Template/format for all locations (3 Viewers)

[njlarsen]

Re Ben:
Objectivity is something to aspire to, but it may actually be impossible to achieve! You can come with objective information about a site, like how many species have been identified here within the last ten years, or whatever; however, anything about whether you have good views or bad views will be colored by individual writers personal opinion, and by the readers personal understanding of what constitutes a good view. However, I think it is important in this context to note that the only person who never makes any errors is the person who never does anything at all, and that even if objectivity is a goal made in Utopia, it is still better if you are aware of most of your personal biases and do something instead of being inactive!

One of your questions is about what to do with counties vs countries. Where I live, the whole country is smaller than one of your counties; this is not a critique of you, just a way of saying that we have to use common sense with regards to which entries makes sense, and which is concerned with entities that are too big, so that no common thing can reasonably be stated about them.

Maybe more constructive than these general considerations, if you click Opus, then Locations, you will be taken to a page with categories. There are some that are very high order (e.g., South America), and a lot that are lower order (single park or location). Whenever you are working on a unit that is a sublocation under any of the ones listed, you probably should use the "category" tag to make that clear. I also agree that the selection of top location categories at the moment is incomplete/unlogical.

Cheers
Niels

 

[Ben M]

As I have asked here, I just don't know when to create the location article and when not. I was hoping someone could answer me which articles may be created and which not. I'll use the same example: should I create an article about Brazil, or should I create one about Pantanal, another one about Amazonia and another one about Brazilian savannah? I guess I haven't expressed my thoughts very well, but I think you got it.

Cheers

Thanks João,

Hopefully the discussion here will quickly converge into a decision, so we can get to work editing.

Ben.

 

[Ben M]

Re Ben:
Objectivity is something to aspire to, but it may actually be impossible to achieve! You can come with objective information about a site, like how many species have been identified here within the last ten years, or whatever; however, anything about whether you have good views or bad views will be colored by individual writers personal opinion, and by the readers personal understanding of what constitutes a good view. However, I think it is important in this context to note that the only person who never makes any errors is the person who never does anything at all, and that even if objectivity is a goal made in Utopia, it is still better if you are aware of most of your personal biases and do something instead of being inactive!

One of your questions is about what to do with counties vs countries. Where I live, the whole country is smaller than one of your counties; this is not a critique of you, just a way of saying that we have to use common sense with regards to which entries makes sense, and which is concerned with entities that are too big, so that no common thing can reasonably be stated about them.

Maybe more constructive than these general considerations, if you click Opus, then Locations, you will be taken to a page with categories. There are some that are very high order (e.g., South America), and a lot that are lower order (single park or location). Whenever you are working on a unit that is a sublocation under any of the ones listed, you probably should use the "category" tag to make that clear. I also agree that the selection of top location categories at the moment is incomplete/unlogical.

Cheers
Niels

I think objectivity is achievable with good editing... whether that happens here is another story... mainly it will be difficult because of the vast quantity of information. With regards to the reviews... I don't like to "destroy" what could essentially be useful information, but there's no doubt that reviews are very subjective and for the more popular sites they will clog the entries. One way to deal with this might be to keep them somewhere else, and overview the generally accepted points from all reviews. But this is something we should probably only consider after solving the other issues! For now, I'd downgrade the headings under reviews (i.e. add an extra set of = to them) and put them all under a level 1 heading "Reviews".

As for the points you make on counties and countries... I couldn't agree more |=)| One approach is to go for areas that many birders have a list for. For example, sites, counties, states, countries, etc. are put into some form of hierarchy (without getting too messy) by adding the next level up as a category to each, where appropriate.

So sites in a UK county have the county as a category, UK counties have the country, countries have UK or more probably British Isles?, do birders treat US states in the same way as UK counties? In smaller countries, the "county/state" level is just left out.

Then... we have an entry for each area, be it a site, county, state, country, etc. that overviews the area, maybe with pointers to the more notable sites? For now, I suggest we go no higher than the country level.

It's not perfect, but it seems like a reasonable compromise |=)|

 

[Ben M]

Naming of site entries

My* current thoughts on naming of site entries:

1. Name using just the common, but full name of a site, capitalizing the first letter of each new word (except words like "of", "and", etc.). In other words, don't add the county/country by default.
2. If names clash (i.e. two physically different sites with the same name then add a disambiguation term in brackets to the end of both site names. Preferably the next level location name (e.g. add the full UK county name to a UK site if the sites are in different UK counties... if both sites are in the same next level location, then go to the one after that such as the country, etc.).
3. Do not include ownership in the name (i.e. leave out RSPB, WWT, etc.).
4. Do not abbreviate terms like "Nature Reserve" to "NR" and "Country Park" to "CP".
5. Translate any non-English characters in names to their most visibly-similar English character equivalent (e.g. "ä" to "a").

What do you agree/disagree on?

Should naming of entries for other locations (i.e. counties, states, countries, etc.) will probably follow a similar approach?
* I don't want to take credit here... my thoughts may be based on discussion with (or posts written by) others |=)|

 

[delia todd]

Hi Ben

4) and 5) Agree

1-3 gone away to think

D

 

[Keith Dickinson]

Hi Ben
1,2, 3, and 5 in total aggreement.

4 I'd go further and not allow any abbreviations of any type, not even the obvious ones we use all the time. Just 'cos we use it, someone on the other side of the world may not know what it meant.

I'd definitely keep the same format for each level of entry, that way when the editor is looking at new posts, any inconsistencies stand out, while for the novice user the format can be learnt quickly.

 

[Ben M]

Do not include ownership in the name (i.e. leave out RSPB, WWT, etc.).

My reasoning behind this point is that sites do change ownership. If a site S is owned by O, then naming it something like "S O Reserve" means that it's linked to as that. If it changes ownership, it needs renaming so all current links will break. A redirect fixes this, but why patch up what doesn't have to break in the first place? The current ownership can easily be mentioned in the text of the entry and a category of it can be added/removed without effecting anything else.

 

[Keith Dickinson]

See what you mean Ben. That has arisen once already with one of the Scots reserves, originally listed as RSPB but it wasa given up by the RSPB several years ago.

 

[delia todd]

Basically it comes down to:

What people are going to search for and how they want to use Opus.

If you were planning a trip abroad and maybe staying in Delhi - you'd want to know what birding sites are around there (well I would LOL)

If you thought it an idea to go to Africa but weren't sure which country....

If I want to see a particular bird... where can I see it?

These are the sort of things (I feel) that we should be trying to address, or am I way off beam?????

Then we could decide how the page titles should be named.

Just my two-penn'th

D

 

[delia todd]

Thinking again

I suppose they could start their search in Information Wanted, where they could then be directed to the various pages of Opus for specific information about the different sites in the area.

Ah! Perhaps light is beginning to dawn on this (at last you might say:'D )

D

 

[Ben M]

Basically it comes down to:

What people are going to search for and how they want to use Opus.

If you were planning a trip abroad and maybe staying in Delhi - you'd want to know what birding sites are around there (well I would LOL)

If you thought it an idea to go to Africa but weren't sure which country....

If I want to see a particular bird... where can I see it?

These are the sort of things (I feel) that we should be trying to address, or am I way off beam?????

Then we could decide how the page titles should be named.

Just my two-penn'th

D

My thoughts...

Totally agree, but that's where the conflict starts, because Opus isn't really a database in the strict sense, and therefore such fine detailed searches cannot be performed easily without adding lots of structured information to entries.

Here are some possible use cases:
What sites are near to Leeds? Click on locations, search for Leeds, assuming there is no Leeds entry (and no other results from directions in other entries).... Assuming I know it's in England (but don't know it's in Yorkshire), I click England, get a list of counties in England... I'm stuck. I Google to find out that Leeds is in Yorkshire. I click Yorkshire and get the Yorkshire page. On that page there could be a category link that will list all the sites in Yorkshire. I click it, but I'm still stuck, other than knowing what sites are in the same county. Leeds might even be by the border and there could be other good sites closer to Leeds than the Yorkshire listed sites.

This problem cannot be solved elegantly without using Geo-data, which is beyond the scope of Opus's current technology. (Google maps were mentioned, which would help to solve this problem!)

Let me rethink the above... I want to know what sites are near to Leeds. I look on a map (perhaps online and linked from a Yorkshire or England Opus entry). I find Leeds and look for the names of potential sites, then search for those sites on Opus.

In reality the descriptions/directions for sites will surely list a significant town/city nearby, so searching will bring up relevant results.

If I want to see a specific bird, I look it up in the birds area of Opus. To read where it's found. If it's found all over, then I don't think I'll have a problem. If it's only at specific sites globally, then I'd expect to find links to those locations in its entry. If it only occurs at a few sites in the country/area I'm travelling to, then maybe the entry for that country/area should tell me where? This isn't ideal but, without a true database, problems like this one are inevitable.

The locations part of Opus needs a reasonably well-defined scope (not telescope!). I think it should focus on being a collection of articles written about birding sites all over the world, and the emphasis should be on clear and useful information about a given site. Providing overviews of larger areas (containing many sites) is obviously useful too, and the technology behind Opus can be used to "automatically" create "meaningful" links between locations, but this should be a secondary goal.

Using technology to automate things is great, when it's meaningful, but meaningful automation is hard to achieve. It's best to build the technology around the meaning, rather than force the meaning into the technology. So whilst it may be possible to link locations to be able to plan trips and do restrictive searches, it will be difficult to design and very time consuming to maintain. For now, let's keep things simple |=)|

(End of philosophy rant!)

 

[Ben M]

Thinking again

I suppose they could start their search in Information Wanted, where they could then be directed to the various pages of Opus for specific information about the different sites in the area.

Ah! Perhaps light is beginning to dawn on this (at last you might say:'D )

D

You beat me to it... and put it much more elegantly :'D

 

[Keith Dickinson]

So after reading through the thread again we have a template looking something like this ...am I right?

TITLE site only, no abbreviations, no counties or countries.

OVERVIEW including type of terrain, when best to visit, who owns site, link to google maps (if possible)

BIRDLIST

GENERAL INFORMATION to include

History of site

Facilities on site

Flora and fauna of the site

Contact details of site owners if needed for permits etc.

Nearby sites (links if possible)

CATEGORIES

County & Country only Continent not needed as that can be linked to the country

 

[Ben M]

So after reading through the thread again we have a template looking something like this ...am I right?

Okay, for sites (rather than areas containing many sites)

1. Title: I agree
2. Overview: I think should be an overview of the main article points, so not a full description of habitat, history etc. but maybe a single important point from what's written below in the main article. I wouldn't include maps here. Also I would leave this section without a title, but have the menu here on the left and possibly include a single photograph on the right - the subject of which can be debated later.
3. Birds (main title): Discussion of birds and birding of the site in line with points already discussed in previous posts, possibly with full bird list, but this might be better at the end?
4. General information (main title, possibly use another name "site information"? ): Agree, let's decide on some sub titles or at least bolded points (i.e. "History: " at the start of the paragraph).
5. Reviews (main title): Include existing reviews as subtitled sections for now... debate their future later
6. External links (main title): References to online resources outside of Opus (e.g. local bird club, BF local patch thread, etc.)
7. Categories: I agree, but also include ownership (i.e. RSPB)? Might need to discuss categories further in the future.

Sub-headings for General Info (no particular order):

1. History
2. Use
3. Habitat
4. Wildlife
5. Facilities
6. Access
7. Contacts

Any others?

 

[delia todd]

This is beginning to look good.

Ben: Item 3 would have to be a different name, as the list of birds is titled "Birds"

I like the idea of a link to the Local Patch reports - brilliant idea.

I agree about the maps being put at the end.

Overview I have a bit of a problem with. If we go with Keith's ideas there would be less editing to do on the bulk of the entries so far. Though I can see your point Ben.

D

 

[Keith Dickinson]

I'm for keeping the overview as is, for same reasons Delia said...too many sites would need major edits.
I like your list of sub headings for General information. Must admit I forgot to put in the reviews bit.
I too like the external links bit...this would be the place for ownership stuff as...link to RSPb that sort of thing

 

[Ben M]

Item 3 would have to be a different name, as the list of birds is titled "Birds"

...

Overview I have a bit of a problem with. If we go with Keith's ideas there would be less editing to do on the bulk of the entries so far. Though I can see your point Ben.

D

As far as I can see the bird list is only under a section headed birds because ==Birds== is in the code, so we're free to move this title where we want. |=)| It's the "Birds you can see here include:" bit that we can't change.

As for the overview... I didn't realize about the current structure (I've not really read many entries yet!). In light of this, Keith's idea seems much better |=)|

 

[delia todd]

Hi Ben

erm.. if we don't call that 'Birds' what do you suggest instead - Species?

The bulk of the articles are in this sort of format.

D

 

[Ben M]

Sub-headings for General Info (no particular order):

1. History
2. Use
3. Habitat
4. Wildlife
5. Facilities
6. Access
7. Contacts

A) What do you think about the ordering of the sub-headings? I think 1+2 go together well, as do 3+4, and 5+6+7. Maybe put access before facilities?

B) Do you think these should be level 2 headings or bolded points?

C) What do you think about putting the map (if any) in the habitat sub-section? (I'm assuming that, despite the overview, we have a sub-section for habitat that describes the site-specific named areas of a site (e.g. The Raptor Watchpoint, Jack's Plantation, Hollybell Wood, etc.). If all habitat info is in the overview then what's a better name for the section describing such areas? Description? Areas of Interest?

 

[Ben M]

erm.. if we don't call that 'Birds' what do you suggest instead - Species?

It depends where the bird list ends up...

If it stays in the middle of the article we can:
i) name the section ==Birds==, give a discussion and then put the bird list.

If it goes elsewhere then we can:
ii) give it a new level 1 title like ==Species== (good title)
iii) keep the title ==Birds== and give the discussion section a title like ==Birdlife== (or something better)
iv) don't give it a title... it's already introduced by the predefined text. This would fit in well in the general info section if other sub-sections are denoted in a similar bold+colon style.

Personally I favour (i) or (iv), but I might change my mind when I see how it looks :'D