Both are filled with species now, so merging would take some time. Please let us postpone this topic for a few weeks. 1.) Only the admins can see who did an edit and to see it for certain entries we would have to have a look into the database. Please put the species in the former holdings and add that info into the infobox over the sources. 2.) Please write on the notice board if a species has to be removed from a collection permanently.
Hello everyone. I've been going through and reviewing a lot of U.S. entries and I've noticed that some people might be struggling with how to properly cite and use sources. I've written up some notes/reminders that I hope are helpful: (Disclaimer: I am not a ZTL admin, so if any of them disagree with what I say here please defer to them. I think most of this is pretty basic and unobjectionable "how to use sources properly" stuff though.) 1. Always include a source. I'd say ~98% or more of the entries I see have some kind of source, but I'm still coming across a few that are blank. These entries may get reported and deleted if a valid source can't be found. 2. If your source is that you visited, please make that clear. There are many entries where the only source is just a date - nothing saying "visit", "seen", etc. A date on its own with no context is not a proper source. 3. If you are using a zoo website, blog post, YouTube video, etc - please include a link. I can understand not doing this always for social media posts like Facebook and Instagram - sometimes those are difficult to provide direct links for - but for stuff where you can definitely include a URL in your source, please do so. I've come across instances where this was a problem - for example, where the entry just says "listed on website" and and I haven't been able to find any reference to the animal on the website. 4. When using social media like Facebook and Instagram posts, please include the date it was posted. URLs are the ideal, but if you don't have that then at least include the month and year so that others can easily find your source post. "Featured on zoo's Instagram" is a much harder source to verify compared to "Featured on May 2023 Instagram post from zoo". 5. Don't enter information and leave the sources box blank. I am seeing some entries with information like "behind the scenes" or "1.0 imported from X" with no sources provided. All information should have a source provided for it; otherwise how can it be trusted by anyone else? Additional information is great, but sources should still be used.
You can also add the date of the facebook post as a source. "- FB-Mitteilung 14/02/2021" (or something similar) is used as a source on multiple occasions. Edit: Should've kept reading before responding
Just to confirm, behind the scenes animals shouldn’t be counted right? I’ve noticed that someone has listed several behind the scenes species for the Bronx (I.e. Binturong, American Beaver, Cheetah, Yellow-Bellied Marmot, Sand Cat, Warthog, etc.)
Yes, BTS animals are counted, as long as you mention they're behind the scenes in the additional information box
No, animals which are BTS are still eligible for inclusion - you just have to note their status in the information abd references.
Another important note for anyone using USDA reports as a source for entries: please be aware that animals are not always correctly identified to species on these reports. It is especially common for certain groups that have more obscure, uncommon, and/or easily confused species - rodents, bats, marsupials and xenarthrans come to mind - but it can happen with any species. Birds have been subject to this as well; one example is some kookaburras getting listed as "Giant Kingfisher" with a completely different Latin name. In general it is probably best practice to have multiple sources for entries rather than just a USDA report. At the very least, unusual listings should be investigated and cross-checked with other sources before being entered - as oftentimes they are just misidentified listings of more typical species.
Thanks for this. I've been using this thread to note species that need extra special attention, so it's helpful to have these taxon added as being potentially problematic. More and more, I'm trying to go back and find multiple sources for every entry, since almost nothing is consistently able to be taken at face value. By my count, I've seen warnings that we need to be careful and can't always rely on: zoo websites, zoo signage, social media USDA reports, Isis/Zims entries (which I understand can't be quoted as a source on ZTL anyway), zoochat holder lists, eye witness accounts from anyone that's not an expert in that taxon. our own zoo visits, if we're not an expert in that taxon. I've now got a long and growing list of single sourced entries that I'm trying to track down a second source for. (It almost feels like I need a database to keep track of items that aren't ready to go into the database!). I am also going back through some entries to add additional details that I can find to shore up some of the entries for the more challenging taxon. It's a big project, but we're making lots of great progress over there!
