Talk:Emerald ash borer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleEmerald ash borer has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
March 13, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 14, 2004.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Emerald ash borer currently threatens over 7 billion ash trees in the United States?
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Insects (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Beetles (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconEmerald ash borer is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Merged[edit]

SOMEONE HAS DESTROYED THE EAB "INFESTATION" PAGE BY MERGING WITH ORIGINAL. THE SEPARATION WAS ORIGINALLY MADE BECAUSE SEVERAL WIKI POLICE KEPT REMOVING HISTORICAL FACTUAL INFORMATION LINKING BACK TO OFFICIAL SOURCES AFTER FEELING STUFF DID NOT BELONG. WELL WARNING TO YOU ALL NOW, HELP REPAIR PEOPLES ADDITIONS RATHER THAN JUST REMOVING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talkcontribs) 22:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That all happened quite a while ago now, but I merged them after seeing no opposition on either page to it. Everything was more or less consolidated to be more concise to take care of the issues that apparently prompted the split in the first place. The problem material before the split just got shunted over the to infestation page, so now that's all reintegrated now to be a manageable size for a reader. Also, try not to type with caps lock on as it makes it appear as if you are yelling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
sounds like the original split page was as WP:POVFORK which is not allowed. Nice to move to merge it back. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop using concision as an excuse to delete content without an acceptable level of justification. Your approach to Wikipedia articles is based on a fallacy. Shorter articles are not more useful when they lack the information people need. If you are concerned about article length then work toward giving the article clear and concise sections. Article length should expand over time, getting more depth as others contribute to it. You seem to think that your opinion about what an article needs is somehow universal — like you're the king of science. Breadth and depth are not the enemy of the readers of scientific articles. Poor organization is. If you think this topic needs a "Dummies" version of the article then propose having one like that, so more detailed information can stop being censored fruitlessly. Better yet, just make sure the sections of the articles each start with a clear/concise summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.7.76 (talkcontribs) 23:12, July 27, 2017 (UTC)
IP, please WP:FOC. This is a rather old talk section back when we were dealing with merging two articles with a lot of bloat before getting this article to Good Article status recently. The article format is set up now where people can add in content if appropriate sources indicate there are gaps, but that needs to follow WP:WEIGHT policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

I have protected this page for 24 hours. Whatever previous disagreements users may have had, there does seem to plausibly be a legitimate disagreement about this image issue; the edit warring is not acceptable. This protection does not endorse the current version of the page in any way- at this time, I have no opinion on which version is preferable. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The disruptive editing is currently being discussed at ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding_by_GregJackP. There's not a legitimate disagreement with that in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not at all surprising to see Kingofaces43 responding to the subject of edit warring given that he/she reverted useful well-sourced content from me just now. Amphibians are having enough problems from the ash borer without Wikipedia editors finding enjoyment in preventing useful content from being disseminated in articles like this one. When a subject-specific scientific journal isn't considered a strong enough source there is a problem with Wikipedia. But, the problem isn't with Wikipedia in this case. It appears to rest with Kingofaces43's judgement. The journal I cited is very credible and the content I added is very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.7.76 (talkcontribs) 22:25, July 27, 2017 (UTC)
This is not an appropriate use of the talk page. I opened up a talk section below about your edits if it's not clear how they conflicted with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Expansion of Disturbance Effects[edit]

I am proposing a section about the effects on forests as a disturbance event. This would be done as a part of the WikiEdu program, under the guidance of our University professor and our assigned WikiEd staff.

The existing article mentions only in passing ecological changes occurring in forests with high ash tree mortality, stating that "the loss of ash from an ecosystem can result in increased numbers of invasive plants, changes in soil nutrients, and effects on species that feed on ash." I am confident that peer-reviewed studies have been done that would help elaborate on that important piece of the article. A quick browsing of the journals shows some possibilities:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

  1. ^ Flower, CE. "Impacts of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) induced ash (Fraxinus spp.) mortality on forest carbon cycling and successional dynamics in the eastern United States". Biological Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0341-7.
  2. ^ Davis, JC. "Vegetation responses to simulated emerald ash borer infestation in Fraxinus nigra dominated wetlands of Upper Michigan, USA". Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0105.
  3. ^ Perry, Kayla. "Response of the forest floor invertebrate community to canopy gap formation caused by early stages of emerald ash borer-induced ash mortality". Forest Ecology and Management. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.034.
  4. ^ Duan, Jian. "Emerald ash borer biocontrol in ash saplings: The potential for early stage recovery of North American ash trees". Forest Ecology and Management. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.024.
  5. ^ Nisbet, David. "Ecological risks posed by emerald ash borer to riparian forest habitats: A review and problem formulation with management implications". Forest Ecology and Management. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.08.030.

ForTheForest-ForTheTrees (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's good to see interest in this article. First, please see that this article is currently at Good Article status, and there was a review process it went through including depth of information etc. Part of that was removing WP:PRIMARY sources as you included and instead relying on WP:SECONDARY sources such as journal review articles instead, which is the preference at Wikipedia (see WP:SCIRS for more info. I know some (maybe all) of the sources you included are mentioned to some degree in the cited reviews currently in the article. There may be more information worth including in those reviews, but we generally assign what we call WP:WEIGHT to however much the secondary sources discuss something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)