How would we feel about a 'Status' category in 'Contents' linked to the www.arkive.org database?
See Blue-capped Kingfisher
The link could be in Red
Tom
See Blue-capped Kingfisher
The link could be in Red
Tom
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Species Status Link? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tom Tarrant
- Start date
jthoppes
spectacled spiderhunter
A status category is a good idea that has some problems with implementation.
A quick look at the arkive's birds category reveals only four hundred or so species, and the designations are a mix of things from various of the Red Lists. (A few clicks found examples from 2002, 2003, and 2006 classifications.)
If we're going to do this, we should link to the database at BirdLife International, which 1. covers everything and 2. is updated regularly. I believe that this has been proposed once before, and it was mentioned that BirdLife uses a different taxonomy from our standard.
Last edited:
Hi jt,
Tried to check out Birdlife and found it difficult to find individual species (admittedly there seemed to be a problem at the time with our broadband connection!....will look at your link shortly, but am at work at the moment.)
I wondered if by using arkive you would have a 'smaller' amount of work to do, then entering every species.
I don't think that using different classifications should be a huge problem, I've been transferring from the Orientalbirdimage database without major difficulties, get the occasional anomaly but should be able to work around.
Just a thought (...or two)
Tom
jthoppes
spectacled spiderhunter
I would support that if we should add links to red-lists, we should use Birdlife as that is the Red-listing authority. I would like to get some feedback from the moderators of Birdforum on that issue before we start doing it, it would be major work I fear. But even more importantly, are we sure that we can make it in a way so that the designation is always up to date? some species change their status every year, and if information has to be manually updated every year, then it probably does become too burdensome.
If we do it, I would support not doing anything about the least concern species.
Niels
If we do it, I would support not doing anything about the least concern species.
Niels
Hi Niels,
Another good point, although if we only 'linked' to the 'concerned' or above at least we are drawing some attention to them, as for maintaining it....that's something else. I still quite like the idea of the link to the www.arkive.org site, that seems to well maintained.
Anyone else with feedback?
Tom
Last edited:
For some of the Caribbean birds I have added a heading titled Conservation Concern and given a few details. I realize that I would not be able to something similar to the rest of the world, I dont know enough about the other species and what threatens them. But for those species where you have the knowledge, that is a possibility I think.
Niels
Niels
Nice idea, will think about this over the weekend.
Just to show one, http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Yellow-shouldered_Blackbird. A search for Puerto Rican Parrot should show a different one.
Niels
Niels
Glen Tepke
Oceanodroma
I think putting conservation status and a link to the corresponding species account on the BirdLife International site is a great idea. I've been doing that in my own photo gallery, for example:
http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/blackcapped_petrel
I think the value of helping draw attention to threatened species and conservation issues outweighs the problem of keeping the conservation status up to date. One way to get around that problem is to not list the actual status, but to use a more generic phrase, such as "This species is rated as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened by BirdLife International. More information.", where "More information" is a hyperlink to the species account on the BirdLife site. That way, the only species that would become out of date are those few that are downlisted to Least Concern (or are uplisted to Extinct).
As for Arkive vs. Birdlife, I took a look at the Arkive site, and it is very nice, but it looks like they do not yet have species accounts for many listed species, and they are relying on BirdLife for their status info, so you might as well go to the source and use BirdLife.
I don't have any answers for the volume of work - looking up the species on the BirdLife site and creating the link is pretty tedious. I could do a few but can't take on a major project. But I don't agree with jthoppes' statement that "there's not really any point in doing this unless we list everything." Even if you add only one link, and only one person clicks the link, if that person becomes more concerned with conservation issues, you have accomplished something positive.
Glen
http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/blackcapped_petrel
I think the value of helping draw attention to threatened species and conservation issues outweighs the problem of keeping the conservation status up to date. One way to get around that problem is to not list the actual status, but to use a more generic phrase, such as "This species is rated as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened by BirdLife International. More information.", where "More information" is a hyperlink to the species account on the BirdLife site. That way, the only species that would become out of date are those few that are downlisted to Least Concern (or are uplisted to Extinct).
As for Arkive vs. Birdlife, I took a look at the Arkive site, and it is very nice, but it looks like they do not yet have species accounts for many listed species, and they are relying on BirdLife for their status info, so you might as well go to the source and use BirdLife.
I don't have any answers for the volume of work - looking up the species on the BirdLife site and creating the link is pretty tedious. I could do a few but can't take on a major project. But I don't agree with jthoppes' statement that "there's not really any point in doing this unless we list everything." Even if you add only one link, and only one person clicks the link, if that person becomes more concerned with conservation issues, you have accomplished something positive.
Glen
Glen Tepke
Oceanodroma
I don't think that you implied that increased conservation is bad. Agreed that ideally you would have links for every listed species, but it will take time to get there. Other aspects of Opus, such as a consistent template and consistent method of linking to the Gallery are being gradually implemented, with various species pages at various stages of development. You can't expect the conservation status to be any different. My only point is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Glen
Glen
Last edited:
Thanks for your input Glen, I really like your idea....just wonder what the general consensus would be. I don't mind adding them (....when the chance arises!)
How would editors feel if the links were in red rather than blue?
Tom
Sample link
I've just edited in a sample link based on Glen's own example on the Bornean Ground Cuckoo page
Please let me know if you think we should proceed, and any changes to the formatting, wording etc that you would like to see (if it is accepted)
Tom
I've just edited in a sample link based on Glen's own example on the Bornean Ground Cuckoo page
Please let me know if you think we should proceed, and any changes to the formatting, wording etc that you would like to see (if it is accepted)
Tom
Hi Tom,
the red font color might be a little close to the orange one that in opus generally signals broken link, so I don't think I personally like that.
I wonder if we could find a shorter descriptor for the rating, e.g., "Birdlife international expresses concern over the concervation status of this species [link more information]". (Hmmm, is this really shorter ? )
Now that I looked at the account, I also did a little edit of the Taxonomy part: I added '' '' around the scientific names to produce italic, and tried to make it more clear that the whole thing was a quote from the link you gave. See if that helped.
Cheers
Niels
the red font color might be a little close to the orange one that in opus generally signals broken link, so I don't think I personally like that.
I wonder if we could find a shorter descriptor for the rating, e.g., "Birdlife international expresses concern over the concervation status of this species [link more information]". (Hmmm, is this really shorter ? )
Now that I looked at the account, I also did a little edit of the Taxonomy part: I added '' '' around the scientific names to produce italic, and tried to make it more clear that the whole thing was a quote from the link you gave. See if that helped.
Cheers
Niels
I changed the colour to green... what do you think?
D
D
Hi Delia and Niels,
Understand your concern over the Red color but still think it's the best way of bringing it to readers attention (.....and someone close to me supports that!)
Would be nice if we could get the views of other Opus users.....
Meanwhile I might continue with green.
I do agree that the italicized fonts works on the Taxonomy, will implement that in future,
Tom
Don't worry about me Tom, I just did it to see what it would look like. Wonder if you can make it Bold, that way it would show up better and be quite different to the orange ones.... so could go back to red.
Sorry waffled there:-O
D
Birdforum would like to keep the opus project as 'in house' and 'on-site' as possible rather than linking to other sites. The status of a species can be included in the article.
cheers,
Andy
cheers,
Andy
Similar threads
- Locked
