Talk:Spongiforma squarepantsii

Name

Sponge but not SpongeBob

"The genus name Spongiforma refers to the sponge-like nature of the fruit body, while the specific epithet squarepantsii denotes the similarity with the cartoon character."

What similarity? It looks like a sponge, but not SpongeBob. Presumably then they just did it for publicity. There are plenty of scientific names where the namer has made some kind of pun [1], but could these researchers not have at least made it a little more subtle by putting "square pants" into Latin, which I'm sure the nearest classicist would have been happy to help them with? Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page presents facts, and the talk page is not the place to complain about the facts it presents, but on how well the facts in question are presented. Also, the direct Latin translation of "square pants" would be "Squarebraccea," with "square" meaning "square" (duh) and "braccea" meaning "pants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.180.129.13 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spongiforma squarepantsii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 20:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this one caught my attention :) - I'll give it a read through now and add my review below. Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Discovery and naming: Do we know Desjardin's first name? Also it seems weird to mention him in this way without explaining who he was first.

• I've added his full name as well as those of the other authors. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Discovery and naming: I'd suggest adding a cite directly after "similarity with the cartoon character."

• I disagree; this is sourced to the citation that's given in the following sentence. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Discovery and naming: Should this section be titled Taxonomy and classification?

• Sure, changed. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Description: "and has dimensions of" - would something along the lines of "usually measures" make the sentence flow better?

• Agree, changed. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Description: "vaguely fruity or strongly musty" - quote needs a cite.

• Added. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• References: Cite 6 needs to have it's access date in the same format as the other dates.

• I can't seem to see what's wrong with this, the template formatting is as it should be in all three cases, but it's not displaying the accessdate in two of them. Perhaps this has something to do with the recent rollout of 1.18? Sasata (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• No reason to blame the software, I had simply missed filling in the url parameters! Thanks Stemonitis for fixing this for me. Sasata (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Images all check out.

Description is good - all unfamiliar terms have have been linked to their respective articles. That's all the issues I can see with this article. Miyagawa (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review Miyagawa. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Great, I think this now all meets the criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also the fact that scientists can name their own species whatever the heck they wantTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK hook

The DYK hook could have been much more interesting! AshLin (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)