Black Mesa Language Change

[Saraid Madnick]

Heyguys, in theCrossfire Update we updated all our currently supported closedcaptions. Unfortunately, we thought that Black Mesa would pick up onyour steam language preference, and would automatically change yourBlack Mesa closed captions. This has since proven that this isincorrect. Until we can get an officially support UI option forclosed captions, I have a work around for you that is 10 easy steps!

I have subscripted to Adobe Cloud and downloaded Photoshop/Illustrator but the default language at that time (in my Adobe Application Manager) was Portuguese so it installed the portuguese version of Photoshop and Illustrator.

Thank you for reaching out. We have created this help article ( -cloud/help/change-install-language.html) that should help you change language settings of your Adobe applications using the Creative Cloud desktop app.

I didn't find the panel you've mentioned. What I have done before the download was to set my language to English (North America) as the picture shows. Is there another plane where I should set the language?

I agree that the PS preferences provide a flexibilty but there are many apps that doesn't have this feature like Ai, Indesign , Dreamweaver etc. so, you are more then welcome to fill in the feature request form asking for this feature.

It's even easier to switch you UI language in Illustrator. Just rename the three folders that frbra1 mentioned to e.g. "en_US" (for the international English UI) or to "de_DE" for German and restart Illustrator - ideally deleting the Preferences by holding down the Shift+Control(Command)+Alt keys.

No, it does explicitely not mean that have to open up the application itself. It just means that you have to rename three folders. (Is that tricky?) If you're unsure, backup these three folders beforehand. It's fast, it's easy, and it does the trick. (What's really weird is that Adobe doesn't offer a menu command to switch the UI language. I'm not sure if this is a design error or if this just has been forgotten during design.)

This is a final report to AOS leadership. The document incorporates substantial revisions to an earlier proposal based on discussions with Council and written feedback received by the AOS Executive Committee, Council members, and leaders and members of the North American Classification Committee and the South American Classification Committee.

The American Ornithological Society (AOS) maintains a list of scientific and English names for bird species throughout the American continents and associated islands. These names are widely used by ornithologists, the public, and government agencies. Thus, they often serve as a gateway for learning about birds by playing a prominent role in public education, community science, conservation, advocacy, and outreach. Ethical concerns have recently been raised regarding eponymous (honorific) and other English bird names reflecting a legacy of U.S. colonial expansion at the expense of other human populations. Another widespread concern with eponymous and certain other names is that they confer little value to better understand, connect with, or capture the essence of a species. To change these names requires addressing multiple considerations that reflect their twin legacies of science and culture.

The committee has three interconnecting recommendations for AOS leadership. These recommendations cover which English bird names should change, as well as the creation of a process that can be used now and in the future. They are to:

The debate over English bird names has become one of the most highly charged and publicized issues in the ornithological and birding community. The committee recognizes the impact and scale of its recommendations, and that implementing them means venturing into territory uncharted for any scientific society. We endeavored to identify and address as many of the practical considerations as possible, building in steps like the pilot run and tiered name changes to refine complicated workflows. Nevertheless, we recognize that planning, executing, and iterating a set of completely new processes will be neither easy nor fast, and that a central need is to develop an approach that ensures the longevity and durability of names. Coordination and consultation with the public and with taxonomic committees is key to minimize disruption. We also hope to share lessons learned with similar organizations that are public stewards of species names.

Investing in this issue, and recognizing that collaborative and transparent action can be its own form of stability, means leveraging an opportunity to reexamine and build on existing practices. Our goal is for these actions to foster a more inclusive and engaged community, united around our shared love of birds, that paves the way for the biodiverse, equitable, and healthy futures toward which we all strive.

The committee has three primary and interconnecting recommendations for the AOS leadership. These recommendations cover which English bird names should change, as well as the creation of a process that can be used now and in the future. The recommendations are:

The committee recommends that the AOS ultimately replace all eponymous English bird names. This would apply to all English bird names named directly after people and within the geographic purview of the society. We call English species names in this set primary eponyms.

The committee also recommends that, in addition to birds named after people, three names with derogatory or culturally unsuitable references or origins should also be changed. These are Eskimo Curlew, Flesh-footed Shearwater, and Inca Dove. Thus, the total is 263 names to be changed, representing about 5.5% of the English bird names that the AOS oversees.

Our recommendations do not include changes to species named after places which were named after people (e.g., American Crow, Carolina Chickadee, Baltimore Oriole, Hudsonian Godwit, St. Lucia Warbler, Juan Fernandez Petrel). We call this set of names secondary eponyms to distinguish them from the focal set of primary eponyms. Likewise, we are not recommending changes to names based on places (e.g., Canada Jay, Florida Scrub-Jay, Aztec Thrush, Mayan Antthrush), be they nations, states, or regions associated with specific people groups, languages, or cultures.

The minority view is that potentially offensive names should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that only those names which cause offense for reasons other than simply having been named after a person should be changed. The rationale for the majority decision to recommend removing all eponyms is described below.

We considered the conditions under which a selective approach would be viable. First, a group of people would have to be chosen to make decisions about which names to discard versus retain. Second, a list of criteria would have to be generated by which each historical figure is judged to be sufficiently harmful (or meritorious). Third, information would have to be gathered about each individual that paints the most accurate and complete portrait of that individual. Certain standards of information would have to be decided upon so that consistent decisions could be made, accounting for circumstances such as incomplete information.

The committee is aware that other, non-eponymous names vary in their descriptiveness and that some may even be confusing (e.g., Ring-necked Duck, Red-bellied Woodpecker). However, we do not here recommend that they be changed, as this was outside the charge of our committee.

These patterns of underrepresentation continue due to accumulated disparities in material wealth and other capital, coupled with rules established by groups in power that undervalue marginalized groups who are judged by those rules (Syed 2017, Settles et al. 2022). The result of these barriers is that, by the time full-fledged scientists have arrived at an opportunity to name newly described species and wish to recognize their colleagues, many demographics are scarcely represented. Also, substantial inequities in the process of naming birds relate to differences in wealth, power, and scientific capacity among countries. For example, 95% of the bird species described between 1950 and 2019 occur in the Global South, yet the describers of these species were disproportionately from the Global North, and 68% of the eponyms established in this period honored individuals from the Global North (DuBay et al. 2020). Such patterns reflect the broader issue of systematic exclusion of professionals from the Global South within ornithology in the Americas (Ruelas Inzunza et al. 2023, Soares et al. 2023).

A related concern from scholars in favor of retaining the use of eponyms is that eliminating them (and ceasing to name species after people) would hurt science because it would prevent researchers from honoring their peers who belong to historically marginalized demographics, especially in areas of the world where this has not been possible historically (Jost et al. 2023). Specifically, because such a tradition for recognition has long been part of the scientific culture in the Global North (even in naming species from the Global South), opposers argue that banning eponyms at a time when researchers from the Global South finally have the opportunities, tools and expertise enabling them to engage in the research related to naming species may effectively contribute to global inequities in the scientific process of naming nature.

Finally, we must also ask ourselves whose history we are commemorating through this list of names. Equating these names with the history of ornithology, or implying that ornithological history will be lost with the changing of these names, disregards the contributions and knowledge of populations that are not represented (see previous point).

In sum, the committee does not believe that honorific bird names are effective teaching tools for ornithological history. Instead, we hope to see more efforts to promote scientific history in forums such as classrooms and conferences (e.g., the exhibition at AOS 2019 celebrating European and U.S. women ornithologists) as well as publications (e.g., the recent recognition of Elizabeth Kerr, a woman whose notable field work in South America was eclipsed through ornithological history; Soto-Patio et al. 2023) and outreach initiatives (e.g. the website and activities honoring the work by Emilie Snethlage in Brazil; Del-Rio 2019) that equitably recognize the individuals on whose shoulders we stand.

3a8082e126