Talk:Wolves and moose on Isle Royale

message: I get the feeling that this article is verbatim of an academic article of some sort.  A Google search (normal, books, and scholar) didn't turn up anything.  If you are the author of the work that this article draws upon, please respond here and let us know whether or not we have permission to use this text on Wikipedia.  Thanks!  --DachannienTalkContrib 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author clarified the copyright status of this article.  It is an original report done for a school assignment and is otherwise unpublished.  However, it contains no original research, and it cites all of its sources.  I am satisfied that there is no outstanding copyright issue here.  --DachannienTalkContrib 10:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current version of the article most certainly doesn't cite all its sources.  For example, the claim in the introduction that the predator-prey relationship is unique. 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbatim from elsewhere? Need clarification on copyright 

message: This article should I think include some details on the scientific study. Dates the research covers, names, the fact that the scientists are the only humans to overwinter in the park, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: The article used to say,
: The remoteness of Isle Royale leads to it having fewer visitors in one year than Yellowstone National Park has in just one day.Holliday, Michael E., and Grant H. Fenner. "Isle Royale National Park." Paddling.Net. 31 Aug. 2001. 18 May 2006
However, the source for this is not authoritative.  According to NPS figures, Yellowstone received 3,066,580 visitors in 2008, which is an average of 8,378 per day (it was a leap year); Isle Royale received 14,038.  Now, since the Yellowstone visitors will have been concentrated in the summer, rather than spread evenly through the year, I don't doubt that there was a day in 2008 on which 14,039 or more people visited Yellowstone.  But, without a source that actually says that (or something from which that fact can be derived), we shouldn't be making the claim in the article.  However, since Great Smoky Mountains National Park received an average of more than 24,000 visitors per day in 2008 (the only one with more than 13,000), I've altered the claim to that. Dricherby (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visitor numbers vs other National Parks 

message: Wonder if we could incorporate this news story or more preferably the academic papers behind it.   64.134.168.97 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I'll start with something derived from that article that you linked.  Feel free to join in, modify, build from there etc.  North8000 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it.  Free free to modify, build etc. . North8000 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old gray guy 

message: This was recently moved with zero discussion. I undid the move. The current title is the topic which has wp:notability in the sources, and which is the content of the article.  If anyone is contemplating a move, please discuss here first. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, except that the "Other species" section is out of place in an article about wolves and moose.  This article is about ecology of the island, and I changed the name to reflect that.  I didn't anticipate controversy on this, and there is no requirement for public comment on page moves.--Asher196 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I propose the article name be changed to Ecology of Isle Royale.--Asher196 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this being a sparsely visited article, and there being no rush, lets give this a good amount of time for comments. If the consensus is to move, them I'm cool with that. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: I undid recent move

message: The lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. The article has several topics which are covered only in the lead and only sparsely.  The sparce-ness  led to some tagging, and rightly so.  I'm planning to work on that.  I think that the first step will be to build sections in the body of the article in the subject areas.  North8000 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Structural and sparseness problems