Talk:Oaklawn Farm Zoo
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oaklawn Farm Zoo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Plural records is not supported from the Guinness Book of World records site. Removing ref about "most named animals" for now and putting the Rudledge record as part of the "Animals" section. If someone finds other records, they should be put in WITH the year. If the records are only found in the published version of the book in a particular year, and you don't know how to do proper citations, put the year, ISBN, and page number (all can be found IN the book) in parentheses just after the statement. If you manage to find something on the Guinness Web site, just put the URL in parentheses after the statement. I have this article on my watch list and will come back and turn either into a proper citation. Donlammers (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Propose removing "Animals" section
The "Animals" section (which I have cleaned up per WP:MOS – do not capitalize the common names of species), should simply be deleted.
- It's unsourced and probably unsourceable.
- It's unencyclopedic trivia.
- It can never be complete, unless it reached completely absurd proportions.
- It's prone to errors ("I think I saw a snow leopard or something there the other month, so I should add that.") and vandalism.
- It will always be out-of-date, since zoos lose and obtain new animals on a frequent basis.
- The vast majority of zoo articles do not have a pointless list like this, so including one is weird and inconsistent.
Point #1 is the most important. Article content is not magically exempt from WP:V simply because it's in list form.
Mention of especially notable animals that a zoo has, like very endangered species, is appropriate, but there is no compelling reason to do this as a list. It actually make much more sense to write a paragraph about this, including why the animals are important/noteworthy.