Talk:List of individual bears

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of individual bears article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mammals List‑class Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Zoo List‑class

	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.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Great?

Can someone who knows better clear up a point under sectn, The Great Bear of Burtonport – which part is tongue-in-cheek/real etc because it's not referenced and needs to be encyclopedic in tone. Don't know enough about it to sort out the irony. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of this article

Amusingly, this article was created far before 2006, but deleted and some of that information put into categories. You won't find this in the history of this article, because it's 'new'. I guess all good things come back around :)
~ender 2008-12-20 11:20:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.27.73 (talk)

Order?

Should this "list" be sorted alphabetically or chronologically? It really should be one or the other, I think. Right now there doesn't seem to be any particular order to it. - dcljr (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was originally intended to be alphabetical, rather than chronological. I'll edit it accordingly. María (habla conmigo) 12:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey the Bear

I can't believe he wasn't mentioned. (Yes, he really did exist. LOL) Raphael (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "the real" Smokey is discussed here , if anyone wants to check . This bear reportedly was kept on display at the (US) National Zoo in Washington, DC from 1950 to 1976 , and became so popular he even had his own postal zip code .

Since Aug 2011 , he has been listed as "Hotfoot" in this article , although his original name was "Hotfoot Teddy" on the Smokey Bear page . But , shouldn't the title of his entry here begin with "Smokey" , perhaps

Smokey (aka Hotfoot Teddy) , or just Smokey

because Smokey is the name he was known by for 25 years ?

Last , is it better for this article to link (as I did above) to the interior of the Smokey Bear article , or to the top of it ?

70.106.152.64 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC) mgt220 a yahoo,com[reply]

Rename proposal

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per unanimous consensus here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fictional bears → List of individual bears – This is an article title only Wikipedia would produce. I think it is enough that we have a hatnonte pointing to List of fictional bears instead of making that distinction right in the article title. It seems to me that just "list of bears" is sufficient. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work since List of bears is an exiting article about different types of bears (ie Black bears, Brown bears).--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. "List of notable bears" then? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of individual bears like how other animals are done -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming as List of individual bears per IP 70.24. "notable" seems oddly redundant, since obviously the bears would not be mentioned were they not notable. Examples include List of individual dogs, List of individual elephants, List of individual apes, and others. Note that there is a separate list for fictional dogs, not included in the individual dogs list. So perhaps the ursine should follow the canine model? María (yllo submarine) 18:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming as List of individual bears for reasons already given by others above. Don Lammers (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.