Talk:Ecological impact of explosives

Merger proposal
This article reads more like an essay than an in-depth article on one cohesive subject. Furthermore there is large amount of overlap and redundancy between the TNT article and this one. Finally the current TNT article is rather short and not very comprehensive. The material in this article would be better placed in the Trinitrotoluene and Trinitrotoluene sections of the TNT article. Boghog (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So fix it! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This material, if merged into the main TNT article, would overwhelm the rest of the material there. To be sure, this article needs a fair amount of cleanup, and the bio-remediation information from the main article should be echoed here as well, but I believe the best solution is to link the TNT article to this article. As for the style and tone of this article, it has the feel of having been written as part of a college course, but that can be addressed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please define the scope of this article. The current lead sentence says it all. If you can convert this sentence into a cohesive encyclopedic subject, I will then withdraw my merger proposal. Boghog (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I think a merge is a good idea.  The topic is narrow and perhaps doesn't meet our notability guideline to exist as an article on its own. Much of the material is overly-specific for an encyclopedia article.  Trimming the text to a higher-level overview and then merging that content would be ideal, in my opinion.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to see a broader article, for example environmental fate of explosives, that would include RDX, HMX, etc. with a scope along the lines of these reviews: . Such an article would parallel drug pollution and environmental persistent pharmaceutical pollutant. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A broader article makes more sense. Ecological impact of explosives might be more to the point with a lead sentence:
 * "The ecological impact of explosives are effects both unexploded explosives and post-explosion by-products have on the environment."
 * Alternatively this article could be renamed to ecological impact of TNT with a similar lead sentence to the one above. This would make a more cohesive subject for this article, but the scope would still be too narrow. Better to expand the scope to explosives so that it closely parallels the scope of the sources Kkmurray has provided above.  Boghog (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or expand per others, as the current topic is too specific/specialized for WP or non-notable by itself to stand as an article. I like Kkmurray's idea best, since that would help bring in new usable material rather than just send the stub of material from here into some other existing article. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and compress It is US-centric, textbooky homework essay dropped onto Wikipedia by an unsupervised student.  We cannot blame the student who was tasked to write an esay, which is better than many of us would have done at that stage.  Some compressed parts of this article would fit smoothly into our article on TNT.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)