any of the articles I regularly work on, and they're kind of a standard catchall for such stuff, but there's no "rule" that says they have to be used. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's spectacular that Sea-Monkeys have caused such a disruption here. I searched Sea Monkeys and found exactly what I was looking for. Some more history on the subject would have been helpful. If it is 100% true that Sea Monkeys are brine shrimp then I would not have been offended if I was guided to the brine shrimp page with a section on Sea Monkeys. Rooprect 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Rooprect
  • Comment: I searched "Seamonkey" wondering why the Mozilla Foundation choose this name. Surely I am not alone! So I would prefer the current organization, that is, do not merge. Cgmusselman 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, while they are brine shrimp, the articles are best kept seperate because of the history of the brand and the marketing. People who heard about sea monkeys or are interested in sea monkeys would be better directed to this page than a general one about brine shrimp. The brine shrimp article should stay as a more scientific article without the "pop culture" junk added.--Entoaggie09 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-third-nomination discussion

I haven't actually added the merge templates for it, but I think the time really is ripe now. This article has improved drastically in the many months since I last brought this up. The Wikipedia "take" on "In popular culture" sections has changed radically, and the "mergist" position at WP:AFD has grown dramatically. My merge propositions are therefor adjusted.

I propose that the Sea-Monkey article be merged into this one. We know for a hard cold fact that "Sea-Monkeys" are simply brine shrimp (with some questionable but worth-mentioning claims, if they can be sourced, of subspeciation). Lots of metabolic and other information that belongs in this article is at that one. The only Wikipedian value of a "Sea-Monkeys" article is about marketing, period. And, per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and other guidelines, it is difficult to support an article about nothing but a brand name or marketing exercise. The bio info at that article at very least should merge into this one, leaving nothing but marketing/branding-related info in the other article, should it remain separate.

To me, the ideal solution is a 100% merge, with the sci/bio info (where it does not transgress WP:NOT as how-to info, which much of it does) integrated into current content here, and the branding/marketing material becoming a ==Sea-Monkeys== section in this article, with Sea-Monkey (and its redirs) pointing to [[Brine shrimp#Sea-Monkeys]].

I've let this lie for nearly a year in hopes of others dealing with cleanup, and some kind of encyclopedic distinction happening, and neither have happened, in spite of this (but not the other) article's overall and quite noticeable progression. It's time for them to happen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I.e., this is not a call for Merge or Keep or whatever !votes, but rather a call for discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the assertation that the "Sea Monkey" hybrid are "simply brine shrimp." Raising the two, both Sea Monkeys and "regular" feeder brine shrimp, side-by-side, there are apparent differences in their speed of growth (as my feeder brine shrimp are still quite young, it remains to be seen what future observations I will make, but others have observed them in the past and there is likely material available somewhere). While I don't know that they qualify as their "own species," and I do agree that the two articles can and likely should be merged, caution should be taken to avoid stating that Sea Monkeys are just regular brine shrimp in a fancy package. The current Sea Monkey article, in fact, troubles me, though I've not been up to the task of fixing it as of late. --HamatoKameko (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reworking lead paragraph

I have removed

of the order Anostraca (fairy shrimp which are not closely related to true shrimp)

as being unnecessary, but the next problem is that I simply don't understand what the following sentence fragment is trying to say:

Artemia is a well known genus as one variety (sometimes identified as a new species Artemia nyos).

If someone could explain what is meant here, it could be reworded as a proper sentence. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Resolved
 – Self-evident.

Someone wrote the sentence "How are u doin"? Is this vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.203.218 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously yes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Protista?

This may be a dumb question, but i was told brine shrimp were zooplankton and zooplanktons are protistas, so if a=b and b=c shouldn't brine shrimp be classified as a protista vs animalea(sp?)? Of course, if the information i was given was completle false then there is no point to this. My source was my biology teacher, and a staff member of the aquarioum i volunteer at --69.106.170.217 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... not many questions are dumb – it's close to always better to ask first, than jump to conclusions. However, your question is already answered on this page. Zooplankton (or any plankton, really) is a very heterogeneous group of organisms. Zooplankton can be very apart from each other: dinoflagellates, copepods and even fry of fish can all be considered zooplankton – though not necessarily protists. Actually, many species of lobster are zooplankton during the first time of their life, but no one would assert that an adult 50 cm (20 in.) lobster is a protist :-) To put it short, the term "zooplankton" is not valid taxonomic unit (partly because the group is both paraphyletic and polyphyletic). And today more and more scientists claim that Protista should not be a valid Kingdom, either. Hence, saying that "zooplankton are protists" is a bit like saying that "flying organisms are birds". If so, butterflies and bats are also birds! Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Review needed badly

This article is in serious need of a critical review of the last 4 months or so worth of edits, a very large proportion of which have been made by IP address editors (many of them also making questionable edits to Sea-Monkey, which is how they ended up here), and few of these edits are sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

artemia

Are artemia cysts a micro organism? --CyclePat (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The numbers of them and their weight

I think it was on some science show I heard that by sheer volume there is more brine shrimp than any other organism. Can any one confirm this or link to the organism that holds this record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.222.202 (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why "brine"?

Is it because they live in brine? (The article doesn't say so... I actually came here from an article that said there were found in the Great Salt Lake) 65.96.166.49 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sodium hydroxide

It's stated that one of the causes of the sodium hydroxide in Mono lake affecting shrimp is acid rain. Can someone please explain how acid rain can lead to additional alkalinity? Is it just nonsense that needs to be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTBoyce (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it probably is, yes. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Now removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTBoyce (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Salinity

Numbers for salinity were changed from per mille to percent in these edits. I believe those changes introduced an error in the lower bound, changing it from 5‰ to 5%. (Salinity in natural bodies of water such as oceans and estuaries is commonly given in ‰.) Here is a source which says "Artemia prefer a salinity of 30-35 ppt" (or 3~3.5%) and "The optimal conditions for hatching artemia are as follows - 25 degrees C, salinity - 5 ppt (1.0030 density)..." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How did they get to North America?

If Artemia are all descended from an ancestor that lived in the Mediterranean area 5.5 million years ago, as the article says, and if they don't live in oceans - then how did they get to North America? Can the cysts be carried that far by the wind? -- 92.226.2.138 (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

percent symbol

Whar symbol is this: ‰ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on it: ‰. I don't know why the article doesn't just say 15%. Friendly Cave (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I fixed this. 204.28.224.25 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Salinity

We're doing a project about this in my classroom. According to out lesson plan (commercial), the right units are grams/milliter or kilograms/liter. So this is wrong:

"Brine shrimp can tolerate varying levels of salinity from 25‰ to 250‰ (25–250 g/L)" Strangesad (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be correct to describe it as "wrong", it's just using a different unit, which is clearly specified so there should be no confusion. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Grams and milliliters are part of a system, because a gram of water is a milliter of water. You can't have a 250% saline solution. Strangesad (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The ‰ symbol represents parts per thousand (see Per mil). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I corrected this to percent, "per mille" and the associated symbol are archaic, some Europeans would still recognize them but they shouldn't be used today when unambiguous options exist (as we see above, readers will assume they mean percent). If you think it's important to say "parts per thousand", just say that. 204.28.224.25 (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Dead Sea

There's apparently a thriving population of Brine shrimp in the Dead Sea. Two sources: One, two. Can someone verify the first link to be a proper source? And if so, add it in the external links section? I'll make a topic on the Dead Sea talk page. Thx. Karel Adriaan (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brine shrimp. 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:

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) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

2 items in reference are identical

I post this here because I do not know wikipedia editing well enough to do it myself, I noticed that two items in the reference seem identical. Can anybody merge them?

De Vos, Stephanie; Rombauts, Stephane; Coussement, Louis; Dermauw, Wannes; Vuylsteke, Marnik; Sorgeloos, Patrick; Clegg, James S.; Nambu, Ziro; Van Nieuwerburgh, Filip; Norouzitallab, Parisa; Van Leeuwen, Thomas (2021-08-31). "The genome of the extremophile Artemia provides insight into strategies to cope with extreme environments". BMC Genomics. 22 (1): 635. doi:10.1186/s12864-021-07937-z. ISSN 1471-2164. PMC 8406910

Many thanks, Cheers,

213.211.154.102 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Good find. (Note that this also appears to have been added as a SELFCITE (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brine_shrimp&diff=1041969384&oldid=1041546107) but I have not removed it.) Invasive Spices (talk) 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brine_shrimp/Archives/2023/December&oldid=1215087609"