Talk:Minnesota Zoo

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)

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)

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/archive1). 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. National Zoological Park (United States is the other good zoo article I've found. Cburnett 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a studbook

This article is about the zoo. The dolphin section dominates the article, and births and deaths at zoos are not generally notable (they happen all the time, and we certainly can't keep up with listing all of them). The section also just rambles. The dolphin sections are also completely unreferenced and therefore unverifiable. Perhaps a separate article about the dolphins would be appropriate, if it is properly cited, with a summary in the zoo article? Don Lammers (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time yesterday morning trying to re-reference the dolphin section following the news of the closure. It would seem that a couple of anonymous Wikipedia users later decided to fill in their own versions of the dolphin story, not realizing how to preserve what was there before, or how to use references. The references had been deleted before, in March. The previous deletions appeared to whitewash the article by removing a controversial fact about the death of Harley. There is no dispute that animals come and go all the time. I concur that for the most part, it really makes little difference to zoo-goers, and does not make the news. The dolphins are, until they leave, star attractions, and have names that people remember. There have been multiple articles over the years, from multiple news sources, covering the comings and goings of the dolphins. Of the zoo's attractions, they are among the most notable. This Minnesota Zoo article is not that big, compared to say, The Metrodome. If it is felt that Minnesota Zoo Discover Bay Dolphins could stand on its own, then someone could create that article. Note that other famous animals, such as Kentucky Derby Winners, do have complete family tree listings. In any case, I have reverted back down to the referenced part. I created a new talk section here for the part not referenced. Thanks much. Group29 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Quick work! This looks much better. I'm not arguing for or against how much material there really is on the dolphins that is verifiable. However, Even now this is approaching about a long as a section should be in an article this size that is, after all, about the zoo, not about the dolphins. If this section is going to get bigger, I would argue that there should be a separate article, as there already is now for the huge list of animals. Don Lammers (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin text missing references

This might be true, but has no references, and seems a bit prosy. If someone could fill in the refs for thie information, and re-add where appropriate among the referenced material, it would be great. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dolphins have been exhibited at the zoo since it's opening in 1978. The zoo's past dolphins include Flipper, a male who was between 35 and 38 years old when he died in 1999. April, a female who, along with her daughter Allie, came to the zoo in 2008 from Dolphin Connection Florida, and died in 2011 at the ripe old age of 44. Rio, originally from the New York Aquarium, famous for giving birth to the first successful dolphin calf at the Minnesota Zoo in 1992, a male named Shadow, sired by Semo. Shadow was eventually transferred to the Texas State Aquarium, where he remains to this day. Mindy, another female from the New York Aquarium, became famous for giving birth to the second successful dolphin calf at the Minnesota Zoo a few short months after Shadow was born. The calf was a female sired by Flipper. Eventually given the name "Ayla", it was soon discovered that the young dolphin was suffering from scoliosis - she was easily recognizable by her curved spine and crooked smile. In 1996, Rio gave birth to her second calf, a male named D.J, once more sired by Semo. He too eventually went to the Texas State Aquarium, where he died in 2012 at the age of 15. Mindy went on to give birth to another calf in 1997, this time, however, the calf was a stillborn. Mindy herself died in 1999. She was estimated to have been between 23 and 27 or so years old. In 2002, Rio gave birth to her third calf, a female later named Spree, also sired by Semo. Spree was an instant hit with zoo goers who were able to watch her grow from a calf into a rambunctious juvenile. On

June 21st, 2005, Rio gave birth to her fourth and final calf, a male later named Harley. The sire was either Semo, or another male named Chinook (who had within the last few years been transferred to the Minnesota Zoo). Harley's life was sadly cut short on January 21st, 2006. While learning to transit the gates between tanks with his mother, Harley breached out of the water and hit his head on one of the overhead walkways that connected the two tanks. He was only seven months old. Rio died a little over two months later in March of 2006, she was 35 years old. In late November of that year, Ayla began showing signs of weakness, and began refusing food. She was slowly losing her battle with scoliosis, and on December 2nd, she was euthanized at the age of 14. The Minnesota zoo was able to keep her alive and for the most part healthier than she would have been had she had been born in the wild with the same medical issues.

By 2007, the Minnesota Zoo's dolphin pod consisted of 43 year old Semo, 24 year old Chinook, and 5 year old Spree. Eventually Chinook was transferred to the National Aquarium In Baltimore. The National Aquarium at the time had seven females yet no males. Here he sired one calf before moving to the Brookfield Zoo, where he can be found today. In 2008, two females from Dolphin Connection Florida, 41 year old April, and her 21 year old daughter Allie, were transferred to the Minnesota Zoo in the hopes that Spree would find companionship with the older females (Semo and Chinook were known for rough housing Spree and treating her no different than an adult male, despite the fact that she was still an adolescent female).

In early- mid 2008, Semo impregnated Allie. Much to the disappointment of Zoo staff, however, the calf was born dead on March 26th, 2009. In September 2009, three Bottlenose Dolphins from the Brookfield Zoo in Brookfield, Illinois, arrived at the Discovery Bay habitat while their home stadium; the Seven Seas Dolphinarium, underwent a massive upgrade and restoration process. The three dolphins, Tapeko, and her daughters Noelani and Allison, remained in Minnesota for roughly six months until the restoration process in Brookfield was completed in the Spring of 2010. This eventually brought the Minnesota Zoo's dolphin population up to 7. Spree, now seven years old, quickly hit it off with the newcomers, and the decision was made to ship her back to Brookfield along with the three other dolphins once their home was completely finished. The move took place on April 15, 2010.

Once the move had finished, the Minnesota Zoo's dolphin pod consisted of Semo, April, and a heavily pregnant Allie. Ultrasounds taken in late 2009 confirmed that Semo had once more impregnanted Allie, and on July 17th, 2010, she gave birth to a healthy female calf. The calf was lated named Taijah via a Facebook vote. Sad news struck the zoo once more on February. 15, 2011. April, Allie's mother and Taijah's grandmother, was found dead in her tank. An necropsy (animal autopsy) found little to say what may have caused her death, however, being between 42 and 44 years old, old age was more than likely the main cause of her demise. She was one of the older female dolphins in human care, a testament to care and husbandry she'd received at both the Minnesota Zoo, and her prior home; Dolphin Connection. By early 2011, Dolphin shows had been put on an indefinite hold. Semo, though very healthy and active, was getting up in age and Allie was preoccupied tending to Taijah. Instead the zoo put on public training sessions in the Discovery Bay Stadium two or three times a day where guests could view how the trainers worked with the dolphins. Semo was the main star during this time while Allie generally kept to the rear tanks nursing Taijah. Eventually Allie and Taijah joined the training sessions when Taijah was old enough.

Yet more heartbreaking news struck the zoo on the morning of February 6th, 2012. Taijah passed away after dealing with a "sudden" illness. Trainers recalled seeing her spew forth a blood clot from her mouth and the vets quickly intervened, however they were unable to save her. A necropsy was done and it was discovered that she had been suffering from a stomach ulcer, which more than likely lead to her own demise. She was a year and a half old.

Assessment (May 2012)

I have assessed this as C-class now, and done some work to better cite the article. I have marked where I think improvements need to be made in the WikiProject Zoo banner.

• Citations=OK, though there are still some holes (notably the Past exhibits section).
• Coverage and accuracy=no because the article is currently heavily unbalanced towards the dolphins, which are leaving, and says almost nothing about the (arguably) signature exhibit "Russia's Grizzly Coast", which (I think) won an AZA award, though I can't verify that yet. I am not suggesting removing dolphin material, but adding in other places.
• Structure=OK.
• Grammar and style=no mostly because I think the dolphin section could use a good copy edit specifically to try to reduce its size without eliminating any information. I've done some of this, but don't have any more time right now.
• Supporting materials=no because we need a logo and a photo of the entrance for the infobox, and a photo or two of the award-winning new exhibit would not hurt. Don Lammers (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Minnesota 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121205011259/http://www.mnzoo.org/animals/animals_northernTrail.asp to http://www.mnzoo.org/animals/animals_northernTrail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807180323/http://www.mnzoo.org/animals/animals_tropicsTrail.asp to http://www.mnzoo.org/animals/animals_tropicsTrail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218181757/http://www.startribune.com/local/south/116247989.html to http://www.startribune.com/local/south/116247989.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615190738/http://aza.org/uploadedFiles/Membership/Honors_and_Awards/exhibit09-minnesota.pdf to http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Membership/Honors_and_Awards/exhibit09-minnesota.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520175354/http://www.mnzoo.org/animals/animals_athtehZoo.asp to http://mnzoo.org/animals/animals_athtehZoo.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)