Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Expedition planning"
imported>Eupeodes |
imported>Eupeodes |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::/me starts feeling a great deal of pressure on his shoulders. =D --[[User:Aperfectring|aperfectring]] 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | ::/me starts feeling a great deal of pressure on his shoulders. =D --[[User:Aperfectring|aperfectring]] 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::You're doing great! We had nothing before, so it's clearly already better than what we had before. There's no way it can be flawless, because human parsing can't even determine who intends to go and who is just saying, "hey look, it's at an IHOP!" -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | :::You're doing great! We had nothing before, so it's clearly already better than what we had before. There's no way it can be flawless, because human parsing can't even determine who intends to go and who is just saying, "hey look, it's at an IHOP!" -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == distinguish between nobody went and someone is going (to report) == | ||
I now have an IRC bot which want's to distinguish between hashes not yet attempted but likely to be attempted (or where the report still has to be written) and hashes that didn't happen. Now these are combined here, can we split it somehow. For me it seems logical that when nobody went it would move to something like Not reached - did not attempt, but it seems that that one is used for Not reached - decided to go somewhere else. Anyone with a solution? | I now have an IRC bot which want's to distinguish between hashes not yet attempted but likely to be attempted (or where the report still has to be written) and hashes that didn't happen. Now these are combined here, can we split it somehow. For me it seems logical that when nobody went it would move to something like Not reached - did not attempt, but it seems that that one is used for Not reached - decided to go somewhere else. Anyone with a solution? | ||
Revision as of 22:17, 12 February 2014
I am keeping anything that is a decent shot at planning (>1 person, or concrete plans on how to get to the hash). Now that Current Events is being populated, there is no need to keep only recent pages in the category, it can serve as a history of planning expeditions. Right? --joannac 00:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- It took me a moment to understand what you meant, but yes, because Current events will list upcoming planned expeditions, there is no need to worry about old planned expeditions making it hard for people to find current ones. You can leave them for historical interest. What a happy side benefit of the Current events project. -Robyn 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- /me starts feeling a great deal of pressure on his shoulders. =D --aperfectring 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're doing great! We had nothing before, so it's clearly already better than what we had before. There's no way it can be flawless, because human parsing can't even determine who intends to go and who is just saying, "hey look, it's at an IHOP!" -Robyn 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- /me starts feeling a great deal of pressure on his shoulders. =D --aperfectring 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
distinguish between nobody went and someone is going (to report)
I now have an IRC bot which want's to distinguish between hashes not yet attempted but likely to be attempted (or where the report still has to be written) and hashes that didn't happen. Now these are combined here, can we split it somehow. For me it seems logical that when nobody went it would move to something like Not reached - did not attempt, but it seems that that one is used for Not reached - decided to go somewhere else. Anyone with a solution?
