Talk:Sea Life at Mall of America

Photo

The mascot is certainly the most relevant. It is essentially the same as the logo of the aquarium. Pictures of the aquarium can be used later on in the article, but the mascot should be in the infobox. Ryan Vesey 15:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• There is a separate entry in the infobox for the logo if you want to get that from the website. I don't have time to get it right now, but I can upload a copy later. Otherwise this is an article about the aquarium, and should have pictures of the aquarium. By preference for zoo and aquarium articles we put the logo (but not a huge version of it like the current photo) and a photo of the entrance or building. Barring that, we put the logo and a photo of a major exhibit. We rarely even talk about mascots, let alone show pictures of them. Don Lammers (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Would you believe it? I checked the edit history to see who put the random picture of the turtle in there. It was a representative of the aquarium. Ryan Vesey 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have added the logo. I also replaced the photo with a not quite so good photo, but both the turtle you replaced and the original tunnel photo are copyright violations, as they are used on the Website and the official blog respectively. I will request speedy deletion of these two files from Commons. Don Lammers (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's clear that the uploader was the owner of the works, and while it would take longer, wouldn't contacting them to see if they could provide proof of ownership through OTRS first be a better option? Ryan Vesey 23:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I did notify him/her on the Commons talk page. I've never actually done OTRS, and don't even know how that works (though I suppose it wouldn't hurt to find out). Unfortunately, these are the only two edits for this user, so it seems unlikely that the account will be well monitored (though maybe they will spot this discussion if they are watching the article). I will go backand see if I can figure out how to advise on OTRS. Don Lammers (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll be back to this article in the hope of fixing it up in a week or so, for now I'm busy IRL and I'm taking a script enforced wikibreak for a while. Ryan Vesey 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message on the user talk page. They do not have email turned on, so can't contact them directly. We'll see what happens, if anything. Have a nice wikibreak! Don Lammers (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page wrongly placed, old content needs restoration

Barring "SEA LIFE" being an acronym (of which there is no sign in the article), this page needs to be moved to Sea Life at Mall of America, per MOS:ALLCAPS

And it looks like gobs of stuff on what Sea Life was have been stripped out, so that it only covers the current state of things. As this is intended to be an encyclopedia rather than an ad brochure, that material should be restored. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@NatGertler: thanks for drawing my attention to the MOS. I'll fix that right away. I think you might be mistaken with the content that was stripped out. Most of the content removed was inherently promotional. I knew nothing about the subject of the article a few days ago to be frank and stumbled upon the article via recent changes. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Refreshing my memory here... a sockpuppet had deleted a great portion of the content. In effort to improve the article as best as possible, I restored a previous version and began removing brochure-style information from there. Sections like "Promotions" and "Events" included content like "Sea Life Minnesota also hosts corporate events, wedding proposals, and even an underwater wedding!" and "Just toss it in and watch the rays go crazy over their favorite food." ... -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I was looking largely at the gobs of the history section that you removed. However, looking again, I see that what you removed... and what you kept... are largely unsourced, so I'm more at ease with the removal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler yes I understand most of the content is unsourced; that's how it was when I first found this article. I could blank the entire page, but what good would that do? I am working on getting sources for these sections and improving the article. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Third-party sources

Here's some third-party coverage for anyone looking to improve sourcing here.

• Opening, part one, part 2
• 2000 name change. Also, bankruptcy filing!
• 2011 reopening

I hope that helps -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)