Talk:Isopoda

Diet
How long can isopoda live without food? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.10.231 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A 2015 Shark Week episode says "years", though I find that hard to believe. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Legs
What is meant by "crippled legs"? Is this vandalism? Drutt (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In Pop Culture
"alliance with the ocean horror" Just a little tidbit for people working on the page, I don't think this should ever be in the article.
 * I also have a little tidbit of isopods in popular culture. In recent strips of Questionable Content, the character Faye has been wearing an isopod shirt that reads "I feel pretty," as seen in this strip. Jeph Jacques has also announced on his LiveJournal that the shirt will soon be available for pre-order. Wasn't sure if this stuff was actually pertinent to the article, so I didn't want to add it myself. Take it and use it as you will, if at all. --129.120.157.75 14:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioned on the Giant isopod page. Drutt (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I dunno how this works, but....http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/terrifying-sea-critter-from-oceans-depths/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.75.19 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At least in Charles Stross' novels (well, one of them that I can think of - The Apocalypse Codex), there's a connection between isopods and his version of various Lovecraftian horrors; don't know if Lovecraft had anything isopod-ish in his own fiction, though "the ocean horror" above might be a reference to that. Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that one of the "recent" Godzilla films has isopods accompanying Godzilla. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Intro
"Isopods are an order of fearless peracarid crustaceans" — fearless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.12.215 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cellulose digestion
The section "Feeding and nutrition" states that "cellulose is digested by enzymes secreted in the caeca." I thought that metazoa that digest cellulose need to have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria. Are isopods an exception? Can they synthesize cellulases? Aa77zz (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems marine isopods are an exception. I looked this up in the source which states "Wood-boring marine isopods feed on wood by using cellulase secreted by the digestive ceca." but also states "In terrestrial woodlice, cellulose digestion is accomplished by symbiotic bacteria." The article mentions these differences. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It seems very possible. A quick search finds many articles on cellulases in animals - even in termites. Aa77zz (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusing double explanations
I chanced across this article and found the introduction immensely confusing, right from the very first sentence. Isopoda is an order (group), it says. Well, is it an order or is it a group? If you think that "order" is somehow too complicated a word for the reader to understand, I think you're disastrously underestimating your audience. Offering them a choice of words that might apply makes nothing clear. Soon after, we have "segmented exoskeletons (external skeletons)". Is there any reader who will be so baffled by "exoskeleton" that they need an explanation, but at the same time have no idea how to click on links? Then finally in the first paragraph we have "some more derived taxa (advanced groups)". Indeed, "derived taxa" is a technical term that most people will not understand. However, each word is linked to somewhere the reader can find out more.

In each case, these double explanations were not helpful but confusing. They introduce ambiguity and entirely disrupt the flow of the article. So I removed them. They were first restored with the claim "Explanations are helpful to the reader. Explanations are what we are all about and an explanation of what isopods are is helpful to the reader.  An explanation of the words you are using to explain something is not helpful to the reader.

The double explanations were restored with the comment "Replaced explanations which were added as part of the FAC review process". Firstly I do not see in the FAC a demand for an explanation of what an order is. Secondly it's irrelevant. Even featured articles can be improved, and something that may or may not have been said in a review two years ago is not a valid reason to reject an improvement.

I didn't edit any further but looking into the first paragraph of the main text, I see "Isopods are typically flattened dorsoventrally (broader than they are deep)". Why bother to use the word "dorsoventrally" and then explain it? Why not just say "Isopods are typically broader than they are deep"? We are not here to teach readers words just for the sake of it. Reading on, I see that the article is basically riddled with parenthetical explanations. A few examples, like the first two in the introduction, are not even complicated words and almost all of the rest can and should be written in clear, non-technical language. 77.111.227.3 (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Its all a matter of opinion. In my opinion they are helpful to readers who do not understand some of the terms used. You apparently disagree. They were there at the end of the FAC review so you may be in a minority, and in any event, the matter seems pretty unimportant to me. Though I don't know who you are, I note that you are a blocked editor so may not be in complete agreement with Wikipedia policy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's so unimportant to you, why did you revert twice? It really isn't a matter of opinion.  If you say "order (group)", then it's obvious that it's not clear what is actually meant.  Is it an order or is it a group, or is it both?  It's not clear.  For things like "dorsoventrally" we have clear guidelines: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do."  I don't know what you are talking about with your strange claim about blocked - looks like a very shoddy attempt to get your own way by slandering me.  Well if you want your pet article to be confusingly written, you may keep it that way.  I'm not going to bother trying to persuade you of the virtues of good writing any further.  77.111.227.3 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You reversed my edit on Isopoda using 87.112.27.223 which is a blocked account. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Phryxidae?
we have a red link to Phryxidae. Could someone do the an individual article or the redirect to the correct taxon?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Rubber Ducky Claim?
"For enthusiasts, the most sought after species comes from Thailand, the Cubaris sp. Rubber Ducky."

The source for this is just a listing for the sale of these isopods. It has only four reviews - I don't think this substantially indicates that Cubaris sp. "Rubber Ducky" is the "most sought after" species. Should it be removed? Sam0524 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)