Talk:San Diego Zoo

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

Pictures[edit]

If someone has a good photograph of the zoo itself (view from above for example), it could be a good replacement for the polar bear picture -- sdalu 09:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What polar bear picture? Cburnett 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem...[edit]

This article is a little fawning, don't you think? Sounds like it's been written by SDZ's manager.

Info about how good/bad the zoo is, is not relevant to Wikipedia.

Whether or not the monorail ride is 'pleasant' doesn't belong here, along with quite a few other things.

-cheshirec (3rd August, 05)

I've tweaked it so it doesn't read so much like a love letter now. Just for the record, it's not a monorail, it's more like a gondola lift. -- Norvy (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


hard not to fawn if you've been there. It really is one of the best zoos- maybe *the* best, and lots of people grew up going there. And the tram is pleasant, as much as that can be objective and not subjective- it's roomy and comfortable, moves at a smooth mellow pace, great temperature. Nicer than most peoples' homes, I'd guess. 204.69.139.16 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off topic, but I prefer the Henry Doorly Zoo and Milwaukee County Zoo over the SDZ.  :) Cburnett (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Zoo si the best zoo in the world. What is not to like? The animals are all happy, entertaining and content with their habitats. The keepers obviously do an outstanding job. The food and drinks even taste better there! The San Diego Zoo always make sure every animal in the zoo is happy. That is why this should be only one article. Oh, and please could somebody please change the number of species as they are nearing 1,000 with about 975 and will have 1,000 as soon as they get their new elephant exhibit fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.31.202 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When do you add info on new exhibits?[edit]

Hello editors. I am one of the major contributing editors for an article on the Good Zoo at Oglebay Park in Wheeling, WV. I would like to know when you usually add information about new exhibits to your article. The Good Zoo is scheduled to open a new exhibit very soon, but as far as I know they haven't announced the date or specifics to the general public. In the interest of preventing a conflict between myself and official representatives of the Good Zoo, I am asking your opinion on this matter. Do you generally wait until after the members/VIP opening night or until after the exhibit is opened to the general public? I have never been publicly approached by representatives of the zoo in regards to my contributions to the article, but "representatives" have said in the past (through the article's talk page), "Many people on staff have read this article and applauded his work." My concerns are based on this comment,"...please make sure to be careful on here. We certainly don't want any of our volunteers getting into a bad situation," which was made on Wikipedia before the first comment I mentioned. I have a firm belief that, while they know I volunteer at the zoo, they do not know exactly who I am. I wish to remain anonymous in this endeavor, so I would like to keep all conflicts to a minimum. That is why I am requesting your assistance. Thanks for all your help! (I ask that you leave any suggestions on my talk page)Morganismysheltie (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Zoological Society of San Diego[edit]

I don't think they should be merged. the Zoological Society is an almost 100-year old organization, and is the largest zoological association in the world (at least according to their website). The San Diego Zoo, which is one entity that they operate, is clearly the most well-known component of the larger Society, but they are not one and the same. And the Society also operates the San Diego Wild Animal Park, so it really wouldn't make sense to merge the Society article with this Zoo article, since it is associated to the Animal Park to the same extent. The Society article is a stub, but it was just created today. Let's give it a chance to grow! --Anietor (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


But they seem to all be way way interlinked. Stick them together. and the park.


I think they need to be kept separate. The zoological society is an entity that has been around for some time, and happens to run San Diego Zoo. I think instead maybe expand the Zoological society page if possible? I can understand both sides of the argument but it seems a waste to just merge the two unless it proves impossible to expand on the zoological society one? Any thoughts? -Scottcabal not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.57.12 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As a San Diegan myself and a longtime supporter of the Zoo, I say merge them. The "Zoological Society of San Diego" page is only one sentence long. Put that sentence into the San Diego Zoo article and the San Diego Wild Animal Park article. There's no need for a separate article about the Society. They don't "happen" to run the San Diego Zoo, they are virtually one and the same. Their only claim to fame, their only reason for existence, is the Zoo and the Wild Animal Park.MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

How about doing a redirect from Zoological Society to SD Zoo? They're not the same entity, but the distinction could certainly be clarified in the SD Zoo article. --anietor (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Good idea! (doing a redirect to San Diego Zoo) So who can actually do this? The discussion has been going on here for a year with no resolution. MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

The problem with a redirect is that the information needs to be duplicated then in multiple places. I mean if the reader is looking for Zoological Society of San Diego and gets redirected to San Diego Zoo, it needs to be made very clear early on in the article that the society operates not only the Zoo but also the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the CRES. The same information then really needs to be duplicated in the wild animal park article, at which point we have multiple redundancy of information. Is it really doing any harm having a stub article on the society if it makes it obvious to the reader that multiple entities are under their umbrella? It can easily be redirected sure, but is it making the facts less rather than more clear to the reader for the sake of saving one click? Expanding the Society article would be preferable, and although that hasn't happened to date, it doesn't seem like a very tricky proposition. Mfield (Oi!) 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I am going to flesh out the society article right now with what I can readily find. Mfield (Oi!) 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll help. And I'll withdraw my suggestion that the page be deleted or merged - now that it contains data about the Society which is not a duplication of information found elsewhere. MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Have we reached consensus that the separate article on the Zoological Society of San Diego can now stand on its own and should NOT be merged with the "San Diego Zoo" page? I have removed its designation as a stub. MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
I believe we have consensus. The merge proposal can go as well. --anietor (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the merge. Don Lammers (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the merge you did was not the one discussed in this section - which involved Zoological Society of San Diego. You did the merge discussd in a section below, involving the San Diego Zoo Corps. You did a very nice job on that merge, thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh darn, you are correct. I will copy the note down below. Don Lammers (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest?[edit]

How can this zoo claim to be one of the largest at 100 acres, when Whipsnade Zoo in the UK (for example) covers 600 acres? There are plenty of other examples of larger zoos as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisEmerson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think this is mainly because it is one of the more world famous zoos - including London, San Diego, Australia and Singapore. Compared to San Diego Whipsnade has a lot of open land it's more like Port Lympne or a Safari Park. San Diego, while smaller in acre size, is one of the bigger world famous zoos, and one of the bigger tradional zoos (enclosures rather than huge open fields) - Scottcabal not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.57.12 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have modified this claim (which someone keeps deleting) to state that the zoo is large not in terms of its acreage, but rather in the size and diversity of its animal collection. Hopefully that will resolve the editing battle that has apparently been going on over this claim.

--MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

I have warned the IPs that trace back to San Diego Zoo 199.106.195.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 199.106.195.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about Conflict of Interest. Mfield (Oi!) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Guinea Singing Dog[edit]

In this article, the sentence stating San Diego Zoo has the largest number of NGSD in one place is not a true statement. I can provide the editors with the name and etc of a couple who have conserved NGSD for over 20 years, have held a collection of 22 adult specimens and currently holds 15 adults. Additionally, in the SInger world, the record of number of Singers in a single collection was set by Oakwold Kennel, Hickory Corners, MI with an amazing 38 adults. The record was set in 2006. They also had the distinction of exercising all 38 together everyday. Truly an amazing feat!! If you wish particulars I will provide. Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no action has been taken on this inaccurate statement for more than a year, I'm going to delete it. It is not true plus there is no citation to back it up anyway. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong zoo?[edit]

Why was the information about Dunda and the elephant capture removed? The edits claimed "wrong zoo" as a reason, but how many San Diego Zoos are there? Molotov Kitten (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Molotov Kitten[reply]

Please read the source carefully see that the elephants are being kept at another zoo.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the Dunda incident and the elephant capture both refer to the San Diego Wild Animal Park, not the San Diego Zoo. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? Everything I've read about the event talks about the San Diego Zoo. Thank you very much for the clarification. I should add information about the Dunda incident to that page, then. Molotov Kitten (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Molotov Kitten[reply]
Perhaps you should review wikipedia policies on reliable sources and WP:NPOV before you get too far on those additions. It may help you in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything you have read about the event"? Apparently you didn't read your own sources, both of which are very clear in saying San Diego Wild Animal Park. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over whether to include "USA" or not[edit]

About the recent several-times-repeated insertion of "USA" into the article and removal of it from the article: Folks, please let's not get into an edit war over the inclusion of "USA" or not. Let's discuss it here, and if possible cite Wikipedia policy about when to include "USA" and when not to. And I'd request, no more additions/removals until consensus is reached or definite Wikipedia policy is identified. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal List[edit]

I was discussing this with User:MelanieN and I was wondering whether or not we should just nix the entire animal section. My reasonings are three fold:

1. None of it cited nor is it verified anywhere. Per WP:V
2. Lately a vandal(s) have attempted to insert erroneous animals into the section. I personally reverted Wooly Mammoth. Per WP:Vandal.
3. It is hardly written in an encyclopedic manner and looks more like a long list of indiscriminate animals rather than an encyclopedic entry in an encyclopedia. per WP:List.

What say you all?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Jojhutton mentioned this (in connection with my own revert of "Liger" as a listed animal), I thought it was worth keeping the animals, but that was an offhand reaction, mostly reflecting personal preference rather than any Wikipedia policy. I concede that nothing in the lists of animals is sourced, also that it is almost impossible to keep the list current due to acquisition, disposal, and death of animals. Vandalism is actually not a huge problem IMO and can be handled by a few vigilant article-watchers. I note that other world-class zoos such as the Bronx Zoo, National Zoo, Philadelphia Zoo and Berlin Zoological Garden do not maintain such lists. I am open to persuasion on this issue and would like to see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might be the first to chime in on this, hopefully we won't be the only two, but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps we can shorten it to a more encyclopedic paragraph naming some of the more notable animals. I'm assuming you've been there, as have I, so when you think about the SD Zoo, you usually have some animals that automatically come to mind. For me its the Gorillas, The Tigers, and the Elephants. As long as we cite what we write, we should probably be okay.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the approach taken by most of the other major zoos: a prose paragraph about each of the theme areas, mentioning the most notable animals displayed in that area. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, what animals do you think should be included? With me, the Gorillas, Tigers, Elephants, Pandas, and the hippos are probably no brainers. A case could be made for the Koalas, Orangutans, and the Polar Bears as they are pretty popular as well. I never even thought about the major areas idea. Thats a great suggestion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only two at least... I prefer the prose approach, and have been pursuing it in most zoo articles I work on. As has been pointed out, the lists are almost impossible to source and maintain. In addition, particularly on smaller articles, they have a habit of taking over the article, visually if not actually. I have not actually removed lists in larger articles, but have used expanding lists to hide them. Still, I think in an encyclopedic article, the prose approach is the best. As MelanieN points out, that lets you list the more notable animals without having to be completely comprehensive. Donlammers (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove the animal list now, but we don't have replacement paragraph for it yet. Should we just remove it and begin a starter paragraph with additions coming a few notable animals, then we could add to it as consensus suggests?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge "Exhibits" and "Animals." Then you already have descriptions for some of the major exhibits to add animals to, and you just need to create the missing exhibits. What I've generally done when organizing smaller articles is to first create an "Exhibits" section which lists the major exhibits or theme areas (depending on how the zoo is laid out) and include animal lists (in prose form). The lists can be fairly comprehensive but don't need to be complete ("Animals in this area include..."). I don't usually create an "Animals" section unless the zoo has some particularly notable animals (as in famous), or there is some other need for such a section. One way to transition while not losing the current list is to make it collapsible and put it at the end of the Exhibits section. Then once everything has been updated in the exhibits section you can eliminate the list as redundant. You can see Perth Zoo for a collapsible animal list at the end of the Exhibits section. Donlammers (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.Thanks for tye suggestion.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has come through and totally recreated the animal lists. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the animal list without undoing any of the other recent edits by 71.107.84.163. Donlammers (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) in San Diego Zoo? There are only about 7 000 in the wild. Conservation of that great ape is crucial! I didn't find from the article, but that can also be a language problem. Nelisormimangusti (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if they have both Sumatran and Bornean orangutans,[1] although they don't specify. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: They do have Sumatran orangs.[2][3][4] --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Nelisormimangusti (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture"[edit]

Someone recently deleted the entire "In popular culture" section, saying that it "contains nothing but disjointed, unsourced, and unencylopedia trivia." I restored it because I think there should be discussion/consensus before making such a major deletion. Personally I favor keeping the section. Many Wikipedia articles have an "in popular culture" section, and it is often the most popular section of the article (most read, most edited). If the problem is lack of sourcing, then let's provide some sources. If the section is "unencyclopedic", that's a matter of opinion; let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided three sources. I don't have any more time right now. In these three cases I was able to find sources by going to the other article on Wikipedia and seeing what they reference. Others may or may not be as easy, but we really do need to source this section better. Donlammers (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see some additional sources added thanks to Melanie N. I think the Xanadu ref suffers from the same problem that all I found did. It does not specifically mention the zoo -- only the park. I'm going to leave it as the best we have, but I think we need a bit more to support the statement fully. Donlammers (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The article San Diego Zoo Corps has been unreferenced since 2008, and I can't find any references for it. In any case it seems non-notable on its own, being simply a education program of the San Diego Zoo, using high school age volunteers. I think the information would be better incorporated into this article, and a redirect left behind. What do the rest of you think? --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: For basically the same reasons that MelanieN gives. If, in the future, someone comes up with a whole pile of information and citations, the article can always be re-created. Until then, I think it does not warrant its own article. I also just took a look through Zoo stub class articles, and the only stub article I spotted in the list that is a "sub-article" to the zoo like this one is Wildlife Warriors (and I have, in the past, debated proposing this for a merge), and it at least has a couple of citations. Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun is accessible through the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, but it's really a separate attraction and not part of the zoo. Don Lammers (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The sub-article looks like it has little chance for expansion, and a brief mention within this article should be sufficient. A redirect should be left behind in case there ever is a significant expansion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objection. Should I go ahead and merge the information? Don Lammers (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been open for discussion long enough, with no opposition to the merge. As for myself, I have no opinion either way, whether the article stays or is merged. Life will go on.--JOJ Hutton 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on this. I think it's time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the merge. Don Lammers (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Anyone think we should use the new logo on this page? Glman99 ☲☳☶ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You mean this one [5]? Do we have a free or licensed copy of it that we can legally use? I don't find one at Wikemedia Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a free or licensed copy of logos. You can use them under fair use if you upload them to WikiPedia rather than to WikiMedia (where they need to be free or licensed). The image is tied to a specific article when you do this. Don Lammers (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I think adding the San Diego Zoo logo [6] and the San Diego Zoo Safari Park logo [7] to the appropriate articles would be a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logos on the web site are different from the ones that you point to. The San Diego Zoo logo is horizontal, and the park logo is orange on the background, not white letters on orange. Do we know definitively what would be considered "the" logo by the zoo and safari park? I have screen captures from the Web sites that I can upload. Don Lammers (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be kosher for me to write to the SD Zoo's PR people and ask them? --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've exceeded my knowledge. I think the process here would be to email them for permission, get an email back (hopefully with graphics), and then you post both emails and declare it fair use. I've never done this though. So far my batting average when I have asked a zoo anything has been zero. In other words, I think it can be made kosher, but I don't really know how to do it. Don Lammers (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a little sucess there; when I emailed them to ask about that new umbrella organization "San Diego Zoo Global" I got a prompt reply. So maybe I will ask them what their preferred logo is. But after that I am lost, I don't know anything about WP's rather arcane systems for use of images. But I can probably find someone who does, once I establish which version to use. (can't sign, using iPhone)
On a visit to the Zoo yesterday I saw the more compact version (link #2 above) everywhere. I think that must be their preferred log for most purposes, while the horizontal one is used in just a few places like the website. If someone wants to go ahead and add that one to this page I think it would be appropriate. Still can't speak for what is done at the Safari Park. --MelanieN (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant rides[edit]

Are there still elephant rides at the San Diego Zoo? I rode an elephant here many years ago. 12.239.145.114 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no elephant or other animal rides at the zoo. Haven't been for quite a long time. But if it's been that long since you visited you should come see it again - you'll hardly recognize the place, lots of big naturalistic enclosures where the animals can behave like animals. The hippo exhibit is amazing, because you can see how they move underwater - who knew they were so graceful? --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue/close paraphrasing[edit]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=San_Diego_Zoo&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 lovkal (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals needs sourcing[edit]

Most, if not all, of the animal lists are unsourced. I am not sure of a wp:reliable source for such a list. I don't believe the Zoo has such a list. Should the animal lists be removed? Jim1138 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple who had an animal show in early 70s at San Diego zoo[edit]

This couple had an animal show and always closed with a song. Who were they? 2600:1003:B861:2F4C:C845:3238:6451:7BE5 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Diego_Zoo&oldid=1210196503"