Category talk:Expedition planning

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)

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 too would like to see something to distinguish between expedition pages currently being planned and old pages which never left the planning stages or are confirmed that nobody went. It seems that Category:New report is a good fit for covering current plans. However, when it comes to older pages, I feel that an expedition page which is largely unfinished (i.e. no information other than plans to go) should be catorized differently than an expedition page which was updated to confirm that nobody actually went anywhere. Perhaps the addition of an "Expedition canceled" category to cover the latter? That would make it very clear that it wasn't just an unfinished page and that, in fact, the expedition wasn't carried out in any form. This is actually an issue I have when creating the Most active users pages. It's often difficult to tell if an unfinished expedition was carried out and not updated or if it never took place. Mystrsyko (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (EDT)

Category:Expedition cancelled sounds pretty good to me. Planning predates "New Report", which I think was created to make wiki edits more friendly for newer users ("We can help you with categories"). --Thomcat (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2015 (EDT)

One problem with "Expedition cancel(l)ed" is that the British English and American English spelling is different, as you can see in both your posts, half the community would use the wrong spelling either way. I personally concur that "Expedition planning" should only be used for future or yet-unreported expeditions. For the abandoned plans I think "Not reached - Did not attempt" would be better. (See also my comment there about splitting that category) - Danatar (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2015 (EDT)