• 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 bird species (1 Viewer)

We learned in this thread that opus (rightly) disallows photos of captive birds.

For extinct and endangered species, what is our policy on photos of specimens (eg, here) and models? (not meaning to start a flame war, but here) Do these still deserve the "Missing Images" tag, since neither has a photo of a live bird?
 
Last edited:
While I'm asking questions of minor importance: what's our policy on non-English diacritical marks? I just revised the titles of some tapaculos that were illegible because the software had choked on various Spanish diacriticals. I tried to follow the AOU which eliminates most of these things.
 
Last question first: In my thread on Taxonomic policy recently, Rasmus actually argued that we should use spellings in Gill & Wright if a need to change a species name arose. None of these does have Spanish special letters, and I think it might in the long run be as bad to have any of those in a title as if it was & etc.

Regarding the names with OR, I agree with you: move the page to a page with only one of the two names in the title, and add an AKA statement in the page itself with the other name.

I am probably not the correct person to answer the question about the specimens, but if this is allowed, I think it is important that the caption includes the location of the specimen, e.g., which museum. Also, I could envision copyright issues with some of these?

Niels
 
That seems entirely reasonable. I'll grab my copy of Gill and Wright and set off into the undergrowth of alternative Amazonian flycatcher names.

Agree on indicating location of museum specimens. The problems I had imagined were not so much copyright as permission to photograph. (Since I imagine we will be using members' photos rather than simply grabbing images from the wider web.)
 
I think it might in the long run be as bad to have any of those in a title as if it was & etc.

A second thought on spelling: I agree on species names, where we have Gill and Wright and other checklists to fall back on as a standard English-language reference. However, we are going to have to live with a bunch of these things in the location entries, where no such standardization can possibly exist...
 
A second thought on spelling: I agree on species names, where we have Gill and Wright and other checklists to fall back on as a standard English-language reference. However, we are going to have to live with a bunch of these things in the location entries, where no such standardization can possibly exist...

I still think there could be a problem in allowing special characters in names of pages. Not everyone will sit at a keyboard where they know how to make a character like æ, ø, or å, just to take a few of those that happen to be on my keyboard. The search engine in Opus is not good at handling spellings that are slightly off, so at least make a redirect with the most natural spelling that does only contain English characters.

Re the thing with museum specimens, I did express myself clumsily, it would be permission to photograph that would be the issue.

Niels
 
I still think there could be a problem in allowing special characters in names of pages. Not everyone will sit at a keyboard where they know how to make a character like æ, ø, or å, just to take a few of those that happen to be on my keyboard. The search engine in Opus is not good at handling spellings that are slightly off, so at least make a redirect with the most natural spelling that does only contain English characters.

Very well then. Expect a minor series of "Troublesome Place Names" threads.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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