[Mike Cook]

Damn, done it again. How come forums have a delete button but Opus doen't?

There is another of mine to clean up in the Farne Islands location. From now on I'm sticking to forums.

Mike

[delia todd]

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

Damn, done it again. How come forums have a delete button but Opus doen't?

There is another of mine to clean up in the Farne Islands location. From now on I'm sticking to forums.

Mike

LOL Mike... you can't delete threads in the Forums either

Haven't you got a piccie of the Farnes to upload then?

D

[Mike Cook]

Originally Posted by delia todd

Haven't you got a piccie of the Farnes to upload then?
D

I thought I'd seen a 'Delete' button when editing a post. I guess it's because in this case it's the first and only post in the thread and therefore by implication, I'd be deleting the thread as well.

Sorry, no digital pics of the Farne Islands. Last time I took a camera it was old fashioned film and heaven knows where the photographs are. I've got some of St Mary's Island but I haven't seen a stub for that.

I don't think 'Tyne and Wear' is among the counties but then, I don't think it officially exists any more either. North Tyneside and Newcastle upon Tyne are unitary authorities as far as I know but I guess you won't want to clutter up your counties with all those. Do Newcastle and North Tyneside become part of Northumberland and do Gateshead and South Tyneside become part of Count Durham?

I guess there's no easy right answer. What do you wise ones at BF have planned?

Mike

[delia todd]

What do you wise ones at BF have planned?

We're still flying by the seat of our pants

Counties are Categories, and Co Durham and Northumberland both have some articles - but there are many more that could be added, I'm sure... for instance St Mary's Island and Rainton... er Meadows is it?

It's quite easy to start these new articles if you just want to go ahead - you'll find a basic template here. The easiest way is to click on the Edit tab, then copy the template contents before pasting into your new article. Don't feel you have to complete it in one go.

Hope this makes sense

D

[Mike Cook]

Originally Posted by delia todd

It's quite easy to start these new articles if you just want to go ahead - you'll find a basic template here. The easiest way is to click on the Edit tab, then copy the template contents before pasting into your new article. Don't feel you have to complete it in one go.

Hope this makes sense

D

Right, I'll start with my local patch, Armstrong and Heaton Parks and Jesmond Dene in Newcastle. Less chance of upsetting folk than if I screw up St Mary's Island. I also know the area and birds better and if anyone complains, they can correct my mistakes.

It's not exactly exciting but kingfishers, dippers and grey wagtails aren't bad less than 2km from a city centre.

Do I pm you when I dig myself into a hole and can't climb out?

Cheers

Mike

[delia todd]

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

Right, I'll start with my local patch, Armstrong and Heaton Parks and Jesmond Dene in Newcastle. Less chance of upsetting folk than if I screw up St Mary's Island. I also know the area and birds better and if anyone complains, they can correct my mistakes.


It's not exactly exciting but kingfishers, dippers and grey wagtails aren't bad less than 2km from a city centre.

That'd be great Mike... 'tis easy really

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

Do I pm you when I dig myself into a hole and can't climb out?
Cheers

Mike

Of course you can... or you could click the Discussion Tab erm... is that where this thread started

D

[Mike Cook]

First opportunity (there are no such things as problems, just opportunities).

The document exists and it is linked to the 'Northumberland' category. The species in 'Notable species' link to the species in Opus. So far so good.

How do I get rid of the lines
"A Guide for new locations - not all headings need to be used. Enclose birds in [[ ]] as well as any locations which may be elsewhere on Opus"
that are just below the title? They were in the template I used.

Also, how does this BirdsSee template work? I need to list some species.

I suppose I'd better go and take a few photos as well now I've started this off. What do you suggest, three of four pictures of the main landmarks?

Best wishes

Mike

[delia todd]

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

First opportunity (there are no such things as problems, just opportunities).

The document exists and it is linked to the 'Northumberland' category. The species in 'Notable species' link to the species in Opus. So far so good.

How do I get rid of the lines
"A Guide for new locations - not all headings need to be used. Enclose birds in [[ ]] as well as any locations which may be elsewhere on Opus"
that are just below the title? They were in the template I used.

Also, how does this BirdsSee template work? I need to list some species.

I suppose I'd better go and take a few photos as well now I've started this off. What do you suggest, three of four pictures of the main landmarks?

Birds See

Best wishes

Mike

Well done Mike... a good article that.

I see JThoppes has sorted the bit at the top for you (just click on the Edit tab and delete what you don't want)

The Birds See template:

....it starts with "{{BirdsSee|" just add the birds starting immediately after the | separating each species with a comma. At the end of the list finish it with}}

Photos: 3 or 4 is fine... the first can be 550 pixels, but the others, probably 350 to 400.

D

[Mike Cook]

I try and visit this site regularly, preferably weekly. I've therefore got a lot of data going back several years.

What birds do most editors put in their checklist. Obviously, all birds seen regularly go in but how about species seen a couple of times a year or even only seen once while I have been observing on the patch.

My gut feeling is to leave out any species I've seen less than once a year on average (less than 2% of visits). What do other people do?

My second question is about species that the BTO Rare Breeding Bird Panel have decided should only be mapped on a 100km basis, eg Slavonian Grebe and Smew. I presume you would advise that these are not mentioned for a particular site, even though the fact they breed there may be known locally.

Best wishes

Mike

[delia todd]

What birds do most editors put in their checklist. Obviously, all birds seen regularly go in but how about species seen a couple of times a year or even only seen once while I have been observing on the patch.

My gut feeling is to leave out any species I've seen less than once a year on average (less than 2% of visits). What do other people do?

The concensus seems to be to include all birds 'likely to be seen by a good birder'. The 'couple of times a year' ones could also go in but should be mentioned in the Notable Species section as well, so that it is clear what time of year they're likely to be seen. (Does this make sense?)

My second question is about species that the BTO Rare Breeding Bird Panel have decided should only be mapped on a 100km basis, eg Slavonian Grebe and Smew. I presume you would advise that these are not mentioned for a particular site, even though the fact they breed there may be known locally.

Probably the same guidelines as for the Forums, should apply here. If you don't want to mention a particular breeding species, then don't.

D

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

My second question is about species that the BTO Rare Breeding Bird Panel have decided should only be mapped on a 100km basis, eg Slavonian Grebe and Smew. I presume you would advise that these are not mentioned for a particular site, even though the fact they breed there may be known locally.

Mike,
maybe mention that they occur without stating at what time of the year; people without local knowledge would probably think that they were winter or passage visitors.

Cheers
Niels

[Mike Cook]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

maybe mention that they occur without stating at what time of the year; people without local knowledge would probably think that they were winter or passage visitors.

Niels,
Thanks, that seems a reasonable compromise. It doesn't apply to the article I'm working on at the moment but it will in the case of another local site.

Best wishes

Mike

[Mike Cook]

When I'm reasonably happy with the article I'm working on, what should I do about Categories. Do I remove the category 'Incomplete Locations' or do I remove the word 'Incomplete' and leave it linked to the category 'Locations'.

Personally I prefer either search for the name directly or work my way through the heirarchy Eupope>United Kingdom>England>Northumberland but others may want to fight through a list of every location in the world beginning with the letter 'J'.

I've noticed that the article on Leighton Moss is linked to both 'Locations' and 'Incomplete Locations'!

I don't want to produce something that you guys are going to have to sort out when I've finished it.

Best wishes

Mike

[delia todd]

Hi Mike

There's a loooong thread here where we bounced ideas off each other and JThoppes was the one that really got to grips with all the categories - I'm not sure I understand how it all works yet He's gradually working his way through all the articles making sure all have the correct Category tags - there's also categories for the likes of the RSPB

However, it appears that if Northumberland is a category (which it is) it will automatically appear in the UK list and the UK is in the Europe list.

I've added [[Category:Locations]] to your article, so when you have completed it, just delete the Incomplete Locations tag.

I've probably completely confused you now

D

[Mike Cook]

Originally Posted by delia todd

Hi Mike
There's a loooong thread here where we bounced ideas off each other and JThoppes was the one that really got to grips with all the categories - I'm not sure I understand how it all works yet

Wow Delia, you were all busy back in June. I'm impressed. I hope you had the long holiday you deserved

Originally Posted by delia todd

I've probably completely confused you now
D

Not at all. I think I even see how I could create a sub-category of 'Tyne and Wear' inside Northumberland but I don't see the need for it.

The way I understand it, it's all bottom up. I would link my article to the non-existent category 'Tyne and Wear'. I would then click on this link which would creat this category and take me to it. I could then link category 'Tyne and Wear' to category 'Northumberland'.

I won't do that because what you've got works fine. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Thanks for your help

Mike

[delia todd]

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

Wow Delia, you were all busy back in June. I'm impressed. I hope you had the long holiday you deserved

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=88805

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

Thanks for your help

Mike

Not at all... thanks for getting involved Mike

D

[jthoppes]

Originally Posted by Mike Cook

others may want to fight through a list of every location in the world beginning with the letter 'J'.

Your first instinct is right. We don't, actually, want to do this, and this is why I rationalized the geographic categories a while back. It exists, as a legacy from the older system, but there's no particular reason to maintain it.

The progression runs something like this:

1. All locations are part of some geographic category. In your case, the hierarchy ascends Northumberland>England>UK>Europe.

2. Brand-new locations belong in the categories "stubs" and "missing location images."

3. When you add an image, remove the "missing images category." (It exists so we can keep track of which pages still need photographs.)

4. When you add some text, any text at all, even "hey! blackbirds nest on this patch!" or "this patch is located just off the M21 in darkest whatevershire!" change the "stub" category to "incomplete locations."

5. Finally, when all of the standard subheadings have at least some information available, remove the "incomplete locations" category entirely. This is the ideal end state.

Edit: and you've got the process for creating a new category exactly right. As you say, there's no need to do this until the category becomes so crowded that subdivision is necessary. (Picture a new user staring at a future Category:Northumberland with forty local patches as members, and thinking "now which of these are anywhere near Tyne and Wear?")

[Mike Cook]

Originally Posted by jthoppes

Your first instinct is right. We don't, actually, want to do this, and this is why I rationalized the geographic categories a while back. It exists, as a legacy from the older system, but there's no particular reason to maintain it.

The progression runs something like this:

1. All locations are part of some geographic category. In your case, the hierarchy ascends Northumberland>England>UK>Europe.

2. Brand-new locations belong in the categories "stubs" and "missing location images."

3. When you add an image, remove the "missing images category." (It exists so we can keep track of which pages still need photographs.)

4. When you add some text, any text at all, even "hey! blackbirds nest on this patch!" or "this patch is located just off the M21 in darkest whatevershire!" change the "stub" category to "incomplete locations."

5. Finally, when all of the standard subheadings have at least some information available, remove the "incomplete locations" category entirely. This is the ideal end state.

Edit: and you've got the process for creating a new category exactly right. As you say, there's no need to do this until the category becomes so crowded that subdivision is necessary. (Picture a new user staring at a future Category:Northumberland with forty local patches as members, and thinking "now which of these are anywhere near Tyne and Wear?")

Great, it sounds as though we are same wavelength.

Best wishes

[Mike Cook]

I've been looking through some articles for United Kingdom locations and I've noticed that none of them seem to use grid references to identify locations. Is this a policy decision because the equivalent system does not exist in most countries?

I've searched the Opus Discussion Forum for 'grid reference' and don't get any hits, so presumably they were never discussed.

Surely I can't be the first to think of using them. They are certainly used in the UK "Where to Watch Birds in XXX" series of books.

Best wishes

[njlarsen]

Mike, as a non-Brit, I would not have thought about it, but I cannot see anything wrong with adding information that people would use to get to a given location.

Cheers
Niels

[delia todd]

mmmm no, I don't think anyone thought of map references, Mike. As you say, though, they'd only apply to the UK sites.

We did, at one time talk about linking to Google Maps, but didn't get any further with that er... I don't think so anyway.

D

[Mike Cook]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Mike, as a non-Brit, I would not have thought about it, but I cannot see anything wrong with adding information that people would use to get to a given location.

Cheers
Niels

Thanks for the prompt reply Niels

Best wishes

[Mike Cook]

I've created a check list of birds for a couple of locations and I've been using the form [[Opus name|Local name]] so, for example, a Winter Wren is [[Winter Wren|Wren]]. This means that the entry appears as 'Wren' but when the cursor is held over it, 'Winter Wren' appears. Is this acceptible, or do I need to remove the local names?

The first article on Jesmond Dene is probably mainly of local interest. The second, Druridge Bay, might possibly be on interest to people from abroad, in which case the 'Opus name' becomes more important.

[delia todd]

Hi Mike

What I've been inclined to do (but this was a personal decision) was to use the format you described above i.e. [[Winter Wren|Wren]] in the Notable Species section but the 'proper name' only in the Check-list.

D

[Mike Cook]

Originally Posted by delia todd

What I've been inclined to do (but this was a personal decision) was to use the format you described above i.e. [[Winter Wren|Wren]] in the Notable Species section but the 'proper name' only in the Check-list.

That seems sensible to me.
Cheers Delia, both articles are now sorted out.