Talk:Grizzly 399

Picture / photo

If she's as followed by photographers as the lede indicates and such an Internet celebrity/sensation, how come there is no photo / picture of her here ? ? ?

I think a photo/pic is essential/required; especially when she's been mentioned on Wikipedia's home/front/main page.

Just an idea. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Two words: Copyright law. I haven't been to see her in person to get my own photo. But, I imagine once more people discover her article, someone might add a photograph. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing DYK text

Ravenpuff Hi, also another thing that makes me think that this is not being done officially is that you are not changing the text that the DYKBot laid down on my talk page for these two articles, this one and the Thomas D. Mangelsen article. You've tried changing the content that the DYKBot laid down for the DYK that happened on both talk pages. However, if you do this and not my talk page, then the content no longer matches between the article talk pages and my talk page. If this were a serious effort by the personnel in DYK to change the content laid down by the DYKBot, then why would they not also use the bot to change it? I think the point I made that the content should match the hook that was displayed on the main page on March 11 is still valid regardless of whatever is stored out there now and take that stand unless someone with authority would let me know such as Cwmhiraeth or Yoninah. Plus, it has been almost two months since that DYK was shown on the main page. I think it is stable now. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: Thanks for your concerns. As I pointed out in my edit summary, while the DYK talk template above did reflect the original hook when it was posted at 00:00 UTC on 10 March, it was later amended about four hours later for clarity and accuracy. I think that talk pages should naturally keep a record of the final version of the hooks, as this would avoid any factual errors or otherwise that had prompted the hook to be modified. This is also the version that is kept at the archive page (note that dates here are stored one day later than they appeared). While this may create inconsistencies with user talk pages, I feel that article talk pages are more important to be kept up to date with the updated version of the hook. Also, you're right in that this isn't an "official" effort by DYK, but just a bold personal one, to keep article talk pages updated with correct hooks. I don't see it as necessarily "changing the content laid down by the DYKBot", but just a (belated) maintenance effort to ensure that pages such as these reflect what was actually featured on the Main Page for the majority of its time there. I apologise for any inconvenience. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 04:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ravenpuff I appreciate your answer explaining things. It is a bit of a coincidence that the editor who made the change to my hook while it was still on the main page was Maile66. This editor recently made an edit to an article I had in DYK while it was in one of the DYK queues. They added the ref=harv parameter to one of my book references down in the sources section. But then they did not add it to any of the online citations in the content. It doesn't do anything if is not implemented completely. It was called "Fixing style/layout errors" in the edit summary when it was no such thing. It was an incomplete feature. The article is War Paint. Btw, the edit to the Grizzly 399 and Mangelsen hook while it was on the main page had nothing to do with "clarity and accuracy." It was quite accurate as it was. In fact, it was made partly inaccurate. The edit removed that it was the photograph that was dubbed as icon of motherhood and changed it to the photographer referring to her as an icon of motherhood, which he only did after the photograph had been dubbed with that title. It also introduced new material that made it seem as though 60 Minutes was the only source that stated Grizzly 399 was the most famous mother bear. That is not true either. There are sources in the articles that state this. But the most egregious part is removing the photograph as being dubbed as an "icon of motherhood". Mangelsen is a photographer and why is he notable-the point was the photograph he took of her. Well, I can definitely appreciate your intent even if I don't completely agree with it. Thanks again for the further information, this isn't something I was aware was happening. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Hi! This user I've just exchanged a message with has changed the content of the message that the DYKBot laid down originally for my double DYK that ran on March 10. I reverted it, and they reverted back. So I wrote a message and this time they left it alone. But I am still wondering if there is official changing of DYK hooks going on once they start running on the main page. Also, to be sure that no one should be going around and updating the content that the DYKBot placed on article talk pages. Especially just changing that to match the updated hook content and not changing the user talk pages to match. It all seems very odd to me. It seems it is being done to all of the articles where the hook was updated after it starting running on the main page. I'm not impressed with what my hook was updated to say--it took away the fact that Tom Mangelsen's photograph of Grizzly 399 was referred as the icon of motherhood, and instead changed it to him referring to her as the icon of motherhood, which is technically not correct. Plus, Mangelsen is notable for being a wildlife photographer-it was the point. Your thoughts or any information you can give me would be much appreciated, thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 01:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a little postscript to my answer above, to explain my rationale a little more. While Mangelsen and the grizzly is obviously not my area of expertise and I had no way of knowing whether the hook was actually factually accurate, I think that there is still some logical value inherent in making sure that talk pages continue to provide an accurate record of talk page DYK appearances, taking into account any changes made while it was featured (normally changes to wording and accuracy). Consistency in doing so means that this principle should be applied here as well. While, in this case, the hook was changed to something that was not as accurate as the original version, the newer version still remains the version that was featured on the Main Page for the majority of 10 March 2019 and, as such, should be featured here and at Talk:Thomas D. Mangelsen. I hope this helps. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Ravenpuff was altering DYK talkpages. One of these of mine was Wildlife of Norway where the number of animals was factually wrong, because I had misinterpreted the Norwegian language source, and the hook was pulled. I thought it was a good thing to remove the erroneous hook from the article's talk page where otherwise it was a permanent statement of false information. So I would thank Ravenpuff for his actins. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Ravenpuff The last message here must have slipped by me somehow. Thanks Cwmhiraeth for your time to answer. I appreciate it. Yes, it does make sense that we should appreciate Ravenpuff's actions when they are a correction of facts of a hook. I would have no issue with that and would be thankful. In this particular article, which is a double hook article, the hook was changed a couple hours into its display on the main page. I did not notice it, but it is mostly because I was not looking for it. I did not even know that hooks could get changed while they were on display. And the change that was made was not entirely accurate, as stated before. Upon further deliberation, I can see how someone not familiar with the article could get confused and change the hook though. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The United States versus the Lower 48

I am loathe to change this myself in case there's some context or justification I'm missing, but the article says "there are now approximately 2,000 bears in the United States." That's wrong. There are 30,000 grizzly/brown bears in Alaska (assuming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear#North_America is right, and it's referenced, so it probably is). In the quote, "the United States" should be changed to something like "the contiguous United States" or, less formally, "the lower 48 United States." Also, even though it's repetitious, "bears" should probably be changed to "grizzly bears," since black bears also inhabit the U.S. Gms3591 (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made this change as suggested. Graphictopography (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Graphictopography That's weird; I don't recall seeing your post from 2021 or why that didn't get changed. You are absolutely right though. It should say either contiguous or the lower 48. The word grizzly is in the paragraph three times already, but adding another one in front of this particular wording would not hurt to make it absolutely clear. I am in favor of that. Thanks for circling back on this one. When I wrote the article, I missed this. Or someone else did as there have been some significant contributions since then. It's been since 2019 since I wrote it so I don't recall everything. If you have any other feedback, now is a good time as I am doing a cleanup and some overhauling. I am also adding some sources to content that I am tired of editors removing because they think there's no sources for it. Mostly in the lead. The sources are in the body, how I usually do it and that's in policy. But it just doesn't work well in this article. Thanks a lot!

dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)