Jump to content

Talk:Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Starting of the zoo

Why can't anybody tell me who started the cincinnati zoo!!

It is so stupid that apparently no one knows and I'm trying to do a report!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.144.13.254 (talk • contribs).

Maybe this will help: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/h/pla/czbg.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.17.185.147 (talk • contribs).

Worker text POV? Maybe COI

Ordinarily I would agree with Mamusufan that a worker at a place like this might tend to contribute POV edits or might have some conflict of interest. However, the edit he reverted was not one of POV but one of fact. As such, it would have been nice if the IP editor had supplied a reference, but since it seems that this edit might be valid, I think a Fact/Citation Needed tag would be more appropriate than reversion. Bob98133 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Second Oldest Zoo Claim

The article states that the Cincinnati Zoo is the second oldest Zoo in the U.S., which the Zoo itself also claims. However, according to this source, the Philadelphia Zoo, Central Park Zoo, and the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago all predate the Cincinnati Zoo. http://www.zoochat.com/2/oldest-zoo-19898/

Whether the Central Park Zoo or the Philadelphia Zoo is the oldest depends on whether you consider the Zoo's establishment or founding as the starting date or the date the Zoo is first open to the public.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Lincoln Park Zoo was established in 1868. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/341785/Lincoln-Park-Zoo

Britannica does not give an ordinal designation, merely stating that Lincoln Park Zoo is "among the oldest zoos in the United States." Perhaps using this language is the wisest choice. Ileanadu (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is "second oldest," "oldest intentional," etc. I'm re-rating this to C-class (it's more than a start article now), but I'm leaving the refimprove tag not because there aren't enough refs for a normal C-class article (there are), but because these first this and first that statements statements need to be cited. If the issue is founding vs. opening, this needs to be clearly stated. Better yet would be to just put the date and say "one of the...". Donlammers (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Billy and Julia Zoological Gardens

I have a glass paper weight with picture of a male and female lion enclosed in it. At the bottom of the picture "Billy and Julia Zoological Gardens Cincinnati, Ohio" is written. I know that it is over 65 years old. Would anyone have additional information about "Billy and Julia", why a paper weight was made in their honor or more info about the time these lions were at the Zoo, if they were on loan to the Zoo, etc.? Tripper24868.52.234.119 (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Zoo facts

This is just a bunch of unsupported statements (i.e., rumor and trivia). I removed the latest addition (first zoo with moats instead of bars on exhibits), because this innovation is usually traced back to Germany (though usually without adequate citations as well). I was tempted to remove the whole section, but just marked it as No citations. If you know this information, you must GET IT FROM SOMEWHERE (sorry for the raised voice). If you don't know how to create citations, please put the URL in square brackets after the statement, or the ISBN and page number in parentheses, and I will check it and turn it into a citation. Or, leave a note on this talk page with the URL or ISBN. I don't think this is an unreasonable requirement from Wikipedia. Either you got the information from somewhere and you can say where (WP:Verifiability), or it is original research and not allowed (WP:No original research. Donlammers (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

This is closing in on B class, except that the narrative does not include anything about the exhibits -- only a big long list of exhibit names and animals allegedly in those exhibits. My suggestion would be to create narrative about each of the major exhibits (what do they contain, what are they for, what do visitors see, etc.), and then put the animal list in a collapsible section so that it does not dominate the article like it does now. I realize that many people have spent a lot of time on this list, but it is completely unreferenced and probably unverifiable (walking around the zoo and making a list is original research -- see WP:No original research). Unless it is verifiable, it will not pass muster for Good Article Nomination, and B-class is supposed to be "almost GA". Donlammers (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

By people you mean me, you better not change it in any way or I will change it back, I know every animal in every exhibit, and have it copied and pasted somewhere else, it took me 5 months to verify that every animal in every exhibit was correct. Just warning you. I am now making it into paragraphs, but I might switch back from time to time if I dont like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Although I have not in fact removed any of your lists, or changed them in any way except making them expandable so that the article can be read and the list still accessed (others have deleted lists of your, not me), you do not own this list. When you click the Save page button, you explicitly give anyone else the right to use or change your list in any way they desire. As other have noted when removing your lists in other articles, long lists are generally discouraged by the style guide (unless in a separate list article--see WP:EMBED). In addition, they need to be cited (see WP:CITE--none of yours are) and cannot be the result of original research (WP:OR--which your statement above implies). I don't generally remove information unless this is blatant and cannot be corrected in any way (thus I make lists expandable instead of deleting them), so threatening me is (I would suggest) counterproductive. Don Lammers (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at it now. i still need references,so give mt time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's looking better. As I have said several times, I am not threatening to do anything -- just letting you know what it will take before I consider this a B-class article. As far as I'm concerned, unless I think the information is flat wrong I leeave things be until someone nominates the article for GA status. Then we get other editors looking at it at a higher level and probably get lots of comments anyway (do not nominate any article for GA status unless you are willing to do a lot of work that those editors will request). For instance, I've never been convinced that the taxonomic names need to be in the zoo article because they are in the linked article, but there are no clear style guides on this that I have found, so I leave them in if someone else puts them there.
When looking at the article as a whole, remember that this is a zoo article. It is about the zoo, not about the species. Everything you do should be on the basis of giving the reader information about the zoo in a fairly compact format (there are some guidelines on article length, but they seem to be consistently broken). There is nothing wrong with splitting out the list in a separate list article (slightly different rules apply in list articles), which is then about the animals. For long lists, this is what I tend to prefer, but as I have said, until GA review I tend to let things accumulate (more information is better), and let other editors comment on how to better organize it if I haven't figured it out by then.
Once you have the article basically laid out, start at the top and read through it. When you think the reading gets awkward, that's when to start making changes, and there are plenty of ways to handle this without removing information that is generally hard won anyway. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, so you should not use "they" and "you", but rather "the zoo" and "visitors". ANd you are not running a tour guide, so generally you would start something with "This exhibit was built in xxxx and is designed to..." rather than "When you walk into..." Don Lammers (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it should be a tour guide so when people read it, they will know what they are doing before they get to the zoo. I agree that the scientific names get in the way but I also spent a lot of time on it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a tour guide. It's an encyclopedia. As I have said, above and elsewhere, one way to "have your cake and eat it too" in an article like this is to create a list article that has the animal details (including the species name if you want), and have the main article be a summary of what is in each exhibit, talking about the exhibit more than the animals. This is what was done in the North Carolina Zoo article, and although we had a bit of a run-in with the notability police, I think I found the appropriate guidelines to tie the list article notability to the main article, so I think we are past that issue (and now we can point to that talk page if necessary as well). Don Lammers (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it looks great! I found the dates of the exhibits and some other interesting facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's looking much better. As you find interesting facts and information, could you just leave the URL where you found it (or the ISBN # and page # if it's a book) right after the fact in parentheses? I can come back and turn them into real citations, but it's easier if you just include the basic information when you are making he edits. It may take a bit for me to expand any given citation -- I'm closing in on a software release at work, so I don't have quite as much time as normal to work here. Also, when you write something on a talk page you should sign it. Just put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment and it will get automatically expanded into your signature. Don Lammers (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I put former exhibits and hid it, or does it look bad? I also put my signature and it didn't work.

I think that former exhibits really need to be merged into History (they are, after all, part of the zoo's history). However, there is probably too much detail here for history (animals that used to be at a zoo are not really notable, unless the individual animals are notable in themselves), so until we figure out the best way to integrate it, I would just un-hide it and make the heading level one higher so it doesn't look like it's under "The future". If you sign with four tildes and preview, you will see four red tildes. They don't get expanded until you save the page. Don Lammers (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Now look at not the African Savannah, but Africa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have up-rated this to B-class now. I think for the content that it has, it needs more citations and a good copy edit (some parts still read like a tour guide rather than an encyclopedia article) before it's ready for Good Article status, but it's really up to you to decide when you want to spend the time to nominate it and then answer to the questions and suggestions. Once a GA editor takes the article, you have to get busy, or the nomination will get closed. I will help as I can, but the next 4-6 weeks are going to be pretty crazy in real life for me, so I don't know how much I can really do. The GA editor may want you to remove the species designation -- there is no really clear guideline on this. If so, I think the best option is to split the actual list into a separate list article (which can have the species designation) and use condensed lists in the main article, but we should probably just wait and see what comments you get. Don Lammers (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been turning some parts into not a tour guide. So I should delete the scientific names? If so I would do that, also are you saying that if all these things don't get done, they will be deleted? (talk) 1:27, 1 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs)

I did not say that. I said there were no clear guidelines on this, so we should probably wait until the GA assessment (which will not be by me because it needs to be done by someone that has not been associated with the article). However, my preference is to eliminate them, and I must admit I think the article looks better now that you went ahead and did it.:For GA review, you need to nominate the article, and then an editor will sign up for the review. Once he/she starts the review, you will get a list of things that need to be done, and will need to respond (usually) within a week. You do NOT need to do everything they say, but you had better have good reasons (or good citations) it you want to challenge a comment. You should read WP:GAN and associated articles before making the nomination, so you have some idea what to expect. I keep an eye on this article, and will help as I can to answer the comments, but don't know how much time I can spend. Don Lammers (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As an example, I have tightened up the Wildlife Canyon section. In an encyclopedia, as in technical documents (I'm a technical writer by day), we should not use 20 words where 5 will say the same thing (more words is not necessarily better). On WikiPedia we need to avoid statements like "the only two at a major zoo" without a reliable second party citation (not just a zoo marketing statement), since verifiability trumps truth (see WP:VERIFY). "major zoo" is problematic in itself, since it is impossible to define (which zoos are "major"?). We don't need to discuss the details of Rhino breeding, which, if appropriate, should be done in the Sumatran Rhinoceros article (where you can add information if you think it's appropriate). We need to generally avoid subjective words (what does "one of the more endangered animals" mean?). "Past 5 years" is no longer valid next year, so should be avoided. Readers can deduce this from the dates we supply. "middier" is obviously from persona observation (see WP:OR for policy on original research), and could easily change over time. In general, any relative time word (recently, last year, yesterday, etc.) should be avoided where possible in favor of dates. Don Lammers (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all I check this everyday and if it is 2012,I would edit by saying past 6 years, and so on, and I said, One of the MOST endangered animals in the world, and White Oak conservation center is obviously not a major zoo. So I want to make it sound like the cincy zoo is the only zoo with these species — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how often you check this site now. You were not checking it last year, and you may not be checking it next year. Editors come and go, but WikiPedia stays (we hope). It's generally bad practice to use relative dating in ANY style of writing (not just WikiPedia). I stopped counting the number of Web sites that I would like to use as references, except that there is no clue as to when the article was written, and they use things like "last month". It doesn't matter how often you plan to look at the article. It's just not good writing practice, not to mention it's discouraged by the WikmiPedia manual of Style (yes, there is one -- see WP:DATE).:One of the MOST endangered animals in the world may technically be true, but it's vague and should generally be avoided. It's also not really relevant to an article about a zoo -- any zoo worth anything these is home to "some of the most endangered" animals in the world (for instance, there being none in the wild any more, the Scimitar-horned Oryx at the Denver zoo is more endangered). I would also venture to say that although the White Oak conservation center may not be a "major zoo" it probably does not think it is insignificant either. This is not an advertisement for the Cincinnati Zoo (I'm sure they do a good job of that on their Web site). Nor is Wikipedia the place to try to "make it look good" (or bad for that matter -- see WP:NPOV). Don Lammers (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1. how is this not an advertisement? all of them are. 2. I hope Meet the Gorillas is okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1) No, they are not, or at least are not supposed to be. These are encyclopedic articles and should be written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). I am NOT saying that all of the articles on WikiPedia meet these standards (as you just pointed out on the Toronto Zoo site, it's always a work in progress), but if they don't, they need work (and because this is a volunteer effort, we can't just assign the fixes -- if you really want it done, you kind of need to do it yourself). You really should read some of the places that I have pointed you to, so that you have a basic understanding of what WikiPedia is and what WikiPedia is not (see WP:NOT). Yes, there is wiggle room, but the fact that rhino's are endangered does not add to the reader's understanding of the zoo, only to reader's understanding of rhinos, which is the job of the rhino article.
2) I have done a bit of copy editing without changing the meaning of anything. There is not such thing as a "U.S. world record". It's either a U.S. record or a world record, and claims like this need to be cited by a reliable external source. I am also confused about the breeding program. The text says it's been on hiatus "since 1999, when ... on loan from ... returned home in 2006". If the male gorilla from Philly returned home in 2006, why was the breeding program on hold since 1999?
3) This article is sounding more an more like information from INSIDE the zoo. I have never seen this kind of detail in publicly verifiable records (book, newspaper articles, or even the zoo web site). Sooner or later on an article this size with this much detail someone will start demanding that the information be verifiable (see WP:Verify). It's probably about time to stob adding detail and start adding citations while copy editing. Don Lammers (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It was on hold because Colossus was the only silverback there and he had no interest in breeding.unsigned comment added by Zhand38 (talk • contribs)

OK, it still didn't make sense when I read it again. See if I got it right. If not, we will continue to adjust until it makes sense to someone who wasn't there. Don Lammers (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The zoo's gorilla breeding program could not continue because Chaka a silverback left, and the only other silverback at the zoo was Colossus which did not want to breed, therefore the zoo couldn't breed gorillas until they attained Jomo in 2006 also the same year Colossus died. Also in 2008 the zoo attained Kwashi and in 2006, Bakari was born.

New editing

Sorry Okapi but i had to do this, in your article is a list is not really what people are looking for and it provided no info, and also animals were out of place and some that aren't even at the zoo. Like the cloud rat, we have a Southern Giant Slender-tailed cloud rat, a Salmon-crested cockatoo is on MAJOR MITCHELL'S cockatoo island, not a Sulphar-crested. Also most of the birds in World of the Insect, aren't even there also. You didn't put al of the species in Manatee Springs, and you deleted valuable info that needed to be there. Sorry again, Everyone I will start working on citating as soon as possible. Hmilz38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmilz38 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Zhand38

Per discussion above, I've tagged the article for tone. Much of it is now unsourced, and is written in an unencyclopedic tone--'guidebook' was the term used above, and it's still the case. Eventually this will undergo a major revision. Enthusiastic contributions are welcome, but Wikipedia does offer guidelines for sources and tone of content. 76.248.145.169 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this particular zoo party, but think Don Lammers must be exceedingly patient--comments like this from August [1] suggest WP:OWNERSHIP issues, and a relative unwillingness to appreciate a collaborative approach. 76.248.145.169 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
An unfortunate byproduct of all this is that the article's rating a B class no longer seems appropriate. The article suffers from multiple capitalizations, numerous peacock terms, promotional slant with second-person tour-guide prose, and large unsourced sections are detrimental. There's reason to conclude a COI agenda, perhaps from somebody closely associated with the zoo. 76.248.145.169 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Back to C, based on Referencing, Grammar and Style, and Accuracy and Coverage (which is suspect because of the other two). I realize this needs a lot of work, including putting everything having to do with breeding down in the CREW section where it belongs, but real life calls, and I'm not going to have time during the week to do much more. Don Lammers (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am closely associated with the zoo and by the way too bad about the Meet the Gorillas, I was lucky to even find that website in the first place to find that rare info.

I've reverted large passages of recently added text, much of it taken from that which was deleted last week (I'm the same user as the IP above). The issues re: unsourced and unencyclopedic tone persist, and I'm concerned that the new contributor [2] may be the same as the currently blocked user [3], whose talk page text under "What I would Like When I am Unblocked" was pasted into this article. Again, not all the text is bad, and may be re-added with proper cites, but this has become a problematic edit-warring situation, with issues re: article ownership. 99.184.129.216 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Reverted further, restoring much content that was properly sourced. Had to surrender IP anonymity to do so--feel free to undo any edits which may have inadvertently compromised the article.... JNW (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Grand revert

I have restored this version of the article because of serious problems with edits by MunkkyNotTrukk (talk · contribs). They added the kind of semi-promotional and unverified content we're already familiar with from the efforts by Zhand; they introduced likely copyright violations from this blog (of course, if that blog were written by Zhand then maybe Zhand might give permission for it to MunkkyNotTrukk, who seems very familiar with the zoo); they removed reliable references. Nothing new, it seems. Semi-protecting this article doesn't seem to be a good solution right now, but who knows. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a little after the fact, but I think you made the right decision. When I saw the edits made by MunkkyNotTrukk (talk · contribs), I knew they were inappropriate for several reasons, but I did not know how to fix the article.mlbrockhouse (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Harambe

Does Harambe merit his own article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not unless there is coverage of him prior to the incident (which there might well be!). Many media articles are using Reuters pictures of Harambe in his prime, so there may well have been interest prior to the incident. (Side note, I retargeted Harambe to this subsection here, it was formerly a "plausible misspelling" of Harambee but recent traffic indicated that is not what readers are looking for. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But why do you contend that there need be coverage of him prior to the incident? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Various guidelines give various nuanced takes on the "not suitable for an article if notable for a single event"; insofar as we consider an article about an invidiual primate to fall under the umbrella of being "about an individual", which is the preferred language of most of our guideline text; animal or man, it's a biography nonetheless in both form and content, although stretching WP:BLP (WP:BDP) probably is not justified.
  • WP:ONEEVENT: mostly discusses when it is appropriate to create articles about individuals involved in a single event in the context that there would already be an article about the event, which is not even the case here!
  • WP:NOTNEWS: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that idividual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.
  • There are no notability guidelines specific to "individual animals". The closest thing, WP:NATSCI, is a failed proposal and covered breeds, species, etc. but not inviduals.
  • If we stretch imagination a bit some could even think of this "incident" as falling under our definition or a "crime", but WP:NCRIME specifically discourages coverage of what it calls "breaking news".
  • From GNG#WP:SUSTAINED: As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be
  • WP:SIGCOV also dictates that for an article about Harambe himself to be warranted, there needs to exist coverage of the subject OUTSIDE of coverage of the incident (otherwise, a mention in the incident's article/section is warranted).
☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If what you say is true, how is it that we have an article about Binti Jua? What is the distinction? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not a good argument to justify creation of content that is covered by policy and guidelines. The existence of an armed zoo response team that wasn't the police is actually the culmination of many other zoo events but they are generally not notable as separate articles. --DHeyward (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I asked about the distinction: why does one have an article and the other not? "Other Stuff Exists" is a cop-out and a non-reply. Are you saying that Binti Jua is not notable and the article should be deleted? Will you be posting a Deletion Discussion for that page? "Other Stuff Exists" is always a policy that people hide behind, in order to avoid the real issue. It is quite clear that the two animals are in virtually the same boat. Why does one merit an article and one not? Or is the goal to keep Wikipedia as inconsistent as possible, by relying on the weak "Other Stuff Exists" mantra? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It means that the decision on whether a separate article is warranted does not depend at all on whether some other gorilla has an article. Their fates are not intertwined and article creation should conform to policy, not the existence of a completely separate articles. --DHeyward (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
So, in other words, you didn't answer my question at all. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Your question was already answered by Salvidrim. When you didn't like the answer and couldn't come up with policy based reason for creation (i.e. notability, endurance, not news, etc), you pointed at another article. The reality is they are independant. Deleting or keeping either article is not dependent on each others status so your justification is not valid. They are not linked, their fates not intertwined. --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are you saying that I, quote, couldn't come up with policy based reason for creation ... ? I, in fact, did create an article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Aaaaaaand, you still have not come up with a policy-based rationale for why the proposed article you wrote meets our criteria for inclusion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh. How about because the topic is notable? That doesn't go (as a reason) without saying? Really? Seriously? Wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you have not presented a rationale as to how the gorilla doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS, which is required to pass the notability policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But consensus here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harambe) seems to disagree with you and agree with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yup, it does seem to be leaning towards keeping. I do think the incident is far too recent to properly evaluate lasting impact. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, that could be said for any recent event. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2016

I would like to fix some spelling and grammatical errors.

ZebraBoi (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You can edit this page when your account becomes autoconfirmed. Usually this happens when your account is at least four days old and you have made at least 10 edits. Or, if you can tell us what errors you see, and what the fix is, and someone will evaluate your request. RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cincinnati_Zoo_and_Botanical_Garden/Archive_1&oldid=862178468"