This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
A fact from Aquaculture of sea sponges appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 October 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
"Synthetic sea sponges have the potential to cause bursting of the capillaries if used by individuals with sensitive skin." This sentence seems to come directly from http://www.bubuk.asia/garden/natural-honeycomb-sea-sponge-6-inches-long-description/ where is is merely an aside in an inducement to purchase natural sponges. It may be true, but if this is the only source for this claim it should not be in Wikipedia. I am in no hurry to remove it, but if its still sitting there with a [citation needed] tag in a month or so I probably will delete it. Noexit2002 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously copy and pasted from somewhere so I've removed it per WP:COPYVIO. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the page Sponge diving largely duplicates information found on this page. I proposing merging sponge diving into Aquaculture of sea sponges as a result. mcpusc (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree; sponge diving/fishing's about harvesting natural already-existing sponges, whereas sponge aquaculture/farming concerns raising and intentionally growing them. And the first has a much longer history dating to ancient Greece, while the latter only became viable more recently. Information about that ancient history would be out of place on the article about aquaculture.
Yes, the first article's sparse on that; but the solution should be to be to expand the article, not to merge with another. Mignof (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
