Talk:Vancouver Aquarium

message: I've lived in Vancouver all my life and have never heard anyone refer to it as anything other than "the aquarium." Please either cite this or change it to "ambitious city planners refer to it as Vanaqua, believing the name to sound more appealing so as to cash in on more tourist dollars." Vanaqua... How utterly ridiculous.
Jackmont Feb 5, 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.34 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That is just a branding attempt by the aquarium. I've never heard anyone say Vanaqua - it's always The Aquarium.Bob98133 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, and I don't even know if the city planners and aquarium PR people call it that. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "referred to as 'Vanaqua' by visitors?"

message: :Image:Newlogocolour.gif 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 insure 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) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Newlogocolour.gif

message: I have gone through the beginning of this article, but really it sounds as if it were written by the PR department of the aquarium, full of excellent, largest, most important, and other unsupported weasel words. It really needs refernces and some balance. In just the first part, I made these changes:
#Removed “one of the largest” – not true, many are larger – addressed in history section
#Removed – “most important” – to whom, who says? Weasel word
#Removed “well respected” – by whom – weasel words
#Removed “aquarium is recognized” – by whom, weaseling
#“first facility to incorporate professional naturalists” – added fact tag
Bob98133 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for helping maintain the neutrality of this article!  As for the last point on your list, regarding the Vancouver Aquarium being the first to incorporate professional naturalists, I'm going to reword that to reflect that the Aquarium was the first to employ full-time naturalists who's sole job was to educate visitors in the galleries, while the London Fish House Zoo mentioned in the intro held open house educational events on certain days. AntarcticPenguin (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: needs references

message: There is no mention of research in this section, so why should it be included in subhead? It could be a separate section if there was content for it. Bob98133 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry. I see the word is there, but there is still no mention of why collecting information about whale movements qualifies as research. There are other facilities in BC that have done this longer and more thoroughly than the Vancouver Aquarium, such as Orcalab.Bob98133 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't understand how collecting information about where whales live, where they travel, and what other whales they're travelling with qualifies as research, I don't know how to explain it to you. Moreover, whether Wikipedia editors are personally convinced of whether a research program is valuable or not has nothing to do with the project we're working on here, which is to fairly represent facts and opinions as reported by others. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why research in the conservation section? 

message: Upon living in Vancouver and working at this facility for a number of years, the aquarium is officially designated as the "Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre" (as seen here, here, and referenced here). I feel this renaming would improve the article by keeping the title updated and formal. Thoughts? 6675548 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree: The logo is Vancouver Aquarium, and the Website says Vancouver Aquarium, and the copyright of the Website is Vancouver Aquarium. This is obviously their "public face". I have added "officially the ...", but this really should be cited be something a bit more official than a Web page that disagrees with the rest of the Web site, or articles by third parties (for this kind of stuff, the aquarium is the authority, not newspapers or other third parties). Don Lammers (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article to "Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre" 

message: I was just here today, the section Wild Coast is wrong, there are TWO Pacific White-sided Dolphins, TWO sea otters, and TWO harbour porpoises. Jack is the newest harbour porpoise.
I have no idea gow to update the page!
Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.6.31 (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: The expansion of the Aquarium as mentioned under History has already been completed, according to , and the recent protests also need coverage  . Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional updates required 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vancouver Aquarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927212544/http://www.vancourier.com/issues06/115106/news/115106nn3.html to http://www.vancourier.com/issues06/115106/news/115106nn3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The facility said it would no longer house dolphins 
Vancouver Aquarium will no longer keep whales, dolphins in captivity, Jan. 18, 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-aquarium-will-no-longer-keep-whales-dolphins-in-captivity-1.4492316
But see this recent article: 
Vancouver Aquarium - Tourism Vancouver
https://www.tourismvancouver.com/listings/vancouver-aquarium/17902/
Sep 21, 2018 - With over 50000 amazing aquatic creatures at the Vancouver Aquarium, what will ... Enjoy daily dolphin, shark and sea otter shows, as well as the free-roaming ...
So, what is the current status? Peter K Burian (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, as of mid-2019 the Aquarium had one remaining cetacean (a 30-year-old Pacific white-sided dolphin named Helen) and was intending to relocate her to somewhere else.   The aquarium's five other cetaceans died in 2016 and 2017. As of a couple of months ago (April 2020), Helen was still at the Vancouver Aquarium which was looking to transfer her to SeaWorld in Texas. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the aquarium still have dolphins? 

message: With the proposed sale of the aquarium to Herschend Family Entertainment, I feel like this would be an appropriate time to split the Conservation and research programs section into a separate page titled "Ocean Wise" to match the non-profit structure of those programs. I'll leave this discussion up until at least May 10, 2021. Please share your thoughts below and ping me in your reply. Daylen (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, I think that makes a lot of sense. However, I don't get the sense that Ocean Wise on its own would pass GNG to be able to stand as an article. Intralexical (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the reply. I agree that meeting the general notability guideline would be an issue. I have separated the Ocean Wise content into a separate section of the article instead. Daylen (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of Ocean Wise content