John Cantelo
Well-known member
Thanks for the tip, Delia, I didn't realise that this was the way to do it!,
John
John
-
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.
Template/format for all locations (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ben M
- Start date
Just to revive the thread: Is there now a common understanding on a template for locations? I'm planning to rewrite some of the Swiss ones and to create new ones (I already did some), but it would be good to have some guideline.
Personally I think the approach like for Blacktoft Sands is to strict for some sites. So perhaps a more open general approach (Overview, Birds, Other Wildlife, Site Info (with mainly access details)) in general and things like history could be optional.
Greetings from Switzerland
André
Personally I think the approach like for Blacktoft Sands is to strict for some sites. So perhaps a more open general approach (Overview, Birds, Other Wildlife, Site Info (with mainly access details)) in general and things like history could be optional.
Greetings from Switzerland
André
Ben M
Well-known member
I noticed one of the Swiss sites you'd done a few weeks back - looked great |=)|
I think the main headings (i.e. ==) should be present in all (non-stub) entries, and the sub-headings (i.e ===) should be added eventually (when we've finalized what they should be). If there isn't enough content for one of the main headings add the heading and put {{stub}} at the top of the entry to mark it as a stub.
I'm working on a template, but it'll be a while yet, so for now I'd recommend using the following (bold italic denotes text to change):
The reviews bit is fiddly and not ideal (the result looks good though)... the main idea is to remove each separate review and it's pros/cons from the contents menu. If you'd rather, just remove the === and ==== parts and leave the text as plain |=)|
I think the main headings (i.e. ==) should be present in all (non-stub) entries, and the sub-headings (i.e ===) should be added eventually (when we've finalized what they should be). If there isn't enough content for one of the main headings add the heading and put {{stub}} at the top of the entry to mark it as a stub.
I'm working on a template, but it'll be a while yet, so for now I'd recommend using the following (bold italic denotes text to change):
Code:
[[Image:[I][B]filename.jpg[/B][/I]|thumb|550px|right|Photo by [I][B]username[/B][/I]<br/>Description]]
==Overview==
[I][B]No subheadings[/B][/I]
==Birds==
[I][B]Use following subheadings if info is available:[/B][/I]
===Notable Species===
===Rarities===
===Check-list===
{{BirdsSee|[I][B]Comma-separated list[/B][/I]}}
==Other Wildlife==
==Site Information==
[I][B]Use following subheadings if info is available:[/B][/I]
===History and Use===
===Areas of Interest===
===Access and Facilities===
===Contact Details===
==External Links==
* [[I][B]URL[/B][/I] [I][B]Text[/B][/I]]
* [[I][B]URL[/B][/I] [I][B]Text[/B][/I]]
[I][B]etc.[/B][/I]
==Reviews==
;[I][B]username of reviewer[/B][/I] review
:[I][B]comment[/B][/I]
:[I][B]comment[/B][/I]
:'''Pros'''
:*[I][B]pro comment[/B][/I]
:*[I][B]pro comment[/B][/I]
:'''Cons'''
:*[I][B]con comment[/B][/I]
:*[I][B]con comment[/B][/I]
[I][B]repeat for other reviews and separate reviews with[/B][/I] ----
[[Category:[I][B]Region (if applicable)[/B][/I]]] [[Category:[I][B]Country[/B][/I]]] [[Category:Locations]]The reviews bit is fiddly and not ideal (the result looks good though)... the main idea is to remove each separate review and it's pros/cons from the contents menu. If you'd rather, just remove the === and ==== parts and leave the text as plain |=)|
After doing some Swiss locations, I decided to write an article about Switzerland itself. I sticked closely to the locations template, but left away what wasn't making sense (in my opinion anyway). That's the result:
http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Switzerland
What do you think?
Greetings from Switzerland
André
http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Switzerland
What do you think?
Greetings from Switzerland
André
Ben M
Well-known member
Really nice work André. You've set a precedence for the rest of us... I can see a lot of thought and effort has gone into your entries.:t:
That looks really good André - makes the one I'm trying to do for Scotland look like a piece from a novice:-O
D
D
jthoppes
spectacled spiderhunter
Inspired by delia's taxonomy questions I went out fixed a few broken links myself, then put together a rough draft for my local patch. Having done that, I find myself with some questions about the proper format for titles: how much geographic information belongs in the title, and how much in the body of the entry? (I looked back through this thread and didn't see much consensus.) To pick an example, here's the category for Texas.
For these sites we have the following options:
Texas (Texas) -Anahuac NWR
Texas USA -Aransas NWR
(Smith Point, TX) -Hawkwatch Tower
(Texas Gulf Coast) -Brazoria NWR
(a variety of other descriptions)
no label whatsoever -Laguna Atascosa NWR
Am I right that there's no pattern whatsoever to this, and no logical reason Anahuac has two Texases in its title while Aransas has just one, and Laguna A. none at all? Am I crazy to think we should try to bring some kind of order to all of this? (Proposals something like: Just one parenthesized label, to help people who search for "Texas." No labels at all, just let the category page do its job. Others?)
For these sites we have the following options:
Texas (Texas) -Anahuac NWR
Texas USA -Aransas NWR
(Smith Point, TX) -Hawkwatch Tower
(Texas Gulf Coast) -Brazoria NWR
(a variety of other descriptions)
no label whatsoever -Laguna Atascosa NWR
Am I right that there's no pattern whatsoever to this, and no logical reason Anahuac has two Texases in its title while Aransas has just one, and Laguna A. none at all? Am I crazy to think we should try to bring some kind of order to all of this? (Proposals something like: Just one parenthesized label, to help people who search for "Texas." No labels at all, just let the category page do its job. Others?)
Last edited:
Hi again jt
Yes you're quite right... and no - you're not crazy.:-O
As you said we did discuss the titles earlier in posts 24-28 but no real decision was made nor action taken - apart from Wintibird has tied up the titles for the Swiss sites Switzerland so there is now some uniformity amongst them, at least.
I'm not actually sure why the country, or state, needs to be in brackets... however....
Anyway... your thoughts on how titles should look would be most welcome.
Thanks for getting involved
D
Yes you're quite right... and no - you're not crazy.:-O
As you said we did discuss the titles earlier in posts 24-28 but no real decision was made nor action taken - apart from Wintibird has tied up the titles for the Swiss sites Switzerland so there is now some uniformity amongst them, at least.
I'm not actually sure why the country, or state, needs to be in brackets... however....
Anyway... your thoughts on how titles should look would be most welcome.
Thanks for getting involved
D
Ben M
Well-known member
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").
As mentioned, it's best to use categories for placing a site in a county/country/region/etc.
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").
As mentioned, it's best to use categories for placing a site in a county/country/region/etc.
Hi Ben
What you say does make sense, basically.
Can you tell me though - some of the locations have links to other sites (for instance the Hawaii ones) if the titles get changed will the links 'break' or will Opus allow for that?
D
What you say does make sense, basically.
Can you tell me though - some of the locations have links to other sites (for instance the Hawaii ones) if the titles get changed will the links 'break' or will Opus allow for that?
D
Ben M
Well-known member
If the links are done correctly, then they shouldn't break. That's one of the advantages of using that system |=)|
Ben M
Well-known member
Using double square brackets [[like this]].
It may work if you use the full URL too (i.e. with http://), but I'm not sure.
Thanks Ben
That appears to be what I've been doing - copying and pasting the existing title and enclosing in the square brackets.
Relief:-O
D
That appears to be what I've been doing - copying and pasting the existing title and enclosing in the square brackets.
Relief:-O
D
Oh and while I've got your attention
Are we going to leave the Check-list as-is, I seem to remember somewhere you were working on a different um.. layout??
D
Are we going to leave the Check-list as-is, I seem to remember somewhere you were working on a different um.. layout??
D
Just tried out to move a page to a new name and the links still work. Fantastic system.
I think we should make an agreement about the titles and I would support Ben's suggestion, just the full name, no country or county. (I'm not so fond of the Swiss brackets... ).
This would also mean that the country and the whereabouts of the location (west, east, where ever in the country) should be mentionend in the overview section.
André
I think we should make an agreement about the titles and I would support Ben's suggestion, just the full name, no country or county. (I'm not so fond of the Swiss brackets...
).This would also mean that the country and the whereabouts of the location (west, east, where ever in the country) should be mentionend in the overview section.
André
Oh that's a relief André
I'm keen to go with a very simplified title... but still rather at cross-purposes with myself:h?: as I do find seeing the 'country' name in the title rather helpful sometimes..there again I wish it wasn't there:gh:
I'll go with majority view:-O
D
I'm keen to go with a very simplified title... but still rather at cross-purposes with myself:h?: as I do find seeing the 'country' name in the title rather helpful sometimes..there again I wish it wasn't there:gh:
I'll go with majority view:-O
D
Oh and while I've got your attention
Are we going to leave the Check-list as-is, I seem to remember somewhere you were working on a different um.. layout??
D
I would like to repeat that a listing in columns, perhaps even with a check-box next to the name would look really good. I am afraid that would involve some work by a tech?
In addition, I have been thinking: It would be good to have rare species flagged in some way in the checklist. Rare of course needs qualifying, but in those areas with a rarities committee, it could be the species that needs a description.
Niels
I'm not sure that the 'rares' generally appear in the Check-list - I could be wrong about that though.
Mostly I only have to do re-directs for them in the Rarities section and don't seem to see them in the Check-list.
D
