Talk:Main Page

Topics on this page which have clearly been handled or resolved can be found in the archives. When archiving a section of this Talk page, please say so in the edit summary here.

Due to repeated spam attacks on this wiki page, this page is editable by registered users only. Please log in and join us!

• Use Template:Graticule to generate a map of the graticule for graticule pages.
• Use Template:Meetup graticule to generate a map of a day's location for meetup/expedition pages.
• All scripts and implementations written for the Geohashing algorithm should be posted at Implementations. Any discussion on an implementation's bugs should be directed to Talk:Implementations.

Front Page Coordinates

If I'm reading the front page source code correctly, I think that the front page's coordinates are generated automatically via a template...and that template doesn't seem to be working correctly! I get today's (2008/07/31, W of -30) coordinates to be .5356742, .4584283, but the front page differs. Is this a bug that needs addressing? --Scottkuma 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like. We had a problem at the end of June also - I think it's something to do with generating two sets of coords. --Thomcat 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected, but behind the scenes, as nothing shows up in RecentChanges. Thanks whoever! --Thomcat 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of historical locations

Surely someone has by now generated a complete list of the decimal parts of the coordinates produced by the historical data? It can't just be me wanting to see it, can it? Does anyone have a link to one if so? Even better if it was available as a map overlay...

I put up a set of Historical Location Data that I generated a couple days ago. It seemed slightly too ginormous to put on the wiki in it's raw form, but if anywone wants to, be my guest. Unfortunately there are some bad dates in there due to Dow data that was missing, but I'll get them updated. My hope was to use the data to generate a map overlay or allow you to click a location on the map and have it show you all the dates that a geohash landed in the vicinity, but my web programming skills are nonexistent. I could write a Windows app, but that's not so great for anyone. Someone else tackle it. :) --ZorMonkey 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have a set of location data 1970 to present for W30 and non-W30. No bad dates that I know of, generated using the Perl implementation today. I lack the google-fu to plot it on google maps, but am happy to provide it to anyone. Data is comma separated. And since I've got a domain name sitting around doing nothing, Ill put it to use: here 'tis free for any use --Psud 12:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated my non-W30 data, and added W30 data. Our numbers are pretty close, so that's good! 14,000 units tests passed! :) It looks like you're missing a few dates though - for example 2008-03-28. BTW - Mine is also in CSV format, and includes the DJIA so it can be used to calculate the numbers if anyone else is playing with the algorithm. --ZorMonkey 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My data is now hole-less (Pls let me know if you find otherwise), and complete back to 1928-10-01 in both W30 and non-W30! download here! <-- Note also now in format date,DJIA,lat,long

Also now the data is available bzipped or text. My intention is to keep it up to date - updating at 03:00 my local time (GMT+10). Let's see if my scripting is up to it. NOTE: New web page

Wow, nice! With that I regenerated my Google Earth KML file for Milwaukee. It now includes different color markers for different days of the week, and each marker has it's date associated with it so you can use Google Earth's (frustratingly tiny) timeline to constrain the dates you want to show. I wish I had to good way to create a webpage that would generate a KML file for any region you wanted... Maybe I can attempt that this weekend - but probably not. :) --ZorMonkey 04:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Once you have one of the data files, it's pretty easy to generate a KML file for Google Earth. Google Earth freaks out a little bit, but it works! Here is a sample KML file (zipped) that I generated for the 4 graticules near the Milwaukee area, and the Python code I used follows. I've just started learning Python, so forgive any hackityness. In this state it needs to be manually tweaked to generate other graticule information, but it's pretty easy. Anyone know if it's possible to specify the marker color? --ZorMonkey 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of putting it here, I've put my increasingly terrible Python KML generating code up on the web. I'll update that file as I make changes and make it more (or less) awesome. --ZorMonkey 04:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My python code is just like yours (I heared about python in the comics the first time). I used mine for generating a KML file for the Hamburg graticule. None of the placemarks are displayed except the ones mentioned in the corresponding wiki page (i.e. have expeditions). The template-like file "start" and the base-coordinates in the code should be edited, but then it shuould work on every graticule. I used Psud's list of historical coordinates. If my webspace was cool python-powered one, I'd like to set up a service, but it's a ceap on that doesn't allow outbound connections from PHP. --Hermann 15:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I was wrong. Seems my provider loosened restrictions some time ago. I set up this script to generate KML-Data for any graticule. NOTE: This script uses Psud's list and caches output. Caches are updated every 24h. It's basically a proof-of-concept by now and needs testing.. Please have a look on the code, improve it and/or move it onto your webspace to reduce mine's traffic.

I worked on it a few hours and it has become pretty elaborate. Check it out or have a look at Hamburg for an example. --Hermann 00:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Psud's lists are down. The service is now defunct. --Hermann 13:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Psud fixed his server. The Service is up and running. Comments please. --Hermann 22:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have generated KMZs for the Cincinnati, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan graticules. Each are linked to off of the respective graticule pages. Scottkuma 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. So, if I generate this historical data, and one (or more!) points in the past land on my property, do I qualify for the Time Traveller Couch Potato GeoHash Achievement ?? --Briand 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do supply proof of date and location (i.e. standing in your living room next to a calendar showing that particular date), you will sure apply for the award. --Hermann 10:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Organization / automation questions

So, we now have date pages (2008-06-07), date-bound templates for the day's expedition images ({{Expedition Images/2008-06-07}}), categories for the day's meetups (Category:Meetup on 2008-06-07 -- not all of which have been 'created', even though most if not all are in use). We also have the "Recent and Upcoming Coordinates" and "Gallery of Recent Expeditions" sections on the front page. There are likely other daily-maintenance-type things I'm not aware of (archiving? Creation of the supercategories like Category:Meetup in 2008-06?).

I'd be more than willing to work on automating some/all of the above, if people are interested -- I know tjtrumpet2323 mentioned that he doesn't mind doing the manual update of the front-page coordinates, and that it would likely be handled by a template eventually (once the mediawiki daily coords implementation was done) anyway. I've been playing with api.php a bit recently, and most of the automation is reasonably simple. But I don't want to step on any toes (explicitly including rpm's, since I'm not sure how kindly he'll take to people running bots against the wiki).

Additionally: It would be trivial, once images are categorized by meetup date (very few are currently) to randomly swap out the pictures that have been picked for the day's Expedition Images. But this introduces the question of whether a second (editorial, not automatic) category should be created for "best of the day" to use as the pool (assuming the consensus is "automation is good", rather than "keep it editorial, like it already is"), instead of pictures like Image:2008-06-01_37_-121-Tapin-2.JPG.

Thoughts?

--Tapin 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a lot more automation done, and was considering writing my own bots to do some of it. But considering my other workload, I'm not sure when that will happen. One thing I'd be worried about is creating pages just to fill in the dates, without actually having content for them. Your comment about editorial content also stands - any bots should be willing to accept imposed content. Zigdon 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The main reason pages such as Template:Expeditions/2008-06-12 exist is to allow inclusion on pages such as 2008-06. Now that the date pages pretty much only contained templated-in content, they're practically unnecessary. However, from a template-coding standpoint, Template:Date nav is easier to code when the page titles are simple, like 2008-06-12. Does anyone know if there's a way of transcluding (templating) pages in the Main namespace? (I have more thoughts on this section's topic as a whole, but have to leave for now.) --Tim P 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can transclude anything, not just templates. Use {{:Main Page}} to transclude the main page, for example. Mike.lifeguard 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike.lifeguard. I didn't realise the colon notation extended to transclusion. I think when I create the date pages for the weekend in a few hours' time, I'll just create YYYY-MM-DD pages and not bother with Template:Expeditions/YYYY-MM-DD. I'd be willing to go back through the three weeks of pages and move data around... as well as to clean up the includes... seeing how I did 90% of them to begin with. Any thoughts? --Tim P 06:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Automated Transclusion Implemented

I did some automating/optimising stuff over the weekend. The Template:Expeditions/YYYY-MM-DD pages are to be completely discontinued from 17 June, as meetups are now included on the date pages themselves (YYYY-MM-DD, e.g., 2008-06-16). I even went back and copied stuff over for continuity's sake. As far as the image gallery templates go, I automated a template/script to show the current (UTC) day and the three prior for use on Main Page. It uses the new syntax {{Expedition Images|YYYY-MM-DD}} which includes Template:Expedition Images/YYYY-MM-DD (note the slash), along with the appropriate header (based on page context) if the template exists, or a "start this gallery"-type message if it doesn't. It also provides a "direct edit" link to the template from the date pages. --Tim P 05:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? You may note that I opted not to provide a "direct edit" link in instances where {{Expedition Images|YYYY-MM-DD}} are transcluded on Main Page, more so out of fear of the page's visibility than anything. I suppose that most potential spambots would give up on the write-protected page and not follow any "direct edit" link we'd put right on that page, but you never know. I would be perfectly willing to put such a link back into the template if consensus deems wise (i.e., people agree here) or if convention deems necessary (i.e., people get fed up with hunting for an edit link). My initial fears could be totally ridiculous, and I'm totally willing to admit that. --Tim P 05:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it very much, awesome effort sir. The 'add your own photo' is pretty clearly findable on the YYYY-MM-DD pages. If that is not enough, then a comment in the source on the Main_Page directing people appropriately should be the next step IMHO. See how it fares? :) --Nemo 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Only current thought now... the automatic 'start the gallery' link means the previous days gallery (with the heklpful comments) don't get copied over... I wonder if people are just more likely to blindly start a gallery now rather than copy the comment hints too? I don't think think content can be automated into there though can it? May not be a problem anyway, wait and see? --Nemo 11:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a show stopper, but I just discovered a timing point. We here in the east side of the 30W rule have pics for today already uploaded (8:20am local time, 17th June), but it's still 40minutes before UTC rolls over to the 17th and the frontpage gets the 'create a gallery for the 17th' type link. No biggie, it just limits our bragging rights! ;P --Nemo 22:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of the limited number of morning-time meetups, I figured that 00:00 UTC was still a reasonable time to switch over because, as Template:Recent Images says, it's "reasonably mid-day for the easternmost time zones," i.e., 12:00 or 13:00 in New Zealand depending on DST. Not to mention, it's immensely easier to program a switch at 00:00 UTC than at any other time on this wiki. Photos uploaded to the designated gallery before 00:00 UTC still get to be at the top of the images section for a full 24 hours, so yeah, it really isn't a big deal. --Tim P 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yup. I was just being needlessly pedantic. ;) However, I do have a thought - thuogh don't know if it's possible. At the moment it displays the last 4 days, but in fact it seems more often than not, when I see it the currentday gallery is still waiting for the first image - so we only see three days. Can you check for the existance of the CURRENTDAY gallery - and if it doesn't exist, then also include CURRENTDAY -4 days. That way we get 4 days of actual pictures at all times (which I think works best, imho 3 is a little too small a showcase through the week). The -4days gallery automatically rolls off then not at 00:00UTC, but when the currentday gallery is created... :) --Nemo 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

DONE and IMPLEMENTED. See Template:Recent Images for specifics. Great idea, Nemo. --Tim P 03:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

re-organise the frontpage

I'd like to propose that now that geohashing is a few months mature in the wider internet, that the need to explain what it is in detail on the top of the front page of the wiki is diminished.

My humble opinion is that most people hitting the front wiki now are familiar with geohashing, or if new (less likely after that post-announcement rush), are more likely to be able to find detailed info after an initial introduction.

So how about a frontpage reorganise with this all in mind? Currently, the front page TOC looks like

1. What is this?
2. How it works
   1. Official xkcd meetups
   2. Unofficial invitations
3. Active Graticules
4. Implementations
5. Recent and Upcoming Coordinates
6. Gallery of Recent Expeditions
7. Known Issues
8. FAQ
9. Related Projects

I propose that it be reformatted to something closer to these lines...

1. What is this?
2. Who, Where, When and How?
3. Recent and Upcoming Coordinates
4. Gallery of Recent Expeditions
5. FAQ

In this layout, 'how it works', 'official' and 'unofficial', 'active graticules' and 'implementations' would all be summarised to one smaller section of 'who, where, when and how'. Known issues should be linked merely as a FAQ question (maybe the first one). Finally, 'Related Projects' would be a link to, rather than inclusion of, the community portal.

It'd probably be worth mocking up an actual example, but not for me at 1am... :)

Further thoughts? (obviously what I'm proposing is a rather major change to the wiki navigation, so please, nobody make any such changes till there has been a chance for fair objections to be discussed. --Nemo 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I do think that much of the boilerplate can be cut down and/or farmed out to links, e.g., the FAQ (though I haven't done that in my prototype, it could certainly be added). Quite frankly, I think that just about everything static on Main Page should be transcluded anyway, if it's not going to change much. That way, people wouldn't have to deal with the formatting code on any new Main Page.

I'd been thinking of this for a while, and have a Wikipedia-like prototype (with a tad bit of out-of-date content) at User:Tjtrumpet2323/sandbox/Main Page (actually most of the code is taken straight from their Main Page). Please leave comments on my prototype at its talk page, while leaving comments on the general idea of reorganisation here. Thanks! --Tim P 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Having only heard positive feedback thusfar, if I hear no further discussion, I intend to replace Main Page with an up-to-date User:Tjtrumpet2323/sandbox/Main Page on Friday 11 July at some time between 13:00 and 16:00 UTC. If you have any suggestions for improvements to the layout of the prototype, please let me know on its talk page. --Tim P 03:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Slow to load, impossible to edit

The main page seems slow to load anymore, and it is difficult to edit sections. I've tried multiple times to add to the date section today, but all those submissions crash and burn. I know it's Friday, but it's been slow other days also. Is it just me? --Thomcat 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I noticed it, too, around July 10th and 11th. -- Jevanyn

Slow for me too. I was thinking it was some special mechanism because it was the main page, or something. -Robyn 00:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried four submits just now, and a few times on Friday, to update the coordinate table on the main page. Each failed. --Thomcat 13:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Seems like a few pages are taking the brunt of the hits. Clearly it/they seem to be watching those pages. Is any of that through the "watch this page" checkbox mechanism? Can that link be blown away somehow? I'm pretty new at this, but I know we need to find a solution other than banning the various IP addresses, and {protected} doesn't work on those pages. --Thomcat 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a copy at Talk:Main Page/Archive3 (no space). The Archive template could be modified to point to no-space pages if necessary. I suggest somebody admin attempts deleting that page, so we can see if the spam stops arriving there. --Thomcat 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mother Nature vs. The Internet vs. Civilization

I would really love to see a score table

Mother Nature vs. The Internet vs. Civilization

sorting all the hashes into

• failed because of weather and/or landscape
• successfully reached
• failed because of man-made obstacles (fenced in, no trespassing, failed GPS devices and the like).
• (any other reasons? laziness would account for a draw IMHO.)

However that would mean to parse through all past expeditions and classify the expeditions.

What do you think of the idea? Could it be realized to remain easy to maintain, when adding future expeditions - use Categories maybe? Would you be willing to help? -- Relet 00:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool idea. I'd be willing to reclassify mine. You can see reasons I have failed on my user page. The extra category should encompass laziness, chickenness, and our own errors. Data collected based on hash reports would, however, leave out the geohashes never attempted because it was obvious that mother nature or civilization would win the day: in my graticule that's all the ones on glaciers or mountains, or in the protected watersheds. - Robyn 05:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Robyn, and definitely use categories. I plan to go through them all to classify the difference between Category:Expeditions and Category:Expedition Planning, which will eventually lead to an automated expedition counter. I would gladly add other categories - please suggest here! --Thomcat 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great. I suggest something like Category:Defeated by Mother Nature, Category:Successful Expedition, Category:Defeated by Civilization (any capitalization rules in this wiki?).

These should only be used for actually attempted expeditions. I don't think that it makes sense to include non-attempted expeditions. Unless there was a rule which requires The Internet to make a move every saturday, it isn't a fair game for the other two anyway. Not reporting a failed expeditions is just bad style (and people want to show off anyway). -- Relet 15:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, definitions time. An "expedition" is when people set out to attempt a geohash (or meetup). I like "defeated" but it's a little wordy, and don't want to tie it to the expeditions. Nature can nearly always be beaten, given time, money, and effort. How about Category:Coordinates Reached, Category:Coordinates Restricted and Category:Coordinates Unreasonable? I tried unreachable, but that covers restricted as well. --Thomcat 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional - Category:Coordinates Unknown covers the weekend we had coordinate problems (May 31) and a few others where people made an expedition without a GPS and reported they weren't sure if they made it or not. Any other discussion on these categories? --Thomcat 00:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the wordy version better, since it goes along the Mother Nature meme. I don't mind another wording, though. Coordinates Reached and Coordinates Restricted are clear to me, but "Unreasonable" does not bear the same message (the failure having natural causes). IMHO, that would include expeditions which weren't attempted in the first place. My idea was to separate into success/man-made obstacles and failures/failures caused by force majeure; natural causes. But maybe we can just separate into Success/Failure in a first step, and then see whether to further classify the failures.

Not knowing your coordinates / failing GPS / relying on your memory of Google Maps is a human failure IMHO. ;)

Nature can "always be beaten", if you're prepared for everything. But she's good at catching you off guard. Just think of the raptors. And you've only got a few hours-days for preparation, depending on when and where to go. -- Relet 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Project underway. Going with Category:Coordinates reached and Category:Coordinates not reached, and then in the latter case, adding one of Category:Failed - Mother Nature, Category:Failed - No public access, Category:Failed - Technology, or Category:Failed - Did not attempt. --Thomcat 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Caveats - I use the best possible category, i.e. if some gave up but other succeeded, that counts as success. Proven non-public areas will nearly always be failures, unless somebody qualifies for Restricted Area Geohash or the like. Finally, if the spot is within error for the GPS (less than 10 meters usually) but unreachable, that's a success - it's happened to me twice. --Thomcat 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Further caveat - I will leave comments where I have to make some sort of judgement call. --Thomcat 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Numerical graticule redirects...

I'd like to propose that each graticule have a page named for the graticule's numerical coordinates. For example, I've created a simple page for Cincinnati, OH at 39 -84 that is a trivial wiki redirection to the main Cincinnati, Ohio graticule page. In this way, it becomes VERY easy to write coordinate maps that link to adjacent areas, and it also becomes easier to computatively traverse coordinates to see what is available. Any suggestions/comments? -Scottkuma 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that to be the convention already. Support, but with a comma and no spaces, as in 39,-84. :) -- Relet 16:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a location where these conventions are laid out for all to see? (excuse my ignorance, pls!) -Scottkuma 16:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Better than a lot of redirects could be ... a template (e.g. graticule 39 -84). The template could do the lookup on the All Graticules page to display and link to the name. I have too little experience with templates to know if this is impossible. --Thomcat 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is already done on an as-needed basis for the ASG template. Generally, inactive graticules do not have this redirect because it is unnecessary. If you want to code something to traverse graticules, try traversing using the All Graticules page. -- Moose Hole 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. The convention for such redirect pages has been to use a comma and no spaces, influenced entirely by Template:ASG, which was the first feature to require such redirects. If you want to create a system of such pages to facilitate the inclusion of neighboring graticules, go for it! --Tim P 18:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Front page galleries very slow to refresh

I've noticed that the Gallery of Recent Expeditions is exceptionally slow to update. Is there any good reason for this, and is it to be fixed? --Psud 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are manually added, so they don't update until someone (a) goes on an expedition and (b) chooses to show of his or her pictures. They load quickly for me, so this is my guess at what you meant, even though it's not what you said. Relatedly, I notice that the Upcoming Coordinates for Tuesday W haven't updated yet, though, even though they have been available for fifteen minutes. - Robyn 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Psud means that he adds a picture, and it doesn't show up on the main page, even if he does a CTRL-F5. I've noticed that also. The pictures are running through a template, which (I'm guessing here) is connected to a database. They've always shown up within a few minutes for me, though. --Thomcat 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as MediaWiki is concerned, there is a good reason for this... caching. In order to reduce server load, complex templates are cached and are only reloaded/recalculated when an edit to the page housing that template is made. However, there is a little known "purge cache" workaround that will force the server to regenerate the page if you want. Simply add the code [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} Refresh the cache] to any page to add a link which will purge the page's cache. I've added this code to Main Page already, as I'm sure this is where it is most wanted/needed. --Tim P 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)