User talk:Tapin

NOTE: If I've commented on your "User talk" page, I've also started watching it, so I'll know you've responded there -- please don't follow up here, that makes the conversation very difficult to follow -- either move my comment over here if you'd rather not add to your User talk page, or follow up immediately underneath my comment. Thanks! --Tapin 19:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dated Images category

Hi! Nice work on the dated images category starting... In my experience with wikis, there needs to be a... 'critical mass' of usage for stuff like that before it gets commonly used. I'll try to get the Canberra images categorised appropriately over the weekend, any work you want to put in to categorise other images en-masse would be appreciated. Thanks! :) --Nemo 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was trying to get your attention on the IRC channel -- is this appropriate? Would it be better to do it as Category:YYYY-MM-DD in anticipation of something other than media being in the category? --Tapin 04:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a training course for work... no irc access, and work-day geohash wiki access for this week only! :(

Anyway, you'll notice I re-categorised your image to "Meetup on 2008-06-04". This makes most sense at the moment. If a media-specific category is needed later I think it can be handled at that time. For now, reducing categorisation overload is more important (IMHO, I'm just a user here too, albiet a very active one at the moment :) --Nemo 04:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. The rest of my 2008-06-04 pics are categorized.. I'll start working my way back and adding categorization. --Tapin 04:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The only further comment I think I can make is that for edits which are only "added date category", I'd mark it as a minor edit, and add a simple summary comment like that. (otherwise you get completists like me wanting to check the history of every non-commented edit to see what was done! Makes it easier to filter the RecentChanges basically :) Thanks muchly for the effort on this :) --Nemo 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, d'oh, will do from now on. --Tapin 04:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

bot bot bot

Just adding a link to this, so I can find it again: Bot Bot Bot

Zigdon 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question about Drakes Bay choice

Hello, you asked me about my choice of using Drakes Bay in the grat west of San Francisco. The reason I used it is because I was filling in grats with names that were already used in the graticules' pages. One of the neighboring grats had that graticule marked as Drakes Bay so I filled it in everywhere else. Please do fix it if you believe it to be in error.

I don't have a better suggestion, so I'll leave it :-) Hmm, I wonder if the Farralons are in the SF grat... ;-) --Tapin 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you zoom way, way in, the easternmost 200 feet of the easternmost Farallon Island just creeps into the San Francisco graticule. Everything else is over the line, out in the Drake's Bay grat. (Which could arguably be called the Farallons graticule, I guess. I'm sufficiently indifferent about the matter, though.) --Youhas 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I can't know which redirects are in active use and which aren't, so I deleted the ones that no longer fit the naming convention of "city name, statename". I expect the ones that are in use will be recreated, which is a simple enough process.

The majority of older redirects were created when pages were moved, and (once the references were corrected) were never being used. --Thomcat 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if a redirect isn't being "actively used", what harm is there in allowing a search for (eg) "Cleveland, OH" to automatically put the searcher on the (correctly named) "Cleveland, Ohio" page? I applaud and commend your efforts to fix and standardize the naming scheme for North America, I'm just not sure that wiping out entire swaths of useful redirects was the best idea. --Tapin 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)