Jump to content

Talk:Pest control

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePest control has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink 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
September 29, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 15, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that pesticides are formulated to kill pests, but may have detrimental effects on beneficial insects such as bees?

March 2007

[edit]

runescape has a thingie called Pest Control and that was what i was looking 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.79.254 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

[edit]

I don’t see any reliable sources listed here. (the NPMA is not a neutral source) Bugguyak 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of of citations needed - anywhere it says, "it is known". Things everybody knows are almost always untrue. oh and um...natural pesticides are always better? Really? Tell that to Rotenone. All chemicals come from somewhere, and the ground cares not where. Over use of any of them is a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.61.36 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about [www.scarafaggio.com | http://www.scarafaggio.com] ? It seems pretty objective24.90.35.174 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say add Simple Pest Control to the external links. These guys have obviously done their research. It's well structured and employs IPM fairly well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.236.106 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No on both, per WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how Simple Pest Control shines poorly upon Wikipedia. In fact, some of the information from Simple Pest Control is in the biological pest control section. We've been studying and publishing biologal and pest control strategies for over 6 years now. We know our stuff and we think it's dubious to reject our admission to the links section with no explanation other than a reference to WP:EL. We're not about to start a flame war over it, but we do think it would behoove both sites to have a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.156.218 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be more links to local pest control companies], particularly those that are qualified and have provided assistance in any articles or are doing there part to educate the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenG80 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added some Pest Control methods to the article

[edit]

Since the article is called Pest control, I think all the methods of pest control should be listed in it. Wolves are pest, because they destroy livestock, just as insects, birds, and rodents who destroy crops are. Pest defined as an undesirable animal species. Undesirable organisms such as plants, fungus, and diseases would be called something else I suppose. Dream Focus (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure were it would go,but Thylacines(Tasmanian Tigers)could also get a meantion as extinction was due to predator control (Dirrtypittie (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Eco pest control services is presently very demanding Aindhriya (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Health Pest Control

[edit]

Would like to add a link to the EPA UF/IFAS Public Health manual. This is the national manual.

Link would be

Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the US National manual :) Heds (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pest control by countries....

[edit]

A topic of ....

[edit]

Pesticide control has been added, which is analogue to drug control--222.64.218.194 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional pest control

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section on the way pests are/were controlled by other animals. The reason there are farm cats is to control rats and mice. Dogs are used for this too. Hawks control pigeons. Etc. etc.

I've started it.Myrvin (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pest control/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly take up and review this article.--Kostas20142 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking it on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC) and from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

review

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

The prose is clear and concise. No grammatical errors or misspellings found.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Fully compliant

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

Fully compliant with the guidelines. However reference #51 returns ISSN error.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
confirmed --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

All in-lines citations provided are from reliable sources like university publications, scientific books and reliable news entries.

2c. it contains no original research.

no original research found.

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

No copyright violations or plagiarism found. Supplementary test with automated tool has also been conducted, with percentage 2,9% which indicates extremely low probability of violation.

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

All main aspects of the topic, as methods, how and then are applied are covered sufficiently.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Article's length is ok. No unnecessary details that would be problematic were found.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article is neutral. All side-effects and concerns as well as the effectiveness of methods are presented in a balanced, neutral way.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No recent edit wars found. Almost all recent contributions have been productive and improved the article.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

All images are properly tagged with their license. All images are in commons, no non-free content found.

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All images are relevant to the subject and captions are more or less suitable. Do you think that dynasty is really necessary for the bronze cat image??

I have removed the dynasty and retained the dates. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.

Article meets GA criteria, as described in my comments above. All issues were minor and have been fixed.

additional comments

[edit]
  • "Control of these pests is attempted through exclusion, repulsion, physical removal or chemical means, or by sterilisation programmes or other methods of biological control.": I think that there are too many "or". How about omitting "or by" at "or by sterilisation programmes ". Any other would work as well.
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pest control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pest control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crop breeding

[edit]

Surprised to see no mention of crop breeding for plant disease resistance as it's a major part of all breeding programs. Struggling to find a source providing a broad overview though rather than at the cutting edge like doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-010720-022215 SmartSE (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that awhile back and put it on my to-do list, but still a ways to go until it got to the page 1 (next edits). I can definitely pull a few sources when I get done with meetings this week, especially overview sources that often get cited for coursework. KoA (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - you much more organised than I am! Two classic examples which spring to mind which could be mentioned are wheat yellow rust and late blight resistance, efforts which stretch back more than a century. I thought Genetics is probably the title to add though as GMO and gene editing should also be mentioned. I don't have a source, but maybe also worth mentioning that most plants and pathogens are incompatible, due to genetics. SmartSE (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I at least started a very generic section on genetics pointing to some other main articles, but as I started digging, I noticed a lot is missing in other articles on the topic for nuts and bolts like antibiosis that will need some work for sure. I'll see if I can get those general overviews in other articles worked out with sources I was talking about earlier and then come back here. There's some literature out there on conventional resistance vs. transgenic too that could be worth using that I didn't get around to including here yet too.[1]
This does have me wondering if a Resistance to crop pests article is maybe needed to join some of these articles together and give more focus to history, breeding, etc. you mention. KoA (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disease testing

[edit]

Another thing that's missing in agriculture is testing for disease, especially in seeds. Seed testing is unfortunately in a terrible state, but doi:10.1007/978-981-19-5888-5_14 looks like a reasonable source. This should probably be included as part of cultural control. And another thing missing from that section is hygiene (need a source). SmartSE (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • The "Guidelines and legislation" is disorganised and does not provide enough information about this sub-topic
  • There are some uncited passages in the article.
  • "Urban rodent control" should be expanded upon
  • "Bedbugs" are listed as a hatnote, but I think information about this pest should be included in the article.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my long to-do list to update the suit of integrated pest management articles like biological control, host-plant resistance, etc. first before these overview articles, so I probably won't be able to do anything larger scale here soon. I noticed some of the same issues though.
  • I do think the Guidelines and legislation section could be removed though. That's really mostly on pesticides and already has a home at Pesticide#Regulation where it's already more in-depth.
  • The section Pest control#Methods for specific pests seems overly specific for this broad level article, but could be a better candidate for moving the specific pest sections to other articles. It's almost all insects, and even as an entomologist who'd be more prone to write about just that, it feels a bit in undue weight territory focusing on them and ignoring all the other pests in the mix for urban areas. Instead, it would make more sense to briefly mention at the start of Pest_control#In_homes_and_cities what the common pests are (including bed begs), and then go into the general control methods used without being too pest specific. That would belong more at individual species or pest articles.
Those two things would at least firm up the focus a bit to the point I wouldn't say it's automatically fallen out of GA territory. KoA (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA: You mentioned above that this is on your to-do list. Will you be fixing up the article in the future, or should this go to GAR now? Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, that would be way in the future for me for what I was initially thinking about for improvements. I wouldn't have time in the next few weeks at least, so if anyone feels strongly, go ahead with GAR.
One stopgap for what I mentioned above at least (wouldn't take care of all your comments Z1720) would be to just remove the Methods for specific pests section, but put it up on the talk page with a note to see if there is a home for it. Aspects like exclusion mentioned in the rodent section (really just mice/rats) could be their own subheading in the section above where exclusion could briefly mention not just rats/mice, but bats, squirrels, raccoons, etc, so the main thing in removing that section would be to retool it to focus on the general methods used across pests instead in the rest of the article. That's just my two cents if it's helpful at GAR for critiques or possible edits to consider. KoA (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA: If you are thinking of fixing this up in the future, I would prefer not to go to GAR: I have noticed lots of articles, so there's no rush to nominate any specific article if someone wants to work on it. I will post it on WP:GARGIVEN so that other editors know that it has been looked at. Z1720 (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physical method

[edit]

It includes handpicking traps and scare crow ..nfgiwiiopgh.uo( 102.89.23.244 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love it 102.89.23.244 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physical method

[edit]

It includes handpicking traps and scare crow ..nfgiwiiopgh.uo( 102.89.23.244 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pest_control&oldid=1260058067"