• 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 (1 Viewer)

I never included rarities in the checklist. It would be a difficult thing: do you add all rarities ever seen there? (eg a Great Bustard in Fanel from 18something). Or all potential rarities? (there you need some medium to tell you the future).
I don't think they should be included. A check-list in my view is a list with all birds regulary seen in the area during the year.

André
 
I'll second what Andre and delia just said about excluding rarities from the checklist section, for the following reasons:

1. The checklist is noted as "Birds you can see here." It seems to me that this is a forward-looking description, aimed at guiding future visitors to the site in question. Thus "rare but regular" belongs on the checklist, "one vagrant showed up here decades ago" doesn't.

2. The rarities have a separate section anyway.

It looks like there is some consensus on eliminating the various location tags and folding the information contained therein into the categories and overview sections. I'll try tinkering with a few of my local sites and see what the results look like.
 
Some minor questions and a larger point.

Andre mentioned above moving pages to a different title. I don't see an easy way to do this, but I'm sure I'm missing something since I've only been playing with the system for a couple of days. Any help would be appreciated.

Second question: how do we go about creating new categories and adding new categories to the front page? The front page now lists just four categories (Africa, Asia, Central America, Caribbean) before confronting the user with the legions of individual pages. It would be nice to have similar treatment for the other existing top-level categories (North America and Europe, for example). The Category: United States page currently has 49 subcategories. It needs an entry for Georgia, and the vacancy isn't because we looked for Brown Thrashers and got Caucasian Snowcock by mistake, either.

The larger point: njlarsen mentioned above that flags for rarity would be a desired feature, if a bit troublesome to program. I'll heartily second that, and suggest that what we need for these location pages is a grid similar to that found in a number of US bird-finding guides. To wit: all of the species are listed next to a timeline, with rarity information given by season. So we could have headings for each month, then options for "common, uncommon, rare, accidental" as needed.

In theory this would provide a great deal of additional information on seasonal patterns of occurance, and eliminate the numerous parentheticals in the present checklists along the lines of "rare- winter." In practice it's probably a great deal of programming effort and substantially raises the bar for the amount of patchwork needed to produce such a checklist. Comments?
 
To your first question: If you open an article you will find on the top, between history and watch move. If you click on it, you get to a page where you can give the article a new title.
If you give a new title, don't worry about links to the page. If you click on a link, you will be redirectet to the new page.

As far as I know, you can create categories by placing them to an article. I'm not sure about how they appear on the categories page.

You suggestion about the check-list sounds great. But it also sounds a hard programming work and I wonder if we could gather all this information. Even now, with the basic check-list, we have so many stub pages or even empty pages. So I'm not sure, if it's really doable.

Greetings from sunny Switzerland
André
 
André: Thanks for dealing with the only bit of JT's post that I could've answered;) :-O :-O

Are we all agreed then, that we'll strip all titles down to the site name only?

We'd need to make sure that any relevant information that has been removed was put into the body text somewhere.

Like jt I need some guidance as to how to set up different categories.:h?: I happened to be in an Italian one and clicked on the link at the bottom which brings up a list of all the Italian sites (I thought).

However at the top is "Sub Category" which has Lazio as the only entry. Click on that and it shows 3 more articles - none of which appear in the main list.

Think I need to have a lesson in this before trying to re-name anything:-O

D
 
Andre, thanks for the hint. I just experimented with the move feature and it works fine.

delia, even I think that stripping all titles is a bit excessive- there will be times when we need to preserve a few of these in the interest of clarity.
 
Ooops yes of course jt...

I should have said in accordance with Ben's guidelines:

Ben said:
My (quick) opinion is that you just use the common site name in full.

If two or more sites have the exact same common name, then you append the country in brackets afterwards (this is the normal wiki convention). Also spell out abbreviations in full (i.e. don't use "NWR" use "National Wildlife Refuge").
Click to expand...

D
 
I've just set up a skeletal category page for the US National Wildlife Refuges, since I had three in my home state and just ran into another in Nevada. Suggest that similar pages would be a good idea for other agencies that run collections of preserves (US National Parks, RSPB, WWT, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Location Titles

I've briefly scanned all posts since my last one, so if I have missed a point then just give me a nudge ;)

My view is strip all (unnecessary) info from the titles, and leave only what a site would be referred to locally, but using the full correct/official name. This might sound a bit contradictory, so let me elaborate my point with an example...

Supposing there is a site called Beautiful Lakes in the county of Greenshire, which is in a country called Treeland. Assume that the site is owned by the National Nature Trust (NNT) and is referred to by the locals as The Beauties. This site might be named:

The Beauties NNT (Greenshire, Treeland)

Since The Beauties is not the correct/official name it should be changed, as visitors are unlikely to find it listed as such in guides/maps/etc.:

Beautiful Lakes NNT (Greenshire, Treeland)

Since the site's ownership may change over time, and this information may be considered non-neutral/subjective, the ownership should be removed from the title, but inserted as a category and probably should be mentioned in the overview too (as to whether one should use the full name or its acronym for ownership... I'm of mixed opinion, but that's another issue):

Beautiful Lakes (Greenshire, Treeland)

Now if there are two or more sites listed on Opus with the exact same name, then they'll need different titles, so I'd recommend appending the differentiating text in brackets (with a space). If these multiple sites are in different countries, then just add the country name to both; if in the same country, then add just an appropriate differentiating region (i.e. the state/county). If, for example, there were three sites, and two were in the same country, then add both the region and the country to all three. However, assuming we don't have multiple sites with the exact same name, remove all geographical regions* and add them as separate categories:

Beautiful Lakes

* unless the region is an essential part of the correct/official name (e.g. London Wetlands Centre)

This site should now have categories for NNT, Greenshire, and Treeland.

What are you thoughts on this idea, and does anyone foresee any problems with it?

Another point to consider is use of common terms like:
  • State
  • County
  • Country
  • Local
  • National
  • Reserve
  • Park
  • Center/Centre
  • Nature
I think the consensus is already not to abbreviate phrases like "Local Nature Reserve", but should they even be included? In some cases they seem necessary, but in others they're superfluous. Can we achieve a balance between meaningful and concise site names, whilst maintaining consistency?
 
Bird Check List

The check list is something that has the potential to be over-engineered - there's just so many possible and useful things that could be done with it, but they would generally involve technical changes. For the time being, I'd suggest sticking to the existing type of list for editing purposes. We should be more concerned with what information is included, rather than how it's presented.

I think the consensus here is only include species which are typical (and current!) annual visitors to a site, thus removing the time-of-year aspect of the problem, and producing a useful check list for visitors. I think we should be aiming for articles targeted towards potential infrequent visitors who are curious to learn about a site, rather than aiming for producing a scientific report that documents all sightings for a site's regular birders. Brief details of rarities should be included in the rarities subsection, and the same might go for less frequently occurring species that aren't quite up to that site's rarity status, but are highly unlikely to be seen in several typical visits.

As a rough guide, authors might like to consider whether or not a competent birder would be likely to record a particular species if they visited the site frequently throughout the next year (based on recent trends). So if a scarce species was present last year, but hadn't been present in the previous years, then it probably shouldn't be included in the check list (yet). It's open to discussion as to whether a small number of sightings every year might constitute a place on the check list for sites that are well watched!?

What do others think?
 
Two difficult posers for us at this time of night Ben;) (second post first - still thinking on the first one:-O )

Most of the 'good' articles cover the time of year under Notable Species and I've been trying to break up the paragraphs to reflect this - Passage Migrants, Resident Breeders etc

I think the Rarities should only appear in that section - not the Check-list; but the Check-list should include all the regular birds that are there throughout the year.

hmmm... reluctant to suggest that the Check-list could be broken up into 'Resident', 'Spring', 'Summer', 'Autumn' and 'Winter'.... who's going to sort the existing ones?:eek!: I haven't the knowledge:-O It would look better though and be an easier read.

D
 
delia todd said:
hmmm... reluctant to suggest that the Check-list could be broken up into 'Resident', 'Spring', 'Summer', 'Autumn' and 'Winter'.... who's going to sort the existing ones?:eek!: I haven't the knowledge:-O It would look better though and be an easier read.
Click to expand...
I'm for keeping the check list as one.

For species mentioned in the check list, it should be pretty obvious from the site's location, whether or not there's a chance of seeing a species at a given time of year. (Migration range is better left to the species entry, rather than in the locations entry, right?)
 
Ben M said:
I've briefly scanned all posts since my last one, so if I have missed a point then just give me a nudge ;)

My view is strip all (unnecessary) info from the titles, and leave only what a site would be referred to locally, but using the full correct/official name. This might sound a bit contradictory, so let me elaborate my point with an example...

Supposing there is a site called Beautiful Lakes in the county of Greenshire, which is in a country called Treeland. Assume that the site is owned by the National Nature Trust (NNT) and is referred to by the locals as The Beauties. This site might be named:

The Beauties NNT (Greenshire, Treeland)

Since The Beauties is not the correct/official name it should be changed, as visitors are unlikely to find it listed as such in guides/maps/etc.:

Beautiful Lakes NNT (Greenshire, Treeland)

Since the site's ownership may change over time, and this information may be considered non-neutral/subjective, the ownership should be removed from the title, but inserted as a category and probably should be mentioned in the overview too (as to whether one should use the full name or its acronym for ownership... I'm of mixed opinion, but that's another issue):

Beautiful Lakes (Greenshire, Treeland)

Now if there are two or more sites listed on Opus with the exact same name, then they'll need different titles, so I'd recommend appending the differentiating text in brackets (with a space). If these multiple sites are in different countries, then just add the country name to both; if in the same country, then add just an appropriate differentiating region (i.e. the state/county). If, for example, there were three sites, and two were in the same country, then add both the region and the country to all three. However, assuming we don't have multiple sites with the exact same name, remove all geographical regions* and add them as separate categories:

Beautiful Lakes

* unless the region is an essential part of the correct/official name (e.g. London Wetlands Centre)

This site should now have categories for NNT, Greenshire, and Treeland.

What are you thoughts on this idea, and does anyone foresee any problems with it?

Another point to consider is use of common terms like:
  • State
  • County
  • Country
  • Local
  • National
  • Reserve
  • Park
  • Center/Centre
  • Nature
I think the consensus is already not to abbreviate phrases like "Local Nature Reserve", but should they even be included? In some cases they seem necessary, but in others they're superfluous. Can we achieve a balance between meaningful and concise site names, whilst maintaining consistency?
Click to expand...

Yep, I think I'm with you there Ben.

I don't really think there's a problem with using RSPB, I think that's known generally world-wide (just waiting now for someone to prove me wrong:-O )

By Category... do you mean adding [[Category:RSPB]] at the bottom? I'm not really sure how this works as I got in a muddle trying to do one.

D
 
Ben M said:
Since the site's ownership may change over time, and this information may be considered non-neutral/subjective, the ownership should be removed from the title, but inserted as a category and probably should be mentioned in the overview too (as to whether one should use the full name or its acronym for ownership... I'm of mixed opinion, but that's another issue):
Click to expand...

Mentioned in the overview and inserted into categories, I absolutely agree.

I would like to disagree about ownership in the titles. I think this is a bit of Anglo-American cultural difference, as so many more of the American sites are public land that it seems both entirely natural and a straight statement of fact to place "National Park", "National Wildlife Refuge," etc. in the title. Change of ownership is rather less likely than with private organizations...

Agree that categories for RSPB, etc. are a good idea. It took me a couple of tries to get this right. I think the trick is to add a line of descriptive text when creating the new category, otherwise it will default back to "this page has not been created yet." As an example I just set up an as yet mostly fragmentary category for the National Wildlife Refuges.
 
I have been lurking a little here lately, but just one question: is there a coherent explanation for how to use categories anywhere? in other words, going beyond placing a tag in a line of an entry to indicate that it belongs to a category, what else needs to be done to actually have the parent category page? and can a page duplicate as a category page and one with meaningfull description? In other words, could a location description of a country at the same time be the category page for the individual locations?

thanks
Niels
 
I do agree with Ben about the titles, just the blank name of the site. In most countries I visited (and this is excluding the US), the ownership of a site is rarely mentioned and sometimes even not known. Unless the site is widely know with the ownership in its name, it shouldn't be there.

I'm a bit confused about the check-list. I think that passage migrants should be included, as long as they are regular visitors. I guess birders know that their hobby is time-related and that you can't expect to see the same amount of birds or the same species at a visit in May or in July.

André
 
I'm completely lost with how Categories work.

For instance... select 'E' in Locations and there's a 'Sub Category' for Europe.

Click on that and you get all the European countries come up (at least I think they're all there not really checked LOL)

But where has 'Europe' come from?

And, if a 'new' country was to be added to Europe :-O how would you get it included?

More confusingly... click on 'I' and you get sub categories of Lazio (Italy) and Middle East but not Italy.

Some of the Italian articles are:

just Italy... others are ... Italy and Sardinia / Sicily.

Can someone give me a lesson on this:gh:

D
 
delia todd said:
And, if a 'new' country was to be added to Europe :-O how would you get it included?

D
Click to expand...

I think this happens automatically, although I'm not quite sure how.

I just tested the missing Georgia category I mentioned above, setting up a very brief stub for a location with a nesting colony of that typical southeastern pinewoods bird, the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. When I wrote [[Category: Georgia]] into the listing alongside stubs and locations, it automatically created a category under [[Category: Europe]]. I just edited that to the proper [[Category: United States]]; when we add locations near Tblisi in the Caucasus we'll need some kind of disambiguation page. Wikipedia adopts "Georgia (country)" vs. "Georgia (U.S. state)" which seems sensible enough.

Now, what I'd really like to know is how to add categories to the main Category: Locations page. Both Africa and Europe are high-level subcategories directly underneath this page, but only the first actually appears on the main portal. I might add that the search function does not handle categories well. For these kind of large searches, a category is really a much better result than a page text match, and yet Category:Europe is only accessible from the individual subpages, not from a general search.
 
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.

Similar threads

G
It's Not All About Pricing
Replies
0
Views
586
gr8fuldoug
G
Mysticete
How do you keep your lifelist, and what is included?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
4K
temmie
temmie
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars. Part 2 first anniversary
Replies
2
Views
606
Scott98
S
G
It's all about you Everyday at Camera Land
Replies
0
Views
532
gr8fuldoug
G
S
Ecuador, Mindo & Antisana - August 2023
Replies
3
Views
1K
Shumi
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top