This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is it really fair to say, "Despite being well known for its scientific excellence and a handful of unique species, the zoo's exhibits are average or below average when compared to modern US zoos." in a Wikipedia article, or is that pushing a POV? I happen to agree with that the zoo's facilities are aging, but the sentence doesn't sound neutral. --Tachikoma 00:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The Controversies section needs to be rewritten, updated, and merged into relevant sections rather than sitting on its own. There are lots of apparently unsourced and questionable assertions being made throughout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I took a first pass and at least got the quotes right. I left it in a separate section (which is not uncommon in zoo articles), but left the controversy tag because I was mostly trying to straighten out the actual citations (for the whole article, not just this section), and the section needs additional work before I would call it neutral. Don Lammers (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Request for Change: "Future" Section of Page
I'm an employee at the Smithsonian's National Zoo in the Office of Communications, and I'd like to request the editing or removal of "The future" section of the Zoo's page. The reason for my request is the fact that this information is no longer current or correct. American Trail is now completed and open to the public, and the Elephant Community Center will be completed and open to the public in March, 2013.
I think it would make sense to update these two exhibits in the "Exhibits" section and remove the entire "The future" section.
I'm more than happy to provide current text for the two new exhibits, if the Zoo's page followers would like to look it over. SarahNEmerson (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Done! It only had info about the elephant exhibit, so I updated and merged it with the Elephant Trail section. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 03:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: appears to have been accomplished. Let me know if I'm reading the "Done" below wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Smithsonian National Zoological Park → National Zoological Park – After exstensive consultation with the public affairs office at the Smithsonian, the true title of this zoo is the "National Zoological Park" not the "Smithsonian National Zoological Park". You can also see proof of that here and here (I'm Wikpiedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, for the sake of credibility :)) Sarah (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: This is more controversial than I thought (I should have investigated more thoroughly first). Since support means specifically to rename the article "National Zoological Garden", I am changing my official position in the poll. My alternate recommendations are shown in the comments section below. Don Lammers (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. Go with the official name instead of what appears to be a Wikipedia creation. Better yet, use the common name, National Zoo, which already redirects here. — AjaxSmack 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that National Zoological Park Delhi is at the right title anyway; the article just calls it "National Zoological Park"; the "Delhi" part appears to be an incorrectly formatted disambiguator. Overall, I'd say the base term "National Zoological Park" is too ambiguous. PowersT 17:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
National Zoo of Malaysia is also really just "National Zoo". I think we need a disambiguation page and a standard format for the articles. I would do the country in parentheses so it's obviously not part of the title: National Zoological Park (United States), National Zoological Park (India), National Zoo (Malaysia), National Zoo and Aquarium (Australia). That lets readers pick easily from the search dropdown when they start typing "National Zoo..." Not sure how two national aquariums in the U.S. would fit into this, though I guess we can just go with cities on those. Don Lammers (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
See Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. An admin will do the heavy lifting. This makes sure that the history follows the article properly. Although it's done (an I have been guilty of it before I knew better), DO NOT just copy and paste the contents of the article into the redirect. This works, but does not properly preserve the history. Don Lammers (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I have no strong opinion on the location of this page, but if it becomes the "National Zoological Park" (without United States of some other specification in the title), a disambiguation page is necessary for the remaining zoos with near-identical names. It seems very likely that some people will miss the distinction between National Zoo, National Zoological Gardens and National Zoological Park. RN1970 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
See my suggestion above. National Zoo and National Zoological Park go to National Zoological Garden (which is already a DAB page. Then rename all of the actual zoo articles so they use one of the forms (whichever their Web site uses), followed by the country in parentheses. We can do all of this without admin help, since we won't be overwriting an existing article. Don Lammers (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have set up the disambiguation page and redirects, and moved this article. I left pipes on the disambiguation page (total of 6 zoos) to the current articles, but the visible text is the proposed move for those articles (all to match what the official Web site says). I will finish fixing links to this article before I proceed with any of the others. Don Lammers (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess I jumped the gun a bit. I should have waited until Monday (then again, I won't have time Monday). So far there seems to be no actual objection to a move as suggested. I have gone through links and fixed those in articles, but not in user space. If there are objections, I guess I have a lot of work to undo. If not, I will officially close this on Monday. Don Lammers (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks Don! :) Sarah (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.