Talk:Phytophthora ramorum

message: :Please add Support of Oppose below
*Support, a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: the article urgently need a map of the affected areas in California. A map of the European areas may also be useful.A third map of the orgin area in Asia would be useful, but is probably WP:OR -Arch dude 01:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only maps I have come out of journal articals, so they'd be copyrighted, right?...I'll check PLoS biology actually, that might have something. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need maps 

message: The reference to "bay laurel" as a major source of innoculum in forests is probably mistaken. I suspect the plant meant is Umbellularia californica, common name "California bay". "Bay laurel" is normally understood as referring to the old-world species Laurus nobilis; indeed, that is what the Wikipedia itself does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.175.33 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bay laurel 

message: Looks like mostly dead and living pines, not oaks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLuber1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of hillside in Big Sur 

message: There is no question that "Sudden Oak Death" deserves its own article, but because of the length of this article and the fact that it gives short shrift to the non-oak victims, it seems appropriate to divide the two articles.  The P. ramorum article could include both taxonomy and diseases like Ramorum dieback.  It could have a synoptic paragraph about "sudden oak disease" with a :Template:Main to this article.  That way this article could focus on Sudden Oak Death (IAW the title), and those seeking information about P. ramorum could find it without distraction. It would mean shortening this article, a bit, as the general material may not need repeating in as much detail here.  Does a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation object to having a general P. ramorum article? --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article for ''P. ramorum''

message: Parts of this article, such as the section on ecological impacts, are inaccessible for a general reader. I have an excellent background in biology and ecology and even in basic forestry. E.g., I audited a university course in forest ecology in the 1970s.  But the ecology section is too dense and riddled with jargon for me to understand even half of it and the rest is very uneven.  I hope someone can translate into standard English throughout.  Eperotao (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support It makes sense to have the more general title of the species name rather than of one disease that it causes. We'd be following the convention used for redirecting late blight to Phytophthora infestans. SmartSE (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I noticed this from the intro: "the origins of the pathogen are still unclear but most evidence suggests it was repeatedly introduced as an exotic species.[1]" I can't believe you actually meant to say that, but if you did the abstract of the ref doesn't support you.
Perhaps what was meant was something like "the repeated introduction of exotic species spread the pathogen". Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  exotic pathogen?!