Jump to content

Talk:Marineland of Canada

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

Untitled

[edit]

Well it's happened again, someone started making more "Free the prisoners" comments and slammed the park again. 2nd time I've fixed that up. I did however feel that the Zoocheck link was fair enough to leave available. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that.

I'm going to see what I can dig up on Marineland's history (I'm local), and perhaps make this page a little less "Bland" :) .


03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)24.150.98.236 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC) article seemed sort of bland for a pretty large theme park with some world records, added a bunch of descriptions and such. It looks OK but could be better, I'll do more work on it soon. Add or change whatever you think is appropriate[reply]

Some animal rights person made some slams on the park. Fair to say that's not what this page should be about. Also corrected the comments about Dragon Mountain being the largest coaster in the world. Althuogh the web sites still makes this statement it is false.

-Removed opinionated statements regarding animals in captivity -Redefined the park in the first sentence. A water park, at least in the United States, implies water rides for people, and pools, and possibly a beach. This park is a themed amusement park and animal exhibition park. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevevance (talk • contribs) .

how about some criticism

[edit]

This is the park that allowed the whale that played willy to get lesions and suffere poor health while at marineland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandonhard (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Or Junior, the killer whale they allowed to languish and die after spending 4 years in total isolation in an enclosed (read: no sunlight, no fresh air) tank? Or the fact that the public tank is far too small? I was taken to this park as a child, and I'm shocked that no improvments have been made in the past 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.134.112 (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Marineland is still taking whales and dolphins out of the wild for their displays and the vast majority of the whales and dolphins at the park have died at less than half the life expectancy in the wild. Experts from around the world have reviewed this facility and found it to be one of the worst in North America from an animal welfare perspective. For more details check out this report on Zoocheck Canada's web site: http://zoocheck.com/Reportpdfs/Distorted%20Nature.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.201.236 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Park's future

[edit]

It has been quite sometime since I've visited the Marineland Wiki page. The last time I was here I noticed there was a brief about the park possibly closing. I see it is no longer on the page. Can someone tell me if Marineland is no longer in jeopardy of shutting down? With the expanions planned, it seems they're heading in the right direction.

I'm from Pennsylvania, went to college in Erie and fell in love with the park based on its commercials (lame I know). I've never been to Marineland but want to so badly! --Write On 1983 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the park was never going to be closing (except portions of it being closed for upgrades briefly). That was just something that somebody added here, which was incorrect. It was removed once somebody noticed that it was here, not because the status had changed but simply because it was wrong to start with. --Maelwys 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That's great news, then. I've since moved away from Erie and will miss the commercials.  :) Thanks for the information! --Write On 1983 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Reads like an advertisement'

[edit]

I don't agree that this entry reads like an advertisement. Marineland (Ontario) is extremely well known in eastern Canada, largely because of the huge television advertising campaign they've done every summer for decades all over eastern Canada. Marty55 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Marinland logo.jpg

[edit]

Image:Marinland logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rides you missed

[edit]

You forgot Hurricane Cove, as well as a few others. I'm heading out to work now, so I'll grab a map or something, help you guys update the list. 67.68.39.194 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so upon comparing what rides you do have on the list, to the official park map which I have in front of me, here's some rides, and their height restrictions (I don't know much else about the rides, so yeah).
  • Hurricane Cove - 42" height requirement. The ride is basically one of those rides with cars that follow a round track that goes up and down, as if you're at sea.
Uh, that's it. I thought there were more rides, but you had them all, except for Hurricane Cove. 67.68.39.194 (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67.68.39.194 here, editing under a new randomly assigned IP. 70.49.204.107 (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Developments

[edit]

Mr. Holer owns 2 trailer parks, and I heard one of them he just gave notice that he was closing. Is this the park that he is putting in the hotel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.133.148 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much, but yes, Mr. Holer is going to close down the trailer park. 24.226.21.207 (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal deaths

[edit]

I've added an animal deaths section. This article definitely reads like an advertisement (I also added that tag) and I believe this will help rectify that. There's too much focus on the aesthetics of the park, prices and attractions and not much focus on the history. The park does have a less than positive history when it comes to animal cruelty even compared to other marine parks like Sea World. The Animal deaths section can be expanded as I believe there are more marine animal deaths (and perhaps land animal deaths) I haven't found. This section could perhaps be expanded into a 'Criticisms of Marineland' section or perhaps even its own article if there's enough material. I'd be willing to support that venture. Drop me a line if you want to help out!George Pelltier (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I researched and added the animal deaths again. I have a sneaking suspicion that someone deleted them who is a friend of Marineland. I will be adding more newspaper sources in the future for the deaths. This page might become active again before the season when the park opens (late May). I'd like to see if any edits come out of the Niagara Falls area.TurtleMelody (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh, my bad, it looks like it is already a sub-heading under that section. sorry. well done everybody. Dennizenx (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most articles about amusement parks discuss the rides etc. so sure, most sound like ads for the park. Is SeaWorld San Diego any better?
With very old parks, it's easy to find a lot of history. e.g. Crystal Beach, Ontario but Marineland has been owned by one family since the start, and they basically kept expanding. Relating all of the expansion, adding of new rides and animals, would not help this article.
And the current version does include the Animal Cruelty charges, but also the outcome. So, I am not sure that much more can be done to ensure balanced coverage. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"neutrality"

[edit]

This article could use a healthy dose of it and that extends in more than one 'direction'. The park itself has existed for almost fifty years now and as someone else pointed out it's very well known, at least regionally in that part of North America. Although I haven't run it yet on LexisNexis news search or the like, I'll wager it returns quite a few hits after just a cursory attempt. In my opinion, for a park that has so many potential mainstream news sources, this one is extremely reliant on its own website for far too many of its basic references. I'd also like to extend a gentle reminder to some other editors that, the purpose of an article isn't to advocate a particular point of view. Although of course properly referenced past criticisms of the parks alleged practises should be included, consideration must be given to 'due weight' and 'neutrality' in the material being posted. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As I read this article I find it very one sided and seems more interested in reflecting a view point that is Anti-Marineland. This article needs to be more balanced!Snowy Badger (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarineLand v. Marineland

[edit]

If we are using the former spelling, then it should be changed throughout the article. However, even the theme park's main web page uses a lower case L in the name, although the copyright info uses an upper case L. Has the park rebranded itself with the upper case L? Either the article should be consistent, or it should be mentioned that the park is inconsistent in the use of its name. Or is the one with the upper case L a logo, and the name is the same as it's been? Bob98133 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange that they've left it as a capital in their logo and use it all lowercase elsewhere. I don't know if there's a protocol for a situation like this... But ya we should decide on one or the other. TastyCakes (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five years later, I fixed some more inconsistency in the body, then moved the page. Logos are artistic things, and can bend the rules. AC/DC uses a thunderbolt instead of a slash for theirs. Adidas uses all lowercase. We don't try to spell it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marineland67.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Marineland67.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

minor edit in controversies section

[edit]

Changed 'A public against the park outcry ensued.' to 'A public outcry against the park ensued.' I think this article will be getting more exposure, so we should be as clear as clorox on the sentence structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfancy (talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unreferenced statement like "[a] public outcry against the park ensued" shouldn't even appear in the context it's found here in the first place; it's patently and obviously an unreferenced editorial "interpretation" being inserted in order to boost a particular non-neutral perspective on the matter. I agree, this article will be presently drawing more attention, so let's try and keep it 'clean' and above board folks. thanks 74.14.25.29 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

[edit]

@ORION1967: Please stop removing sourced content and replacing it with your unsourced list of animal deaths. You are causing the article to lose valid, sourced content, and adding bad, unsourced content. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keiko?

[edit]

Is it worth including that Keiko (orca) of "Free Willy" fame was once a "resident" at Marineland? According to the wikipedia, it was the first place he performed, though he was sold to a Mexican amusement park in 1985 after developing skin lesions. No good sources in that article, though so you'd need to dig some up. - 134.76.201.140 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Marineland (Ontario). 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marineland (Ontario). 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a correct title. Agree?

[edit]

Marineland is never called Marineland Ontario. It is called Marineland Canada however. http://www.marinelandcanada.com/

In my view, the article title should be Marineland Canada. I don't want to change it without some consensus, and in truth, I don't know how to change an article's title. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Marineland dab page, there are/were five in the world. Three follow the format of "Marineland of X" while the fourth uses "Marineland, City" and this uses "Marineland (Province)". The "Ontario" portion of this title is not intended to be read as "Marineland Ontario" as if it were common usage. Instead if was intended to achieve the need for disambiguation. I would support Marineland of Canada to match its official name and achieve consistency with the three others. All that would remain is bringing the closed park, Marineland, Napier, into consistency with the rest. Note, you should check the talk pages of the four others plus the dab page just in case to see if there was any past article naming controversies involving them. Hwy43 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah there is no consistency in the titles. But even the city (Niagara Falls, Ontario) would be better than just (Ontario). The web site is Marineland Canada and at the bottom it shows Copyright MarineLand Canada. So, that should be the title. @Hwy43: Do you know where I can find info as to how to revise a title? Thanks, Peter Peter K Burian (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying there is consistency in 60% of the articles, and moving this to Marineland of Canada would make it 80%. I'm not certain Marineland Canada or MarineLand Canada is the answer here (yet). Also, I suggest giving no weight to the name of their url. By that logic, the Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124 would be titled MDLSR per [1] and Lunenburg, Nova Scotia (municipal district) would be MODL per [2]. Moves are relatively easy, but won't be doing anything yet until there is consensus. Hwy43 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter K Burian: further to the above, click all upper-right links in the dark blue banner as well as the red banner on either side of the logo. Search for "marineland" on each page. The overwhelming majority of instances spell it "Marineland" with one uppercase letter. The only locations I recall seeing the uppercase "L" is in the logo and the "Copyright 2009 MarineLand Canada " in the lower-left corner of the page, which is simply a footer repeated among all pages. My guess is the consultant responsible for maintaining the website simply copied the format in their logo. So I think we can safely eliminate "MarineLand" from any possible article title. Beyond that, there are numerous instances in these page searches for "Marineland of Canada", "Marineland of Canada, Inc." and "Marineland Canada". I don't know if we have a conclusive answer in that regard. Hwy43 (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hwy43 Thanks again for your insights. Hopefully a few others will also comment so we can get some consensus. Marineland Canada is probably the best title, IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be officially Marineland of Canada, but that's certainly not its common name. That is simply Marineland. So Marineland Canada would be less like the common name than the current Marineland (Ontario). I don't see any need to move the page. Alaney2k (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Alaney2k; it's always just called Marineland. But so is the one in Florida (see www.marineland.net/) or they call it Marineland Dolphin Adventure and yet, Wikipedia calls it Marineland of Florida. And Marineland of Antibes is just called Marineland (see www.marineland.fr/en). And so on. So, now I feel the title should be Marineland (Niagara Falls, Ontario) Peter K Burian (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No dispute that the common name is likely just "Marineland", but disambiguation is necessary in some form. I am not seeing evidence that it is sometimes referred to as "Marineland Ontario" in print, so Marineland Ontario is not appropriate. The current "Marineland (Ontario)" respects the common name of "Marineland" and applies the province as the geographic disambiguator in parentheses. I think the options emerging here are:
  1. keep it as is at Marineland (Ontario), which disambiguates based on province
  2. Marineland (Ontario) → Marineland (Niagara Falls, Ontario), which disambiguates based on the city's article title
  3. Marineland (Ontario) → Marineland (Canada), which disambiguates based on country
  4. Marineland (Ontario) → Marineland Canada, which appears to be second-most common name based on what it refers to itself in text throughout its website
  5. Marineland (Ontario) → Marineland of Canada, which appears to be its official legal name, less the ", Inc." and reflects the approach to 60% of the Marinelands at the Marineland dab page
Hwy43 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ideally support Option 4 (Marineland Canada) as it is the second-most common name. Since the most common name needs disambiguation anyway, going with the second-most common name essentially disambiguates without having to invoke the usual disambiguation method (usage of parentheses). I technically support Option 3 (Marineland (Canada)) as the disambiguator is both concise and accurate given there is only one Marineland in Canada. It also informally reflects its second-most common name. I oppose Option 2 (Marineland (Niagara Falls, Ontario)) as it is not concise and unnecessarily too specific given there is no need to disambiguate from a second Marineland in the province or Canada as a whole. Hwy43 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marineland of Canada was where is was leaning originally. It appeared to be relative common when I undertook research at the beginning of this thread, and there is the consistency angle that I agree with. Thus option 5 is supportable in my view. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hwy43: sounds fine. I have never started a new article and move the content to it from an old one. Can you do that or let me know how to do it? Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter K Burian and Alaney2k, I tried moving the article over the redirect but was unsuccessful. I've asked an admin to assist. In the meantime, I have moved Marineland, Napier to Marineland of New Zealand, so all five at the dab page will be consistent once this page is moved. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Resolute: pardon the ping, but I was wondering if you could help us. Please see the consensus achieved within the unofficial RM discussion above. I can't move the article over the Marineland of Canada redirect I think because it has some editing history since creation. Are you in a position to delete the redirect to make way for the move? Hwy43 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balance statments

[edit]

I find that when I read this page, it comes accrossed as very anti-Marineland. When I read about the OSPCA pressing charges or requests, it never speaks about what MarineLand did or if the charges were inforced.

"“A single peacock, out of thousands of birds, had an issue with one eye,” Marineland said in a statement sent to The Canadian Press. “The peacock was otherwise healthy, eating well and interacting with all the other birds.”

Marineland said its veterinarian treated the peacock and believes the bird “is fine and with appropriate treatment will return to the flock and lead a healthy long life.”"[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/marineland-charged-with-five-counts-of-animal-cruelty/article33050651/

Or statments like this regarding killer whales at Marineland "She lives in a two pool complex which is, by multiple times, the largest pool housing a killer whale anywhere in the world." http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/kiska---marinelands-killer-whale-520315291.html

I think we can create a more balance article that doesn't reflect the issues and talks about the future of these parks, without the media hype.

Media hype? Reporting on charges laid against the park and the protests by concerned citizens? That is media hype? I am NOT an animal rights activist at all. See my User page.
But I do believe in covering any situation as the facts indicate. CBC News: Marineland charged with 6 new counts of animal cruelty, By Amara McLaughlin, CBC News Posted: Jan 09, 2017 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/marineland-charged-with-6-counts-animal-cruelty-1.3927659
Before I got involved, this article read like Public Relations Hype for the park. Like the entire investigation and charges had never happened. There is still a lot of content that sounds like it came from a Marineland ad.
Feel free to add happy news, fully cited from repected news sources if you feel that balance is necessary. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that all charges have been dropped or delt with. Snowy Badger (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Based on what?? I guarantee that if the charges are ever dropped, that info will be all over the Marineland web site within five minutes. And it will be reported by the news media. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of controversies and negative press belongs in the article. It should be neutrally worded, not given undue weight compared with the rest of the article, and should be clear about when accusations are made and not proven, or if the target of the accusations responded, etc. Everything should include a secondary, reliable source that provides objective coverage. Press releases are not appropriate sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The charges were dropped today. I edited the article accordingly with new citations from major news organizations. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete historic facts

[edit]

Someone (User:Alaney2k a Master Editor 4) decided to delete the reference to the OSPCA charges from the article's lead. Another editor did an UNDO, and correctly. The charges are a matter of fact covered by all major news media. The fact that they were dropped is well covered now. But that does not mean that fully cited factual information should be deleted. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to delete fully cited facts, they should start a discussion on the Talk Page and try to get a consensus. OR use the Feedback Request service to get votes from editors who have not worked on this article to determine what is the most appropriate method of covering the OSPCA charges. See WP:FRS

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not quite correct, but everything should be okay now. The text in question appeared in three places in the article. No need for that level of repetition. Article is basically stable now after updates today because of court case. Alaney2k (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seemed stable to me the minute I added the update re: dropping of the charges. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess and I'm working on cleaning it up. The lead should be a summary, I've trimmed it to be more so. Other sections on the marine animals are overly detailed and the controversies section has a mix of single-sentence paragraphs and other paragraphs presented in a list manner. The rides section is unsupported by sources, so I will trim it to a paragraph or two. Alaney2k (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Alaney2k, I may be over-sensitive here. My concern arose from the fact that in the past, some users tried to delete all coverage of the animal cruelty charges. And then, others tried to add content from animal rights Web sites that made Marineland sound like evil animal abusers. Several editors, myself included, have no bias either way on this issue. We just want to be certain that the coverage is well-balanced and cited with major news media sources' reports.
Essential Facts: The 11 charges; withdrawal of the charges because of inadequate evidence on 8 of them; the alternative provided by the Crown Attorney (system of monitoring the animals' treatment/conditions). Peter K Burian (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marineland of Canada. 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) 17:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marineland of Canada. 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) 03:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

[edit]

Seems like a lot of POV pushing here. Recommend the lead contributor go to Montreal again and anonymously report alleged violators of policy. 198.81.129.186 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2023

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The pages moves I'm proposing are more aligned with current standards unless there's a naming convention I'm unaware of. At the very least, I know that "Marineland of Canada" isn't really called that in the vast majority of sources. It's simply Marineland. Given how disambiguation is typically dealt with, I was wondering if others agree with the proposed page moves? I'm starting an RM because I don't know the ins and outs of all the naming conventions and this proposed move involves multiple pages. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some evidence that Marineland of Canada is not the common name (because none of the secondary sources I've seen use it regularly)! Sources that use Marineland: [3][4][5](although this one mentions the official company name is Marineland of Canada Inc.)[6][7], etc. There is the occasional source that uses the MarineLand spelling [8] but regular Marineland in reference to the Canadian theme park is overwhelmingly common. I can provide further examples if necessary. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marineland of New Zealand does not appear to be the common name. Here's some evidence of sources that use Marineland: [9][10][11][12]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marineland of Antibes doesn't seem to have a clear common name in English. Two sources use Marineland Antibes [13][14] and this source uses Marineland in Antibes [15]. I'm not really seeing anything that'd suggest that Marineland of Antibes is what the article title should be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Orginarily closed as not moved; per concerns raised on my talk page. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per WP:NATURAL, the current titles seem to be a better way of disambiguating between these places (and in some cases seem arguably better known by the "Marineland of x" name than just Marineland. I'd also note that changing to the proposed "Marineland (Florida)" for that specific one may inadvertently cause more confusion, given the town of Marineland, Florida. Turnagra (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marineland_of_Canada&oldid=1198604097"