Talk:Pest (organism)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classifications

give me all classifications of pest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.247.102 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 May 2005‎

The least you could do is
A. Create your own category. Right now, I'm thinking really badly of you because I had to make one for you.
B. Sign your note. 4 tildes. Read.
C. Make what you are asking clearer. What do you want?
71.106.224.193 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you make constructive remarks and not snide ones? I'm new to this, just as you were. Also, your comments look like you made them on your cell phone, and don't make any sense. Please clarify what you are trying to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturnalnights (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition

By this definition a weed is a pest. Is it? Is herbicide resistance thus a form of pesticide resistance, which is why I redirected it there, but whenever I come across the term it seems to be contrasted with pesticide resistance. Richard001 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, weeds can be "pests", and herbicides are pesticides--see the list of various types of pesticides in that latter article. But weeds are not "vermin", one reason to nix the proposed but undiscussed merger with that article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The generic nature of the definition, to include plant pathogens, weeds, etc. is now generally agreed: by the major dictionaries (see refs.), the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and other specialists. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Image

the ant photo is horrible. i cant tell what they are on, so how do i know its an example of them as pests?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Replaced image, and added some more -- Anxietycello (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

Should this page be merged with vermin? Seems they are virtually synonyms, and we would benefit from having all the information on one page -- Anxietycello (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC) --117.239.64.114 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)--117.239.64.114 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC) ǎ♥pestcontrol

Mountain Lions prey on humans

This seems inaccurate to me. I accept that they may occasionally attack and even kill humans when their paths cross but preying on humans is a step further which needs referencing. If there is could evidence to suggest that these animals view humans as a food source then put it back in (though not sure that even that is an appropriate definition of a pest!) Phil Northing (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Phil Northing: The list of mammalian pests now includes lions as well as cougars. I'm not sure if this is accurate either. Jarble (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus / not moved. This has been open for more than a month, and the most recent comment was more than two weeks ago; and I'm not seeing a clear consensus to move. (By the way, BDD and Red Slash and Cúchullain, pest has frequently been used to refer to a disease [though the usage may be somewhat old-fashioned]—see Pest house, for instance. This is not a supervote, just a linguistic observation.) Deor (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Deor (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


– This reminds me of the status quo ante of Egg (RM). The clear, enduring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "pest" in English is the type of harmful organism. (I don't think I've ever really heard of a disease called a pest, as is listed on the dab. Pestilence, maybe.) See Google Books results, for example. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC) BDD (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - sorry today biology may be the most common use, but not the absolute more more common than all others put together. Pest, Hungary, Pest = Pestilence, Pest = Annoyance. Plus, as always, dab notifications will stop working if Pest is no longer a dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. pest is a common English word with a primary and encyclopedic meaning: pest (organism). I really don't see anything on the dab page competing with that sense. In ictu oculi's examples are stretched, because 'annoyance' meaning is just a metonymy for the organism, and pestilence is rather remote in form and obscure in meaning. Pest, Hungary is a factor to consider, but in modern terms it still falls far beyond aggregated city of Budapest. No such user (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As previously suggested, I can absolutely imagine someone thinking about looking up the Pest part of Budapest and typing in Pest... and then they'd get here... and then they'd be like, oh, duh, and click on the link in the hatnote. No evidence has been given (or really probably exists) that "pest" ever refers to "pestilence"... it'd be wildly inappropriate, in fact. "Yeah, that tornado wiped out my hometown the other day... what a pest!" Clear primary topic. Red Slash 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • And User:BDD, didn't you oppose that move request? smile Red Slash 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hm? Which? Oh, yes, egg. But consensus is consensus, and it was strong there. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The human pest is in most cases more common. Pest (organism) is a subset of insects and in general use, most people will use insect and not pest. With the dab page everything works just fine and without clear and convincing proof that the current setup is wrong, it would be left alone. If we look at the inbound links, then it is 50/50 (city, organism), which is clearly not support for a change. A different question is should pests be changed to redirect to Pest (organism). That could actually make sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This may not change your mind, but a "pest" in this sense can also refer to plants, fungi, viruses, and non-insect animals (there's a usage section on the article). So it's a broader topic than that. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No. I think the dab page still belongs at the primary name space. In fact this may even make that case more solid. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The films titled "The Pest" are partial title matches and aren't ambiguous as they use "The" and capitalize "Pest", but even still there were only 226 views for for The Pest (1917 film) and 7262 for The Pest (1997 film). The only other included articles that get a substantial number of hits are PEST analysis, which is another unambiguous partial title match that wouldn't be called "Pest", and Infectious disease, which isn't actually called "pest" at all.
Ultimately, it's pretty clear that of the articles actually called "Pest", this is the primary topic by any measure.--Cúchullain t/c 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, essentially per Cúchullain. When you exclude partial title matches, and things that aren't actually known as "pest" (infectious disease, annoyance (as Cúchullain says, the latter is a stretch at best)), the proposed target is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage and significance. Dohn joe (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vegaswikian. I'm not convinced that there is a primary topic as between the usage for organisms and the general usage to refer to an annoyance. In daily language, I am as likely to consider a fellow human a "pest" than I am an insect (which, admittedly, may classify me as a bit of a misanthrope :). If one then considers the longstanding significance of the venerable city of Pest, then I believe the current situation is adequate, and the disambiguation page is best-suited for the base title. Xoloz (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Lions and cougars" are listed as pests in this article

This article includes "big cats, such as lions and cougars" in its list of mammalian pests. Is it accurate to classify them as such? Jarble (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed again. Needs a citation to show that they are a pest because of livestock predation perhaps? Phil Northing (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Brood Parasites

I have removed the brood parasites from the list of bird pests as I don't think they specifically reduce songbird populations. They will effect the reproductive success of the nests they parasitise but I don't think they will have an effect at the population level (apart from perhaps where they have been introduced outside of their normal range). If there are any references out there that show they do have a population effect please add it back in with appropriate citation. Phil Northing (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pest (organism). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Article, not list

This article remains, despite the 2016 citations needed tag, in a sorry state. Most of it is not a discussion of what one might hope to see in an encyclopedia article on such a subject, namely

1) what makes a pest, 2) how pests operate, 3) how much damage they do, 4) what can be done about them, or 5) their status in mythology, religion, folklore and culture,

but an extremely selective list of the larger and more obvious pest species or groups, and needless to say almost wholly without citations. This is pretty much the definition of listcruft - unscientific addition of whatever springs to mind, without any sort of scholarly or encyclopedic analysis. The article needs to be turned around with a proper coverage of the aspects just mentioned, and the transformation of the list into suitably cited examples embedded in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pest_(organism)/Archive_1&oldid=1090574801"