This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
rodents 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.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
A fact from Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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)reply
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?
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
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 America100007:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 America100007:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Reportage of Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
I've got to get back to my history and medical articles.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Shouldn't this article be merged into some electrical power article?
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.
EEng17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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?
EEng19:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
rodents 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.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
A fact from Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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)reply
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?
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
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 America100007:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 America100007:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Reportage of Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
I've got to get back to my history and medical articles.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Shouldn't this article be merged into some electrical power article?
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.
EEng17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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?
EEng19:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply