• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Template/format for all locations (2 Viewers)

I didn't see a Yorkshire category in the one I edited

Forget I said that bit will you please:girl:

I think it looks great - but we'll see what others have to say.

The only other issue is Neils comment on the 'Check List'. It would look better I agree in, say, 3 columns but...

D
 
neils said:
There is a acronym under external links for RSPB, I assume that is a link that should be added.

I just added RSPB in to show what sort of thing would go in there.

We haven't got 'Nearby sites' positioned yet?

D
 
An update to the categories thing...

I've managed to get the type of behaviour I was aiming for:

Go to the Blacktoft Sands entry
Clicking the Yorkshire category at the bottom will go to the category page for Yorkshire which lists all entries with Yorkshire as a category (just two sites at the mo').
The content of this Yorkshire category page can be edited, so I put a link to the main Yorkshire article here. It doesn't seem possible to add categories to category pages though, so I can't add England as a category to the Yorkshire category page (only to the main Yorkshire article).

I've added a "List of Yorkshire sites" link to the main Yorkshire article using:
[[:Category:Yorkshire|List of Yorkshire Sites]]
(note the initial colon)
This will make it easier to list sites within an area from the main article for that area (i.e. Yorkshire sites from the Yorkshire entry).
 
Well done Ben:clap:

I'm not sure what you've done or how and am still trying to work it out!

Rather confused as to why there's four sites listed on one page and only two on the other:h?: but no doubt I'll get there in the end

D
 
Sorted RSPB link.

Well done that looks better

Ben said:
How do we define nearby and sites?

I'm not sure we need to 'define' them really. It would depend on the circumstances or the article I'd think.

For instance an RSPB reserve may be not far from a WWT one - Pulborough Brooks RSPB and Arundel WWT and both not far from Pagham Harbour.

I'd leave this to whoever is doing the article??

D
 
Well done Ben:clap:

I'm not sure what you've done or how and am still trying to work it out!

Rather confused as to why there's four sites listed on one page and only two on the other:h?: but no doubt I'll get there in the end

D
In the main Yorkshire article the sites are listed directly in the article... whereas the category listing is all sites with "Yorkshire" as a category (i.e. the list is generated automatically). To add sites to the automatic list then just edit them and add "Yorkshire" as a category.

I guess this makes listing the sites manually in the main article redundant. However, they could be mentioned and linked in the discussion text (e.g. "Yorkshire is renowned for its breeding population of X, which are almost entirely located at [[Blacktoft Sands]].").
 
Just looking at what's been done since yesterday...I think the page is starting to look good.
I too like the idea of a printable checklist but don't know how to put one in.

Where is the link to google maps going to go?
 
Where is the link to google maps going to go?
Probably depends on whether it's embedded into the page (i.e appears like an image would) or not. If not then external links seems like the best place.

With regards to nearby sites... I think this is best left to the reader to decide from a (Google?) map. What I was alluding to earlier is that "nearby" and "site" are very subjective. I might consider a small wood within walking distance a nearby site, but not consider a large reserve which is 30-minutes away by car. Someone else might consider the opposite.
 
Sorry... I'm rather at odds with you two on this :C

It surely depends on the circumstances and terrain as to where is 'nearby'

Loch of the Lowes to Killiecrankie is more than 20 miles

Montrose to Fowleshaugh is too

But they are 'near' each other in Scottish miles;)

Ten miles up here and you wouldn't get anything else.

I can't see why we're getting bogged down with the 'nitty-gritty' of this - why not leave it to the author of the article. They only need to provide a link if it's already on Opus.

D
 
... why not leave it to the author of the article. ...
Out of curiosity, are you envisioning that articles will be mainly written by one author, or by contributions from several authors?

Of course, entries are initially created by one author, but my thoughts were towards the latter - that Opus entries are collaboratively authored.

What does everyone else think?
 
Out of curiosity, are you envisioning that articles will be mainly written by one author, or by contributions from several authors?

Of course, entries are initially created by one author, but my thoughts were towards the latter - that Opus entries are collaboratively authored.

What does everyone else think?

er.. well my thinking was if anyone was going to add 'nearby sites' they'd probably know the area and what was feasible - wouldn't they?

Well at least I wouldn't attempt to do it for an area I didn't know.

D
 
er.. well my thinking was if anyone was going to add 'nearby sites' they'd probably know the area and what was feasible - wouldn't they?

Well at least I wouldn't attempt to do it for an area I didn't know.

D
Well I was meaning more generally in my last post...

My problem with "Nearby Sites" maybe just something personal to me... suppose I want to visit a site and I see on its Opus entry that there are a few "nearby sites"... I think "great, I can visit them all in a day". but I arrive there to find that I can't visit them all in a day on foot.

Maybe list the nearest sites of interest along with the approximate walking and driving distance?
 
Out of curiosity, are you envisioning that articles will be mainly written by one author, or by contributions from several authors?

Of course, entries are initially created by one author, but my thoughts were towards the latter - that Opus entries are collaboratively authored.

What does everyone else think?

I'm expecting the articles to evolve through the input of various authors. But having the template to keep to..so that a uniform 'house style' is maintained across the platform.
 
I think having a format is certainly a useful idea although it shouldn't be too restrictive and should allow flexibility. What comes to mind are as follows:-

Title/Place name

Introduction/Overview

Access Details

Key Points (e.g. scope essential, disturbance, etc)

Likely Birds
All year/Summer (months x - y)/Winter (months y - x)/Migration/Wet season/Dry season (as applies)

Background information & tips (inc Itineraries)

Non-avian attractions

Reading

Contacts

Within the descriptive texts I'd also advocate that bird names should be highlighted so you can more easily pick out 'target species',

John
 
Hi John

Thanks for that comment.

Within the descriptive texts I'd also advocate that bird names should be highlighted so you can more easily pick out 'target species',

We are adressing this, but it's a long job which you could help with.

All you need to do is Edit then put [[ ]] round each bird name, this will then make it a clickable link.

D
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top