Talk:Windshield phenomenon

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 1 February 2019 by reviewer Chetsford (talk · contribs).

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why so much tangential information?

This article should only be about the phenomenon itself. For general information on insect declines there is Decline in insect populations. Why are there references presented under 'Studies' that have nothing to do with the phenomenon? SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse and Gandydancer: there have been substantial recent changes to this article, and I do not think they accord with related discussions on the removal and addition of similar content. I would like to see the article article restored, help with some revisions, and leave the insertion and inclusion to a bit more discussion if contentious. I invite this revert because the edits are assured in their summaries, but there is little will to resolve any concerns arising not worth it As noted below, I queried one source earlier below, and prefer this article be built up well sourced content instead of to and fro of 'equal time' to supposed criticism. Just to be clear, this is my read of page histories and the poorly sourced content moving around: seemingly an aim for 'balance' on topics in a flurry of quick edits that have been—or are currently being—disputed elsewhere. Entirely possible I have misread this, standard disclaimer, so clarity on what you (or any one else) are certain should be removed or kept, or loss of interest as "not worth it", seems polite. cygnis insignis 00:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlins

Smartse, you can't use a blog for Rawlins. [1] Cygnis insignis found a newspaper article that may be the original source for Rawlins, so that should be used instead; see the decline talk page. Someone should email Rawlins to make sure he stands by this. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there, I disagree - a museum blog is perfectly reliable for such information. I would change it to the newspaper regardless but archive.org isn't working for me right now. I don't see it as our job to contact people and question them - it's straying into OR and we should just report what the sources say. SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR is about publishing original research on WP; it's not about doing it. I would contact him because it was arguably an odd thing to say. He may not stand by it, or he may have said more about it and can direct us to better sources. As for the blog, it's an SPS and using it as a source about a living person is a violation of BLPSPS. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Attractants Impact

Why no discussion of insect attractants such as light and chemical. Have changes to vehicle exhaust or headlamp type been considered? For example, aren’t Love bugs attracted to aldehydes in diesel exhaust. 2600:1700:E32:3000:35D6:13D2:C0F5:2CDD (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]