Talk:Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels

NOTE

This article is not a hoax. Please do not nominate for deletion until you examine the sources.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to throw some sourcing up here - dunno if you want to use these or not, but I figure that this could help keep deletion at bay. :) PopSci, Kim Komando, The Register (UK) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • An editor after my own hear - not afraid of the truth, no matter how remarkable it may be. Thank you for the references.
    • Best Regards,
      • Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Whenever I chose to do something, I try to act so I can best exploit the opportunity. This is why I always get a pile of good sources before I even consider creating an article. Now that this has been started, was any thought given to DYK? I hate to see good opportunities go to waste; a little more forethought usually helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My friend, (*sigh), we must have been in the same litter - the nomination was proposed five minutes after the article went live. The game is: How many pageviews will we get after it becomes a DYK? Will Pitt be honored or embarrassed by its Visiting Scholar?

The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I updated all the citations to make them more complete (and credible). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Why no mention of CyberSquirrel1? http://cybersquirrel1.com/ They have been documenting squirrel attacks on critical infrastructure for years. They have a recorded talk on the topic up on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZPv-wro-O8 They probably have tons of data you can cite for this article.

New theory

I have highlighted the possibility of baby monitoring devices also having an effect on cyber security but as of yet, have not made the connection between squirrels actually using the devices as part of their evil plans. You (readers) realize that these squirrels give their lives for what they believe (whatever that is). Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

They're completely nuts. EEng 06:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2017

The following is a closed 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: moved to Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels (option 11) by superior vote tally and arguments made. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism → ? – Procedural nomination as the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism, which appears to have a consensus in favour of a rename, but a little uncertainty as to the desired target Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

New name

Here are a few proposed titles, (mostly from the AfD discussion which closed with keep+rename consensus):

Squirrel induced power outages

• Support — We have Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania which could probably also be merged into this article.—PaleoNeonate - 22:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems someone's already done it (or at least redirected the article here)! V2Blast (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds that the article is about squirrel induced power outages. It is not about other kinds of infrastructure damages by squirrels. This title is accurate and written ins plain English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support as second choice since we seem to be practicing non-exclusive voting on this poll. Would hyphenate "Squirrel-induced". Ribbet32 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support – Either this or Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels strike me as the best proposed titles, though I prefer the latter. That said, any title with "Squirrel-induced" in it needs to be hyphenated. V2Blast (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this seems the best summary of the actual material. (The current title is hilarious, but I appreciate it can't seriously be kept). It's worth keeping the material comparing the impact of squirrels to terrorism - it's useful (and justified by more soberly minded sources) to maintain a sense of proportion about the latter. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Squirrel damage to infrastructure

• Support — Also seems like a very adequate name to me, Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania can still probably be merged. —PaleoNeonate - 22:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support It is a broader title which can allow article expansion by covering other topics, including water and other utilities. We could also include a squirrel special forces training [[1]] section, although this may be fake news. Irondome (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate - 03:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Partial support – this seems to be the closest to the correct name, but... it's missing something. "Infrastructure" implies bridges and roads to me, not the internet and power grid. If some... "qualifier" can be added to "infrastructure", then I think we've got it... How about Squirrel damage to telecommunications infrastructure? Or maybe just Squirrel damage to telecommunications?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC) striking !vote for now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Feel free to add another title and amend your vote to support it. Others may also be interested. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 03:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Using the term "telecommunications" in the title comes across as inaccurate relative to the article's content, much of which is based upon power grid damage and interruptions. In fact, the article does not even have the term "Telecommunication" in it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Then Squirrel damage to power grids, or the new suggestion added late yesterday, seem to be the way to go here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The other question, I suppose, is – Is the article really about squirrels? Or is it really about damage to the power grid, and the squirrels are just the amusing "side-show"? If the latter is really the important point, then the article should maybe be at Power grid damage caused by squirrels... I think I may be coming around to supporting the latter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, and merge in the PA article. ApLundell (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ApLundell, how do you figure the merge has not already been performed? Ribbet32 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Squirrel damage to property

Squirrels as a threat to infrastructure

Property damage caused by squirrels

Squirrel infrastructural damage

• Support as per my !vote at the recent AfD discussion. I'm also all right with "Squirrel damage to infrastructure" above, but I feel this the "Squirrel infrastructural damage" title is less choppy. This or "Squirrel damage to infrastructure" will expand the article's scope a bit as well, allowing for expansion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't this feel like it would still be missing something? Like "Squirrel-induced"? Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Squirrel infrastructure damage

Squirrel electrical grid damage

Accusations of terrorism aimed at squirrels

Gnawing into the grid

I can't believe you added this to the possible titles. Creating redirects is going to be just as fun as writing the article.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate - 01:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Gnawing off the grid? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels

• Adding this proposed title and Support. This is Wikipedia's newest best article. Move aside, Xenu! Anyway, this phrase is used in the article and gets more to the point than the general proposed "infrastructure" title, which, aside from being overbroad as mentioned above, strikes me as not grammatical. Typing the phrase into Google News shows it and other variations (mostly using the word "power") is a real concept. [2] Searching for "Squirrel damage to infrastructure" turns up more hits, but many are unrelated to squirrels, for whatever reason. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As the article creator, I like this title the best but it leaves out the main point: Squirrel activity disruption of electrical service AND a multitude of parodies related to squirrels as terrorists. Parodies of squirrel cyberterrorism.

I can't believe we can't come up with an accurate title that conveys the parodies by the sources. It will be worth it.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The "parody" would be an aspect of the discussion of the real-world phenomenon; a Wikipedia article would cover all aspects under the scope of the title. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Either this or Squirrel-induced power outages strike me as the best proposed titles. I prefer this one. V2Blast (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• This seems to be the best. I can not imagine anyone being terrorized by squirrels. Although one did bite my cat and now he's a little nervous about them.CalSteven (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a title that plainly and succinctly states the subject of the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. What a bizarre subject to be talking about! Per WP:TITLE, I think "Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels" manages to convey the gist of what the topic is about, but in a way that doesn't sound too silly, as "squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism" was bordering on the sensational. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) 11:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support – based on the previous discussion above, this gets the closest to my general idea along the lines of Power grid damage caused by squirrels... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support – This is the most accurate title in my opinion, and it possesses an appropriate amount of professionalism. Jumper4677 (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Best title of those proposed. But almost any of the proposed moves would improve Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The most accurate and easy to find title. Also, it still gets a bit of laughs, and helps make knowledge a bit more interesting. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reportage of Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels

• Adding this proposed title. Irondome (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not very WP:CONCISE. A Wikipedia article about "Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels" would cover all aspects of Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels, including the Reportage- indeed, how could it not cover reportage, without resorting to original research? Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point somewhat. This is equally how R/S and the web report the 'issue'. Who the hell said anything about OR? Irondome (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, I don't think I'm the one who's missing the point. Again, both myth (or parody) and reality would fall under the rubric of a broad title like "Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels"- just as Bigfoot would cover both the myth and the reality behind it. That article isn't titled Bigfoot, myth and reality or How the media reports Bigfoot and what it really is. If an article covers anything other than "Reportage" (what has been reported), it's just WP:MADEUP, ie. OR, making your title needlessly redundant. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is why there would be a separate section for it in the article. Did I dispute that there would be? An important factor here is why this is being reported as squirrel terrorism, etc. R/S in a relevant section would cover that. However the title as I have provisionally proposed gives the casual reader an added dimension. How this reporting phenomena has come about. Readers looking for this aspect will not find it in the rather dry 'electrical disruptions caused by squirrels'. The original author of this article Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ has asked for just this kind of expansion in the title, so I have provided a credible suggestion. Please also note that I was an early supporter of 'Squirrel damage to infrastructure' which is pretty WP:CONCISE. I have seen longer article titles on WP in any event. I repeat that you seem to be missing the rather subtle point that Barbara made. But this is a minor issue, compared with the vital importance of educating and warning the public against this grave threat to civilization as we know it. What if a squirrel-cable-chewing-based scenario triggered a nuclear first strike? Be afraid. Be very afraid.</red>Irondome (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

^{(You're killing me, Irondome, at least you have the right attitude. Can you hear me laughing? Have you seen my other favorite article, Empathy in chickens? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC))}

The four squirrels of the apocalypse

I envisage four main squirrel based threats, each with a section. An encompassing intro, with Media coverage as a separate final section. Irondome (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And we have an actual incident! [[3]]. Irondome (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2017 (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.

Never ending

I'm not even kidding-a cybersecurity company called Sqrrl. I can't make these things up.

Sqrrl's activity grid

I've got to get back to my history and medical articles.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Bcactscoresarelow

To editor Bcactscoresarelow: I understand that you mistook the poorly-thought tone of this semi-humorous article as permission to joke around. This is, in fact, an encyclopedia where WP:V still matters. Insert nonsense again and I assure you your editing here will come to a quick end. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-humorous? Hmph. Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Metcalf sniper attack

Someone added the see-also Metcalf sniper attack link which I removed, but it was restored with the comment that it is related to cyberterrorism. However, there is still no mention of animal or squirrels in that article and this article is not about cyberterrorism (hence the title name change which also occurred). So my impression is that it's irrelevant, but I won't remove it again and leave this for other editors to consider. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 19:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My memory is fuzzy but I think this made more sense under the assumption that the article was actually about infrastructure and attacks (old title). Metcalf was a deliberate human attack on U.S. infrastructure, maybe the only documented U.S. incident. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We made it

Celebrate the appearance of this article on the main page under DYKs. It was the lead hook and got almost 12,000 hits. Thanks to all the editors who made this possible. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 06:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be merged into some electrical power article?

It's almost a comedy-relief sort of article. 50.111.22.12 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's actually not (though some humorous elements have snuck in). Squirrel threats really are a significant and peculiar threat to certain types of infrastructure. This article makes as much sense as Mosquito-borne_disease. EEng 17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Globalise tag

I reverted the removal of this tag by User:Joefromrandb, who stated it as being "obnoxiously silly". I don't think so! Over 90% of the article is about the situation in the US, and just about every reference points to a US source talking about the US. There are just two mentions of other countries (UK and Germany), both in the Specific cases section. In the UK case the validity of the source is questionable. We even have this: Between Memorial Day and August 31, 2013, written as though the general reader should be familiar with Memorial Day. There is much work to do on this article before the tag can be legitimately removed. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed this reference - Leyden, John (November 24, 2015). "Cyber-terror: How real is the threat? Squirrels are more of a danger". The Register. Retrieved June 8, 2017.". It is not about squirrels at all, and does not in any way relate to the point being made. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is a major issue outside of the US? Seems to me like a US-centric issue. If it is, in fact, a global issue, here's an idea: Do some actual fucking work of your own to fix the "problem", rather than the obnoxiously lazy alternative of attempting to stultify an article others worked hard to create and maintain with a drive-by placing of an incredibly fucking stupid banner at the top. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Other places in the world have electricity, and other places have squirrels, so I'm guessing it might be a problem elsewhere. In fact, I saw a grey squirrel only yesterday, so yes, it could be a problem where I live as well. Sorry, I should have said fucking problem, just to make it easier for you. Silas Stoat (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would have helped him. See [4] for the international nature of the problem. Let me suggest, Silas, that we re-move the article to Electrical disruptions caused by animals, and re-add the gloobalise tag. What do you think? EEng 19:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea, but maybe give it a couple of days to canvass the views of User:Joefromrandb and anyone else who's interested. If we do move as suggested, I guess we should also put back some of the text I removed. I'll check out the references if necessary. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not, of course, rename the article and include examples from elsewhere in the world, no. Let's rename the article and purposefully omit said examples. That way, we can put the tag back. No Wikipedia article is complete without a big tag at the top. I couldn't make this shit up if I tried. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted to the title as established by consensus at #Requested move 14 June 2017. Because it is a consensual page name, it will take another consensus at WP:RM to change it. The title it was changed to suffers from the WP:INUSA problem. I've also added back the examples from other countries. If the original concern is that the article isn't globalized, making the article less globalized is a step in the wrong direction. The examples from Germany and UK are enough to me to resolve the "globalize" tag concern, so I agree it doesn't need to be added (although if someone wants to globalize it even more, I think that would be even better.) It's primarily (but not wholly) a problem in the US, and I think the article reflects that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)