Wikipedia

Talk:Lincoln Park Zoo/Archive 1

< Talk:Lincoln Park Zoo
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Sea Cow in topic Infobox photo?
Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Im looking for a pic of the viking ship that was in the lincoln park zoo around 1960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.96.63 (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Animals

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is that huge list of animals really necesary? It doesn't seem to me it makes sense to have it on the page for the zoo itself. Perhaps a list page of its own would be more appropriate. Next time I go there I'll take some pictures to post Chipotlehero (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

The article covers one exhibit well [Regenstein Small Mammal-Reptile House], but others need to be added for balance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [updated] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The articles has a {{Undue|section|date=July 2013}} template in the "Exhibits" section. This predates the above comment by almost a year. I've removed it, not least as nowhere on this page are any "ideas, incidents, or controversies" which might be "undue" mentioned, but have been reverted. It's certainly not the right template to use if the concern is that other items are missing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The article is unbalanced in the Exhibits section, where the template is placed. It has a well developed subsection for one exhibit but not the several other exhibits -- the idea that one should not expansively give weight to one exhibit is clearly identified here. Readers and editors should know that while it's fine to have a subsection on the Reptile House, we know that, "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text" to just have that "aspect" of the Zoo covered alone, so please improve the article to give it a balanced presentation -- or at least, FYI, this Zoo is not encyclopedically covered, at present (the Zoo is not all only one important exhibit). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
What the template actually says is not "the article is unbalanced", but "This section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies". Which idea? Which incident? Which controversy? It's a nonsense. As I said above: It's certainly not the right template to use if the concern is that other items are missing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I already stated the idea. Did you not read what I wrote? But that aside, then point to another template to fix Undue concerns, if for some reason in your mind this one does not.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Moreover, do you not see the unbalanced symbol in the template? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I read every word you wrote, and nowhere do you describe an idea which is given undue weight in the tagged section. Therefore there is no "undue" concern to tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
"the idea that one should not expansively give weight to one exhibit [over nine others] is clearly identified here" And again, that aside, identify the tag that you say is better to identify the problem that this article currently has, in its present state. Do you know anything about this Zoo? Because any reader would be mislead that the Small mammal/reptile house is of really great importance over everything else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy is correct, this is a classic case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, clearly someone once did a good section, now others have to write more. Like maybe the editor who stuck on the undue tag and the editor who is tendentiously arguing that it should stay there. Instead of arguing over an undue emphasis on part of the zoo, how about getting off your high horse and actually ADDING CONTENT to the article, eh? Montanabw(talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What the ... are you talking about; I have contributed content to this article over several years -- and you're the one who has not and never shall. You're the one who is being obviuosly tendatious and obnoxiuos. So, get off your imaginary horse, and stop shouting in all caps. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, then why did you tag a section with an undue tag? just for your own note taking? It's a silly tag and unneeded. An expansion tag for that or other sections would be better if you must tag for some reason. Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Why the tag? Because the tag is used to indentify a problem in text for readers, and a way to correct it for editors. It is also an invitation. What would note taking have to do with it? It's a means of communication. The only thing silly is apparently, you like to drive-by edit articles you don't care about and insult people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You have not identified any problem in the article to which this tag can apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the article in its present form gives undue weight by " depth of detail, quantity of text" to a single aspect of the subject (one exhibit out of multiple exhibits). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is not for that purpose. What you are complaining about are empty sections, a tag like or is more appropriate if you must tag. But why tag your own article? Illogical. Montanabw(talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
What own article? I don't own this article. I do care editorially about it and its readers though. And that we are rigorous/honest with them about the full nature of the topic. As for your suggestion, it's just less cluttering and specific as to the nature of the unbalance the way it was but I'm reviewing and open to that and other suggestions. I do think we need some template though in the article's present state. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the expansion tag is probably more suitable; the UNDUE tag is for articles with true lack of balance, not merely one section finished without others started; one could use the undue tag to argue (tendentiously) that what's in there now about the reptile house should be removed, which I don't think is your intent. I looked at the page stats, you clearly have the most edits here, so if all that's lacking is time for you to add new sections, not sure a tag is needed at all unless you think it will draw new editors in somehow - but if so, the undue tag isn't going to be drawing editors interested in content creation so much as editors with a concern about POV-pushing, which isn't what's here. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lincoln Park Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln Park Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Lincoln Park Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln Park Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln Park Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photo?

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

Just wanting to get the community's thoughts on Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago.jpg, versus File:Lincoln Park Zoo 4-1-22.jpg. Either would be placed in the infobox. Pinging @User:Kzirkel Sea Cow (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Nice picture but that building only became Zoo administration in the 21st century when the nature museum moved to new quarters. Not only is there nothing of the zoo (developed in the 19th century) there, it is physically removed from the actual zoo. Can't we go back a zoo entrance? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the photo of the entrance, File:Lincoln Park Zoo -entrance-10May2005.jpg, but it's rather outdated. In the scheme of things, I think it's better Kzirkel's photo, but I kinda feel like it's equal to the aerial. It's mostly about priorities, the aerial showcases the entire zoo, but also showcases distracting buildings, and isn't in the best season. The entrance is pretty representative, but it only shows a small portion of the zoo, it's also from 2005, making it rather dated, but it also is in a way better season then the aerial. Just my thoughts, I think we should go wiith the aerial. Sea Cow (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lincoln_Park_Zoo/Archive_1&oldid=1190363502"