Talk:Seed ball

Link
That 'LiveAndPlay' link is so silly that I really feel it discredits Masanobu Fukuoka's ideas, or unfairly makes them look silly when they're not. It seems to be actually worse than nothing so I'm removing it. -- hr_oskar 22:38 Sept 24 2006

misplaced comment
The following was placed in the middle of the lead in ref tags - assume it was meant for the talk page, as it's inappropriate in the article (as well as inaccurate and unsupported) Red58bill (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Some says there is no sense in using compost or any other fertilizer. Given the right temperature and sufficient humidity seeds will germinate because a seed contains everything it needs to germinate. Adding manure or compost can even be detrimental because microbes that decompose organic matter are different from microbes that colonize roots to feed the plant"

Combine with Seed bombing?
I don't know how to do it but it looks like the Seed bombing article could be incorporated in this one. 89.240.7.86 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge: In response to the June 2014 merge proposal, which is also supported by the earlier User talk:89.240.7.86 contributions. Both articles contain aspects of the the Seed ball and its contemporary and historical used, and can therefore appropriately be merged; neither is too long to preclude this. Klbrain (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

John Easton / Patent ?
John Easton, from Karnterter Corp is said to have submitted a patent on a seed ball process involving seed priming : http://www.ecoumenegolf.org/BGazon/Priming%20des%20graines%20-%2040.PDF ???Trente7cinq (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier Patent
There's his previous earlier Japanese patent for less advanced seedballs - where's that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by No essential nature (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Guerrilla gardening
This section claims that "the start of guerrilla gardening" was the throwing of seed-bomb baloons in LA. I dispute that, and so does the Wikimedia page on Guerrilla gardening, which traces it back to the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.9.214 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seed grenade
I've fixed the source for the seed grenade. It looks like the website moved the page or something, causing the link to break. I've linked it to the correct transcript now. When Seed bombing was it's own article (or at least, when I found the source) the bombs were said to be made from a 'condom'. I've changed it back to that because that's what it says in the source. I'm not sure where balloon came from. If anyone has a better source, please feel free to replace it.--Stikman (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims
While searching for sources on this articles I have found out that most of the linked articles were poorly researched and from not credible sources. Also, the article included some very strong unsubstantiated statements such as:

"Today aerial seeding is already regarded as a practical reforestation technique in a few countries. There it is fully operational. More than a million hectares of well-stocked forests in the United States, Canada, China, Australia, and New Zealand demonstrate its success. Some of these forests have been established despite seemingly adverse conditions-for example, on steep slopes and on overburden from strip mines. "

I could not find anything to support this, on the contrary I have found quite a few articles to indicate the exact opposite, so I am rewriting this section to reflect what indicated in reference sites. 0albannabla0 (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Construction Section Incomplete
The construction section includes the general mixture from which to form seed balls but does not give further details in what to do once the balls are finished. I will correct this by adding a sentence about how they will have to dry, which was already mentioned in the link named "Environmentalists Adopt New Weapon: Seed Balls" --Elizabeth Klosky (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition of many images
reverted my reversion of their edits between 21 April 2020 and 6 May 2020; their edits added 6 new images to the 4 that already existed in the article. The last edit was the entirely unencyclopedic addition of three exclamation marks to an image caption, with the inappropriate summary "Have some fun with life." The three exclamation marks obviously need to be removed, but the 10 images now in the article are also way overkill. The WP:Image use policy says "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter." It doesn't take 10 images to convey to a reader what a seed ball is. I believe the article should be reverted to its state after the 10 Nov 2019 edit. CodeTalker (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, there! Thank you for quoting the WP:Image policy, but there's no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia. Many people are visual learners, and images are just as important as text.  Please don't delete content on a page when you haven't yet reached an agreement with the community contributing to that page, especially whe others have already objected to your changes.  Can you please elaborate why you feel the need to delete content that is just "way overkill"?  Thank you! Uprisingengineer (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have already stated my reason to delete the images; because it is not in conformance with WP:Image use policy to have numerous images that add little or nothing to the understanding of the subject. It is unfortunate that after 11 months no one else has yet commented here (and that it took you 11 months to do so yourself), but also deleted the excess images on 8 Feb 2021 and no one else has supported adding them. You have reverted the removal three times without any explanation or talk page participation until now. "Some people are visual learners" does not seem to me to be sufficient grounds to add this plethora of images. It doesn't take 10 images to convey to the reader what a seed ball is; one or two seems sufficient since all seedballs look the same, but I'm ok with the 4 that were in the status quo version. Right now, the second, third and fourth images are practically identical, just showing a group of seedballs. The sixth and eighth are nearly identical and fairly useless, showing people sitting around purportedly making seedballs, although the details of what they're doing is unclear in both images. The first, ninth and tenth images are again nearly identical, showing a person's hand holding a seedball. We don't need multiple images with essentially the same content. Pinging, , ,  and , active users who have contributed to the article recently. CodeTalker (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Images should be placed in relevant sections where possible, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and given clear WP:CAPTIONs: all seven images in an apparently random order (complete/making/drying?/drying/sprouting/making/throwing/making?/complete/imperfect) in the lead section with some unexplanatory captions ("Mud Seed ball") isn't useful, especially for readers on mobile who will have to scroll through all of them before they can read past the opening paragraph. Agree that repetition of similar images is unnecessary. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine, let's remove the redundant images, but why remove all of the photos of being doing social activism with regard to seed balls? Now it's just pictures of seedballs, but no pictures of people with seedballs committed to the goal of seedballs, i.e., ecological improvement.  P.S. "It is unfortunate that after 11 months no one else has yet commented here (and that it took you 11 months to do so yourself)..."  I'm not sure I understand?  Thank you. Uprisingengineer (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)