Talk:National Aquarium (Baltimore)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Aquarium (Baltimore) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Zoo

	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
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Maryland: Baltimore High‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance).

made some major layout and form corrections, but probably still needs much work if anyone has time. it was pretty much one long run-on and repetative sentence. ScottyBoy900Q 21:12 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- someone should also add something about the current exhibits, and not just information about an upcoming renovation

Pricing

The correct pricing is as follows:

Option 1: Aquarium Admission

Includes our newest exhibits, Animal Planet Australia: Wild Extremes and Jellies Invasion as well as all other Aquarium exhibits. Adults: $24.95 Children 3-11: $19.95 Adults 60 and older: $23.95 Children under 3: Free

Option 2: Aquarium Admission + Dolphin Show

Enjoy The Dolphin Show "Our Ocean Planet" as well as our newest exhibits, Animal Planet Australia: Wild Extremes and Jellies Invasion and all other Aquarium exhibits. Adults: $27.95 Children 3-11: $22.95 Adults 60 and older: $26.95 Children under 3: Free

Option 3: Aquarium Admission + Dolphin Show + 4D Film

In addition to option 2, includes admission to the 4D Immersion Film. Adults: $29.95 Children 3-11: $24.95 Adults 60 and older: $28.95 Children under 3: Free

www.aqua.org for further information

Layout Section

The layout section is in need of a rewrite. It makes very little sense to the reader. I would do it myself as I used to volunteer at the aquarium, but I have not been there in at least 5 years so things may have changed. As a starting point, the rays and the sharks are not in the same tank; there are no "escalators" only moving sidewalks, and the whole thing about "featuring at first...ending with...but then featuring..." is just a mess. Could somebody who has been there more recently than I please clean this up? -Etoile (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Zoo

Please consider helping to improve not only this article but all the articles under WikiProject Zoos WP:ZOO Scope. We are in desperate need of members. Zoo Pro 08:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

This article has enough citations for its content. However, much of the content is lists, which should be pulled into the narrative, so there isn't really as much content as it seems. I am leaving this B-class but marking it for attention to WPZOO to keep it on my radar. Hopefully I or someone else will have time in the not too distant future to add content. Donlammers (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animals

I updated some of the animals that are in the Wings in the Water exhibit. There are no Blacktip or Whitetip Reef Sharks (these are fairly large sharks), but instead there are 2 Blacknose sharks (much smaller). Also, some hogfish have been moved from the Atlantic Coral Reef exhibit to the Wings in the Water exhibit. I know this information because I am a volunteer diver at the aquarium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoptza (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in National Aquarium in Baltimore

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of National Aquarium in Baltimore's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "History":

From National Aquarium in Washington, D.C.: "How and when did the Aquarium get its start?" National Aquarium in Washington, D.C.
From Thailand: Muay Thai History^{[dead link‍]}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article becoming an Advertisement

This article is dangerously close to becoming an advertisement between the recent changes by the editor Aquadotorg, which sounds suspiciously like an insider, to recent changes trying to remove the "Best Overpriced" statements. It is funny that they keep removing this, yet leave the Coastal Living mention in without actually providing the reference. Entire sections of this article are not very encyclopedic. How is a current listing of animals in each exhibit encyclopedic? How is a very detailed description of a temporary exhibit encyclopedic? Both of these things are similar to putting pricing information and hours. This entire article currently reads like an ad.Marauder40 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to National Aquarium (Baltimore). Giving the location as Baltimore is enough to distinguish this from other national aquariums, avoiding the issue of being US-centric. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Aquarium in Baltimore → National Aquarium – The National Aquarium in Baltimore is now known simply as National Aquarium (Source). Currently, a redirect to a disambiguation page for "National Aquarium" occupies that article title. However, the National Aquarium (Baltimore) is visited significantly more (Stats Here) than any of the articles listed in the disambiguation page (Stats1, Stats2, Stats3, Stats4, Stats5). I'm proposing that the "National Aquarium in Baltimore" article be moved to "National Aquarium" to replace the redirect page, and have a link to the disambiguation page found here contained within the article. I'm consitering this to be "slightly controversal" because of the impact on the other pages, hence why this isn't a simple technical request. Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anc516 "National Aquarium" is ambiguous. How about National Aquarium (Baltimore)?

My preference for inclusion of (Balti more) is on the basis of clarification and is unconnected to previous residence of Birmingham. Greg Kaye 07:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'd be all for that. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The National Aquarium located in Baltimore is not unambiguously the primary topic. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that a page must be "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the page looked for. The stats for other national aquariums clearly add up to more than the views for Baltimore. Furthermore, the nominator excluded the National Aquarium in Washington, D.C. in the list of National Aquariums which again is a highly viewed page (see here). This means that in addition to all of the national aquariums around the world that the United States has two major aquariums which are both referred to as the 'National Aquarium'. ~~Currently the page National Aquarium is a redirect to the page National Aquarium (disambiguation)~~.
Counter proposal: ~~National Aquarium (disambiguation) → National Aquarium~~
National Aquarium in Baltimore → National Aquarium (Baltimore) Ebonelm (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have just noticed that User:Anc516 moved National Aquarium to National Aquarium (disambiguation) yesterday. I have reverted this move as it appears to have been a clear attempt to effect the outcome of this disuccussion by creating the impression it was currently only a redirect. Ebonelm (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did this because I forsaw no opposition to this move until reading feedback from others here. That's all. I was not trying to influence anything. - Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: for reasons given above - support counterproposal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose multiple other topics. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Proposed title is not WP:RECOGNIZABLE and is also not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Alternative Proposal The National Aquarium in Washington, DC was closed over a year ago, so there is only technically one left in existence. Even when they were both simultaneously in existence, they were one-in-the-same (same institution, 2 locations), with the primary location in Baltimore. That's why I skipped over DC in my proposal. The argument could be made to merge the two articles together (Merge DC into Baltimore) at that point because the 2 merged their operations prior to DC's closure. As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I understand it, but looking at this realistically, when no other article on its own comes near half the views of the page, that stands out to me. If DC and Baltimore were to be merged together, that would also likely satisfy PRIMARYTOPIC as well. How about merging DC into Baltimore, with the alternatively proposed title of National Aquarium (Baltimore)? - Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia, there are other national aquariums -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No primary topic. There are a number of National Aquariums and this isn't American Wikipedia. But support National Aquarium (Baltimore). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original (not clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc.) but okay with alternative National Aquarium (Baltimore) as a standard way to disambiguate when there are lots of different topics with the same generic name. Anc516 is not correct that the DC one was actually the same (or even intrinsically inter-related enough for me to support a merge). Per their own articles, they were distinct and unrelated (except geographically) for the majority of each one's history. Their later merger/absorption doesn't alter the fact that they are each individually notable--WP should not be not "now"-centric. DMacks (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Aquarium (Baltimore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803233351/http://www.citypaper.com:80/bob/story.asp?id=12342 to http://www.citypaper.com/bob/story.asp?id=12342

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on National Aquarium (Baltimore). 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) 09:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]