Talk:Bronx Zoo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ndstate (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 20 November 2018 (→‎Largest Zoo: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you

Thank you! for creating this. Vicki Rosenzweig

Poor Article

I must say that this is one of the poorest entries I've seen on Wikipidia. There's practically no history of the park beyond it's opening, and the current News section (as of June, 2008) is more of a press release than an encyclopedic essay. If there are any scholars or well informed fans of the park out there, could you please improve the article!71.249.150.113 (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


At the beginning of the article, you state that the zoo has 4,000 animals, and a sentence later, you say there are 843 animals. Do you mean 843 different species? I changed it, just in case. Nschoem 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Bronx Zoo website. 843 refers to the number of animals the zoo had for exhibit when it first opened. I'm changing the sentence in the main article to clarify that fact. 74.139.211.114 07:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all the above. Other US zoos are better covered, including Philadelphia Zoo, San Diego Zoo, and even the little San Francisco Zoo. There's also no discussion of the internal layout of exhibitions, how visitors go there and get around when they are there, or of the Zoo's relation to its neighbors and the whole city. Instead there are many pictures of birds. Good pictures, mostly, but the Commons gallery is a better place for the majority. The article should be more informative about the Zoo itself. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with the above comments! This article has little history, but does have enough space for a meaningless paragraph promoting some silly "green" bathroom project. At least Paul Manship's gate was noted, but nothing about the zoo's immense modernization makeover a few decades back (which is why I looked up this entry, to see when that was done in the first place).
Members of the Bronx Zoo Forum should be recruited to help as most are visitors going from when they were kids and would have an extensive knowledge. Sp07019 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Zoo

Please consider helping to improve not only this article but all the articles under WikiProject Zoos WP:ZOO Scope. We are in desperate need of members. ZooPro 08:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4-D Experience

The Bronx Zoo Forum says to expect the the 4-D experience to hit the Bronx Zoo as with the NY Aquarium. Sp07019 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

Not to pile on, but this is a remarkably weak article. Just as an example, the History section has a nice paragraph about the zoo opening in 1899, and then jumps in the next paragraph to the eco-friendly toilets installed in 2006. Really? Nothing interesting happened there in the intervening 107 years? Nothing about Ota Benga, the human being who was briefly living there and on exhibit? Or when did they change the name to Bronx Zoo? I'd take a stab myself, but I haven't been to this zoo in 30+ years, and can't do it justice. Surely there are some school kids in NYC who could improve this article. Please? Lafong (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I have placed some of the photos in the article body, and removed the rest because they will be available in Commons. This is about as many photos as an article this size can support, though there is still some space under "Conservation" and History. As the article explands, additional photos can be added from Commons. Photos should not only illustrate the subject (in this case the Bronx Zoo), but should be placed close to the points that they illustrate. Galleries (whether labeled as such or not) are discouraged per WP:Galleries now that we have Wikimedia Commons and links to it from the External links section. When adding photos to zoo article3s, keep in mind that generally we want to illustrate something about the zoo, not something about a specific animal. Closeups of animals are pretty (and seem to be about 95% of the pictures that people take at zoos) but they do not tell us anything about the zoo. Note that two of the photos I removed are also mislabeled. "Swan" is actually a duck, and "Capybara" is actually a Red River Hog. Donlammers (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They look great! Nice job. Sp07019 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

funding/budget

Any information on what the zoo's budget is and how it is funded? Endowment, grants, donations, tickets & merchandise, taxpayer support? Could warrant a whole (sub)section. Thanks -- InspectorTiger (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not used in prior text

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_birds" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "nytimes_monkeyhouse" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_butterflies" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_jungle" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_monorail" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_gorillas" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_baboons" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_madagascar" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_african" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "zoo_exhibits" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).

--Frze (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done FWIW, (almost?) all of those can be found at bronxzoo.com in case we need them again at some point. Doniago (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lack of detail especially lack of description of exhibits!

I just wanted to confirm what others wrote previously. The article very much needs more information particularly on the exhibits which are described nicely in wikipedia for other large zoos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.146.37 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded significantly (18 KB) with description. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYT ARTICLE

In the article I read: "Around this time, an article in The New York Times stated, "It is too bad that there is not some society like the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. We send our missionaries to Africa to Christianize the people, and then we bring one here to brutalize him."
I think that it should be specified that these are words by Rev. Dr. R. MacArthur of Calvary Baptist Church[1] or it may be confused as the opinion of the newspaper.--93.150.159.81 (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change as you suggested above. In the future, I hope you will be bold and fix it yourself. We could use the help and its fun and satisfying.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bronx 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 to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World of Darkness

There is a disambig statement at the top of this article saying to look at Bronx Zoo for info about an exhibit. I can't find "dark" anywhere on the page though.

Was this an exhibit from years ago? Does this article only cover current ones?

If there used to be, a section on former/cancelled exhibits would be nice. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed in 2009. This and/or this are, I believe, reliable sources that could be added to the article. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added both a section for recently-closed exhibits (current time-line from circa. 2000 to today; I know of no others) and, within that, a blurb on the aforementioned World of Darkness exhibit. BronxZooFan (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. DonIago (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, my pleasure BronxZooFan (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hello everyone. I have recently taken it upon myself to update this page and expand it like many of you have discussed the want for. However, after several hours of work today in expanding exhibit descriptions and the zoo conservation work with bison, I had all of my edits undone as they were seen as "vandalism". I don't exactly see how my work is being viewed that way so can someone please explain to me what I'm doing wrong? Also, is there any way to get my work back? I did a lot of research and cited my sources so I'm not sure what the issue is... BronxZooFan (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear New Editor: I've noticed your steady labors recently, and I felt grateful that someone was finally improving this important article. Please continue your work and do not be discouraged. Neither this edit nor this one – nor any other one you've made – could in any way be construed as vandalism. I fully support your right to edit Wikipedia with the same respect accorded to any other editor. Some of your work may indeed require touching up to meet style conventions here (or it may be challenged or removed if it remains unsupported by reliable sources), but the essential value of your work is welcomed and much appreciated. I hope you will continue to contribute to this and other articles, and enjoy positive interaction with the WP community in the future. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SteverStrummer: Thank you. It is nice to see that the effort I'm putting into this indeed very important page is appreciated and that I'm working within the current rules and guidelines. Of course correct me on any formatting or other major errors. BronxZooFan (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @CAPTAIN RAJU:; as the editor who made the reverts I think they're entitled to explain themselves or at least be made directly aware of this conversation; I don't see that the edits were tagged specifically as vandalism though; please avoid characterizing reverts as such unless the term has specifically been used, as it has strong connotations. I might recommend that you make fewer incremental edits (perhaps using your sandbox first), and edit summaries would be very helpful as well. The way the history of the article currently reads, it's impossible to easily tell what you were doing and navigation has become very difficult in the process. DonIago (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago: I don't see how you could say "I don't see that the edits were tagged specifically as vandalism though; please avoid characterizing reverts as such unless the term has specifically been used," unless you're simply not paying attention. Both Captain Raju and Flyer22Reborn specifically reverted this user for "vandalism" and even left a talkpage warning for him. Please go back and check the diffs I linked above. All of it was needlessly bitey, and totally incorrect. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; not sure how I overlooked that. Not going to ping Flyer as their edits didn't relate to this article, but I wouldn't blame BZF for asking them for an explanation. DonIago (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did receive a message saying some of my edits could constitute as vandalism. However, I imagine this is due to the fact that I was edited without an account at the time and some of them were quite small. I apologize if my previous editing is hard to follow and sometimes seems random, as with the rest of you I really want this page to be great so I'm trying to smooth it out and organize it in the best way possible. There's a lot of info. to add. I will try to remember to add edit summaries and check off if my edit is minor from now on. I also apologize for all of currently empty segments, this whole process is taking considerably longer than I had expected. If you'd prefer to not have the empty segments shown, feel free to remove them until I get around to creating the text. BronxZooFan (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

If there are any articles, resources, news stories, history, or overall anything anybody wishes to be added on this page, please feel free to post it here. I feel it might be beneficial to have a solid place for people to post the information they wish to be added to the page, instead of creating a new section each time someone wants something added. Though if that's not how this works, sorry! BronxZooFan (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest potentially making the info. in the History, Conservation, Safety incidents, and Animal escapes segments bullet pointed? A new bullet point per subject/story may make it much easier to read. Anyone else agree? BronxZooFan (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think subsections, which I believe is how it is currently, is preferable to bullet points. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. To clarify I do not mean getting rid of the subsections, I meant bullet pointing the info. within them. This way each story is contained and separated from the next/previous one. But no matter, as long as it's still easy enough to read and understand BronxZooFan (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the section I added on prices removed? Is it not considered relevant? That's fine if not, I'm just curious as to where it went. BronxZooFan (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bronx Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snouted cobra vs Egyptian cobra

I was talking with a reptile expert who I know, and he informed me that the cobra that escaped the zoo in March 2011 was actually a Snouted cobra and not an Egyptian cobra. The media reported the wrong name. Being as the two species were split from one another, it's not surprising the snake was misidentified. I just wanted to let everyone know about this so no one is confused about me changing the snake to the proper species. I know this article previously pointed out the proper species but that information was deleted. BronxZooFan (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not appropriate. We report what reliable sources report, not what a "reptile expert" we can't verify indicated. DonIago (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How can I verify it then? This guy has worked with reptiles his whole life and visually identified the animal, and as I stated before the animal in question has been identified as the correct species in the past. Surely going off of an experts identification is better than publishing information that's entirely incorrect. BronxZooFan (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't go off one alleged expert's opinion on the matter any more than we could go off my opinion on the matter. We need a reliable source, which essentially means the correct information needs to have been published. Now, if this is a great concern for you, you could try removing the incorrect species...but if the allegedly incorrect name was in sources, then editors may contest that. You could perhaps add a clarifying note along the lines of "A cobra the NYT identified as a..." which keeps the information factually correct but suggests the NYT may have misidentified it. DonIago (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BronxZooFan: You may find this essay helpful: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It's a weird thing about Wikipedia, but it really makes sense when you look at the big picture.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago:, the source I sited are the zoo's 2011 collection records, it shows what species they held. In 2011, the year of the escape, the records prove they held snouted cobra and not Egyptian cobra. BronxZooFan (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's synthesis. The source doesn't claim that the cobra was misidentified; you need one that does. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maleo

The caption for the Maleo image is incorrect, as is the text description. There are at least two other zoos that hold Maleo, Houston Zoo (http://www.houstonzoo.org/animals/maleo/) and Ragunan Zoo (https://www.zoochat.com/community/media/maleo-macrocephalon-maleo.2606/), therefore Bronx is not the only zoo outside of Sulawesi to hold the species. The reference used for this must be out of date. Jubblubs (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change you suggested. In the future, you can be bold and do it yourself if you want. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bronx 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: 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) 03:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Zoo

Does anyone have a source for the claim that this is the largest metropolitan zoo? Please do not cite a website that is citing this article. Also, what is a metropolitan zoo? By what factor are you calculating largest?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bronx_Zoo&oldid=869834179"