Talk:Spider webs in space

A fact from Spider webs in space appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1973, an experiment successfully demonstrated that spiders can spin webs in space?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/January.

Wikipedia

Spiders Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders 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.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conclusions[edit]

What was concluded by the results? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.159.115 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate[edit]

Can someone please explain what the opening sentence means by "two spiders called Arabella and Anita, two females of the cross variety". In particular, what are they a cross of? Thank you 147.70.153.227 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross spider redirects to European garden spider, so perhaps that's the answer, rather than hybridised spiders. Or perhaps they were annoyed about being in space. Totnesmartin 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I think this most recent push for this article to be merged is nonsense. This article got a DYK, and I received a barnstar for it. It would not even it properly into the spiders article anyway! No, this is stupid, i wholeheartedly must disagree! ♣ ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 10:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a See Also is enough,as it also allows people to link to from the Animals in Space article.The article is exactly about spiders,its also about stuff in spaceUser:Serprex 12:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Serprex here. Is the merge forgotten, or has anyone anything else to say? It's a two against 1 situation, does this mean the merge is cancelled? Blast, isn here anything you want to say? Is there anything else need be done before the merge tag be removed. I'm rather tired of it marring the article. ♣ ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly oppose merging to Spider; it would be far too much detail in an article that's already getting long. Even the "see also" link there is probably unnecessary. I would suggest, instead, including a couple of sentences about this experiment in Spider web (perhaps next to the discussion of drug effects), with a link to this article. —Cel ithemis 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much reason to merge too. There's a lot of information that couldn't really be satisfactorily covered in Spider. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tentatively implemented this apparent concensus. FWIW, I support the idea of a link from Spider web. Sdsds 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should a note be left at the SpiderWeb page?User:Serprex 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this suggestion I have attempted a reasonable edit to the spider web article, which links here. Hopefully, in addition to improving that article, the link will bring in additional editorial contributions to this one! Sdsds 23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think just a "see also" would do the trick. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

If there are no objections in the next week or so, im going to merge this article into spider webs. It seems a more appropriate place for it. Matt (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed and rejected last time. Do not perform this merge, o, if you would like to suggest it, do not put a deadline on it. There isn't gong to be any objection in a week - because this is an almost unknown article. Spider is an already clogged article, and this is a topic big enough to have its own article. Unless you can back your rationale up with proper and applicable policy, your merge will be out of line and may be undone. I therefore advise against merging until there is support for it, rather than after a week. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, spider web is not a clogged article, and this would be much better suited to that article (as it is about spider webs). I believe i am support for the move myself though, and if it is such an unknown article it would be a better idea to move it to a place where it could be appreciated more. I am not suggesting the merge to harm the article, or bung it to the side, and i am sure there is no policy for merging two similar articles together (yes, sarcasm over the internet), but with the intent to improve it and to help the article and improve it with additional exposure, as i am sure this is a very notable topic.Matt (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the policy then. This article is almost bigger than the entire spider webs article now. Leave it as it is, I say. It does not need additional exposure. It needs its own article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not for exposure then for ease of use, because as you said, this is an almost unknown article.

There are several good reasons to merge a page:
... 2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

Why do you believe this article needs its own article, when it would fit perfertly under a subheading in spider webs. This is, of course, an article on spider webs. Can you give a reason why this article should stay on its own? Or is it just you feel personally clingy to it? Matt (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have misquoted policy there; Wikipedia is indeed not a dictionary, but this article is not a dictionary definition, so your quotation is out of context. This article is on a topic that discusses spider webs, in space. It deserves its own article because there is enough material here to warrant it. A merge into the spider webs article would be just counter-productive. For instance, someone could request a merge from spider webs to just the article on spiders; but as we both know, the spider webs article requires its own article due to the size of the topic. The same applies here. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

filet mignon[edit]

They fed them beef? How was this done? Do spiders recognize cold pieces of meat as food? Drutt (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered whether it might be a joke. 'Filet Mignon' could also be translated as 'tiny steaks'.

November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.73 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this page: They fed the spiders bits of rare filet mignon and provided additional water (note: A. diadematus can survive up to three weeks without food if an adequate water supply is available.)

They can eat raw meat. See Spider#Feeding, digestion and excretion for more information on how spiders eat and digest their food. Gh5046 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]