Talk:Edmonton Valley Zoo

Canada: Alberta Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Zoo C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Nov 28 Toronto City Council

I don't understand why this edit has been undone twice by 117Avenue, including once since being asked to discuss it. The edit is sourced to a major Canadian newspaper, it's two years more current than any other ref we have (and we do say that the controversy is "current"), it's balanced since it gives Toronto Council's position and Edmonton's Mayor's response, and the fact that Canada's largest city's council is passing motions about Lucy seems notable to me. What's the problem? Meters (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People of all expertise have been asking for Lucy to move, from small petitions, to celebrities and experts. These aren't listed, why should the most current? 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you're asked to discuss something, the proper thing to do is to discuss it BEFORE referting again. You ignored my first request to discuss, and now you've reverted me again before bothering to discuss. That's 3 reverts by you on this, two after beoing asked to discuss the issue. It's getting hard to assume good faith. I could revertt you again, but instead I'll ask you to self-revert while we discuss this, so that we can reach an agreement. Meters (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's notable because Canada's largest city's council is passing motions about Lucy. Cities don't normally interfere in eash other's business like that. That seems at least as notable as the mention of a former game show host's concerns, which we do mention. Meters (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re theh edit summary here. I'm trying to follow WP:BRD. You made an edit I disagreed with, I reverted you and asked you to discuss it (twice now). Your edit happened to be a revert, but it wasn't to my edit. If you think that BRD means I should have discussed your edit before I reverted, well, so be it. Sorry. Either way, how do you justify continuing your reverts without discussing? As for the issue of WP:POV, I don't see it. Please explain how this edit violates neutral point of view. It's in the controversy section, and it covers both Toronto's actions and Edmonton's mayor's response. Sourced, balanced, and on topic. Where's the neutrality problem? Meters (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should focus on providing up-to-date information, instead of squabbling over "issues". (See: 'Master Plan 2005', below). ~Thanks, ~E: 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master Plan 2005

I attempted to update information - someone more knowledgeable might want to review this. The ref to the PDF source is no longer a viable link. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is WikiPedia -- edited by everyone. There is obviously no one "more knowledgeable" that is working on this article, or they would have stepped in long ago (the original master plan was 7 years ago, after all). I am the coordinator for WikiProject Zoo, so I have it on my watchlist, but I don't have time to actively work on over 2,000 articles -- I just watch for changes and check to see what they are and if I can help.

Thank you for the updated content. I have removed the obviously outdated statements and the broken link. I would hope that someone in Canada would be interested in expanding the section, but I am not holding my breath. If you want to work on it some more, but worry that you don't know enough, just go ahead and edit. I will see the edits and if there are any issues I can make corrections. So far you seem to be doing pretty well. Don Lammers (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Edmonton Valley Zoo

Cyberbot II has detected links on Edmonton Valley Zoo which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/allow-a-panel-of-external-elephant-experts-to-examine-lucy
Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmonton Valley 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003063305/http://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_recreation/attractions/edmonton_valley_zoo/construction.aspx to http://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_recreation/attractions/edmonton_valley_zoo/construction.aspx

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: 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) 10:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]