Template/format for all bird species (1 Viewer)

[Andy Bright]

I'm going to post a definitive format for all bird species that we hope everyone will stick to e.g.

;scientific name for species

==Identification==
==Distribution==
==Taxonomy==
==Habitat==
==Behaviour==
==External Links==

[[Category:Birds]]


With these placed in the main edit box for the species in the ==xxxxx== format, it will produce edit tabs for each.
Basically, go to Rasmus's excellent http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Channel-billed_Toucan and follow his lead.
cheers,
Andy

 

[Green Fields]

Using this page to create your page will now automatically include the above template....

http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Help:CreatePage

 

[njlarsen]

I have followed the call and added some information to some of the species I know. However, it is not always that I feel that I have enough knowledge to add in all the above categories, so I have not added them. Should there be a way to flag portions of a description as missing? Currently, there is a flag for "Stub" or completely empty; hopefully down the line these will be eradicated, and editing could move on to looking for missing info.

cheers
Niels

 

[Andy Bright]

My original post wasn't quite as definitive as I'd hoped
Just to note. Personally, when putting a new template for a bird species in, I have dropped the rather vague ==description== part, as this was somewhat redundant with an identification block.
I have also separated distribution and taxonomy.
So it is currently.
==Identification==
==Distribution==
==Taxonomy==
==Habitat==
==Behaviour==
==External Links==

 

[Kits]

Andy - on some of the pages I am doing, I have found messages left by posters who have seen the bird or have something to say about it. Am not sure where those comments should go, so have added a ==Comments== before ==External Links==. Is that ok or is there some other way you would prefer it?

 

[Ben M]

Andy - on some of the pages I am doing, I have found messages left by posters who have seen the bird or have something to say about it. Am not sure where those comments should go, so have added a ==Comments== before ==External Links==. Is that ok or is there some other way you would prefer it?

We're having a similar issue with the locations, where we're moving reviews under a final ==Reviews== heading for now. I guess the general value and neutrality of this information can be debated at a later date.

 

[njlarsen]

My original post wasn't quite as definitive as I'd hoped
Just to note. Personally, when putting a new template for a bird species in, I have dropped the rather vague ==description== part, as this was somewhat redundant with an identification block.
I have also separated distribution and taxonomy.
So it is currently.
==Identification==
==Distribution==
==Taxonomy==
==Habitat==
==Behaviour==
==External Links==

I think the Distribution and Taxonomy tags sometimes fit better together; I think it should be left to the author to deside if they go together or separate. For example, I edited the entry for Puerto Rican Emerald yesterday, and the combined info for the combined tag was six words; separating them out to two tags would be overkill to my mind.

Niels

 

[njlarsen]

One more thing: I hope that I sometimes can be forgiven for adding one more tag: ==Concervation Concerns==.

I have done that for some of the species that are endangered or even critically endangered. If Opus will end up being used as a source of information by a relatively wide range of people, then it would be a pity not to include these concerns and a couple of words on for example Habitat loss where it is appropriate. See for example the description of White-breasted Thrasher http://www.birdforum.net/opus/White-breasted_Thrasher that I just submitted.

thanks
Niels

 

[Kits]

Ah, I have put Conservation concerns under Identification, and included information about habitat loss under Habitat.

 

[jocateme]

All the articles I've been editing were like this:

==Description==
Colours, size, physical characteristics

==Identification==
Lookalike birds, possible mistakes

==Distribution==
Range
==Taxonomy==
Subspecies, splits etc.

==Habitat==
Type of habitat

==Behaviour==
Diet, typical behaviour, reproduction etc.

==External Links==
GSearch

I think having both Description and Identification is not redundant. Just see the famous and excellent Channel-billed Toucan article by Rasmus. The Description part, as well as Distribution and Taxonomy parts split (as Niels mentioned), could be left to the author to decide.

In this Black Vulture article I've made, I pointed charactersitics (later with information added by Rasmus) to tell Black and Turkey Vultures apart, while in Description I wrote about colours and overall features.

Cheers

 

[njlarsen]

I thought I had seen a discussion about names in other languages etc. somewhere, but I cannot seem to find it. Is it OK for species entries to contain these, or should they be deleted?

Niels

 

[KC Foggin]

Was it this thread Niels? Down towards the bottom of the thread.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=85929

 

[njlarsen]

Thanks KC,
but that was not what I was hinting at. The case is that I came across an entry with names listed in German, French, and Spanish. I am reluctant to delete anything that someone else used time on entering, but do they belong here? there is a quite complete-looking listing of that in Avibase already.

thanks
Niels

 

[delia todd]

Thanks KC,
but that was not what I was hinting at. The case is that I came across an entry with names listed in German, French, and Spanish. I am reluctant to delete anything that someone else used time on entering, but do they belong here? there is a quite complete-looking listing of that in Avibase already.

thanks
Niels

Hi Niels

I find the AKA very helpful. As I'm sure 'furriner's' would if the bird they were looking for came up in their language (don't forget non-members may be googling)

Not everyone knows about Avibase and I can't get the alternative names in there (see my thread in the Computers forum).

I'm doing Re-directs (where possible) for local names but it's not always possible

D

 

[njlarsen]

I will leave it in then. If there is a lot of it, then maybe it should have its own heading ... (one of those that only get added if need be)

Niels

 

[delia todd]

I will leave it in then. If there is a lot of it, then maybe it should have its own heading ... (one of those that only get added if need be)

Niels

Yes, I think it's own heading would be useful, you'd know where to look for it then; at the moment they seem to appear 'anywhere' in the article.

D

 

[njlarsen]

Where should a reference go if someone feels that one is needed? I did put one into the entry for Mountain Pygmy Owl [http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Mountain_Pygmy_Owl ], but is it in the right position?

thanks
Niels

 

[Ben M]

Where should a reference go if someone feels that one is needed? I did put one into the entry for Mountain Pygmy Owl [http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Mountain_Pygmy_Owl ], but is it in the right position?

thanks
Niels

I've no strong personal opinion on this (yet!), only that an author should always cite their sources |=)|

A quick search of the current entries shows that the plural "References" is preferred over the singular "Reference", but there is a mixed use of heading levels (i.e. using ===References=== or ==References==).

Gibraltar and California seem to be the only two locations that have these headings, each adopting a different style for the actual reference. Whilst posting a link to the source on Amazon might be useful, its not in line with the neutral point of view philosophy. Personally, I prefer the reference style of the Gibraltar entry, as it's much more journal-like. Although, I'd add an ISBN!

 

[jthoppes]

I've no strong personal opinion on this (yet!), only that an author should always cite their sources |=)|

A quick search of the current entries shows that the plural "References" is preferred over the singular "Reference", but there is a mixed use of heading levels (i.e. using ===References=== or ==References==).

Gibraltar and California seem to be the only two locations that have these headings, each adopting a different style for the actual reference. Whilst posting a link to the source on Amazon might be useful, its not in line with the neutral point of view philosophy. Personally, I prefer the reference style of the Gibraltar entry, as it's much more journal-like. Although, I'd add an ISBN!

I just edited for conformity, and was pleasantly surprised to note that adding an ISBN automatically links to a searchform at a Special:Booksources page.

 

[Ben M]

I just edited for conformity, and was pleasantly surprised to note that adding an ISBN automatically links to a searchform at a Special:Booksources page.

Excellent - that's a great little feature!

It should also mean that opus authors/editors shouldn't have to concern themselves with the problem of these external links breaking in the future |=)|