Talk:Minnesota Zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within Minnesota articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is part of WikiProject Zoo, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Minnesota may be able to help!

[edit] improve tag

This article needs improvement because of deficiencies in style: it sounds somewhat like a tour guide. Some of the content should probably be shifted to WikiTravel.Michaelbusch 16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the travelogue-like portions of the article, but I see that some has been added back. This is fine, but watch the style. Phrasing like "Visitors can do XXX" doesn't sound encyclopedic. Michaelbusch 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of animals

I added a list of animals at the zoo but User:Michaelbusch diagrees citing:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, under "miscellaneous collection of information". A list of the most significant animals would be fine, but not every one or even the top fifty.

First, you'll note that there are 408 species at the zoo and I only listed 94.

Second, there is no "miscellaneous collection of information" section but "indiscriminate collection of information". A list of animals at a zoo is no where near a FAQ, travel guide, memorials, instruction manual, internet guide, textbooks, or plot summaries. A list of animals in a zoo is neither miscellaneous nor indiscriminate. So I fail to see how the policy referenced applies.

Third, lists are wholly supported by WP in general.

Fourth, I have no problem moving to List of species at the Minnesota Zoo if the concern is article length, which so far it is not.

Cburnett 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthemore, you Michaelbush, have added {{improve}} twice [1] [2] but have done nothing to improve and, IMHO, is stopping me now from improving it. Cburnett 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It does apply. You listed only a fourth of the zoo's manifest. That is still excessive: a peregine falcon is hardly noteworthy, nor is an ermine weasel or a beaver. Putting down even the list you did is like a travel guide ("you can see these at the Minnesota Zoo"), much as the descriptions of the zoo's exhibits.

I do not consider a list an improvement (see above). I put the improve tag because the article reads like a travelogue and much of it should be moved to WikiTravel (see above). I didn't go through and improve it myself because I didn't want to be accused of deleting content. At the same time, the list is non-useful, so it doesn't need to be added. Michaelbusch 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Describing the exhibits or animals there does not make it a travel guide. You are reading into WP:NOT (again). It talks of addresses, phone numbers, and prices as the examples not descriptions. Paris should definitely detail the city just as a zoo's article should detail the zoo. The primary purpose of a zoo is the animals. If I listed the locations to obtain food, rated them, and gave prices...then yes, it'd be "travel guide".

So your argument is that describing the exhibits and listing the non-notable animals makes it a travel guide. If that's the case then you need to get WP:NOT changed because neither falls under what it states. Cburnett 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MichealBush. A very small list ( < 10) of *notable* animals would be acceptable. Make a seperate list page if you really want this information added. Also the addition of the improvement template means that the article needs to be improved, not that you are going to improve it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What's your justification for only 10 and notable? Cburnett 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How about 11.5? WP articles shouldn't just be big old lists I figured 10 would be a comprimise. You just seem to be here to stir things up. You have enough edits to know what should and shouldn't be in articles so I am going to stop debating and fix up the article. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm here to improve the article. If you understood WP:FAITH correctly then that should be your assumption instead of "here to stir things up." Yes, I've been here longer than you, have over 4 times your edits, and I'm an admin. I have no problem with a list of animals at a zoo nor do I have a problem with a list of films that come out in 2006 nor do I have a problem with a list of asteroids. I welcome them all. Cburnett 20:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists are great, just not when they make up over 50% of an artcle. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is needed

These are the things I think are missing. 1 - Monorail, 2 - ampahatheatre and bird show, 3 - attenedance figures 4 - history 5- finanaces? 6 - ranking among zoos. Any other ideas? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 1 and 2 are needed, but 3-6 look fine. Michaelbusch 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking one sentance for each (1-2), that would pretty much cover the whole zoo then. I also looked for other good zoo articles and the "top" zoos (Bronx Zoo, San Diego Zoo, London Zoo) have pretty much the same quality articles. So we don't really have a template to go with. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think 1-6 should be included in whatever depth is necessary to understand them for someone who's never been to the zoo.

As for a template to go from, I had the same problem when putting Henry Doorly Zoo up for peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Henry Doorly Zoo). You'll note that none of the peer reviewers complained about the list of animals, just that they should be worked into a narrative form to be an FA. Smithsonian National Zoological Park is the other good zoo article I've found. Cburnett 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)