Difference between revisions of "Category talk:New report"

Revision as of 15:26, 6 March 2015

Perhaps we should have a bot that removes the "New Report" tag from reports that are no longer new. - Robyn

I've always thought "new" applied until someone who knows how things works goes through and validates the result codes on the report. If I work on a report and I'm sure I've got the codes right, I just remove it. If I hope someone else will have insight, I'll leave it on for a few days. (And then forget to go back!) Jiml 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed any discussion when this was introduced, but it makes sense: anyone adding proper categories should remove the "new report" category - it's there to indicate reports that haven't yet been properly classified. If there are expeditions that have both "new report" and real categories, we might need to reword the default template. --davidc 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Experienced users using the expedition template don't read through all the parts, just edit the bits they want, and the New Report category ends up on a lot of otherwise properly documented expeditions. It happened to me, and I thought it was a bot thing. I think there are a lot more falsely flagged new reports now than there ever were completely uncategorized reports before. I still think the new Expedition template is great.-Robyn 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up the backlog. I'd love to have help from others - it's pretty quick work.... Jiml 00:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I try to clean up a few reports from the backlog every day. With luck I'll have cleaned out everything more than a year old soon. --Eldin (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm working on this cleanup as well. And grant some achievements along the way. Palmpje (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Have done a bunch of them now. I'm looking on opinions / "rules" for the following:

Empty expidition page with no links to them except the autogenerated lists
- Mark for deletion with the tag
Expedition pages with just a remark such as: "someone should go there", "I may get someone to go" .... and that's it.
- I'd prefer to delete as nothing really happened
Expedition pages with New Report only and a well documented story
- Fix the codes and maybe grant a ribbon now and then
Expedition pages with New Report and also good results codes
- Delete the New Report tag

--Palmpje (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Responding point-by-point, your suggestion for 1 seems reasonable, and is what I've done on some occasions. Your suggestion for 2 seems reasonable, as long as a distinction is made between pages with things like 'someone should go' or 'I wish I could go', and pages indicating that the person who posted it actually planned or intended to go. The later shouldn't be deleted, in my opinion, and I sometimes try to solicit confirmation from the original poster as to whether an attempt was made or not. Your suggestions for 3 and 4 seem reasonable. In either of those scenarios, what I generally do is to remove the New Report tag, check that all appropriate categories are assigned and that all assigned categories are appropriate, adding or removing categories as necessary. I also sometimes add ribbons if appropriate, and I try to remember to check that the report is linked from the graticule's page and add it if it isn't. --Eldin (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I also agree, this seem like good guidelines to follow so that new expeditions don't get lost. I would suggest one change to #4, before I move the list to the main page: if a page is tagged as "Expedition planning" as well as "New report", just remove "New report". I see interesting locations that I promote for expeditions on Twitter (@geohashing), and making a page by posting a message from Geohash Droid is a really convenient way for me to do that. -- Jevanyn (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2013 (EST)

I got back into looking at the backlog here, and I found some cases of expedition pages that are empty templates, but the creator has comments on their own user page. Rather than deleting these, I'm going to tag them with "Needs attention" and notify the "owner". -- Jevanyn (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2015 (EST)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :Responding point-by-point, your suggestion for 1 seems reasonable, and is what I've done on some occasions. Your suggestion for 2 seems reasonable, as long as a distinction is made between pages with things like 'someone should go' or 'I wish I could go', and pages indicating that the person who posted it actually planned or intended to go. The later shouldn't be deleted, in my opinion, and I sometimes try to solicit confirmation from the original poster as to whether an attempt was made or not. Your suggestions for 3 and 4 seem reasonable. In either of those scenarios, what I generally do is to remove the New Report tag, check that all appropriate categories are assigned and that all assigned categories are appropriate, adding or removing categories as necessary. I also sometimes add ribbons if appropriate, and I try to remember to check that the report is linked from the graticule's page and add it if it isn't. --[[User:Eldin|Eldin]] ([[User talk:Eldin|talk]]) 11:17, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
 :I also agree, this seem like good guidelines to follow so that new expeditions don't get lost. I would suggest one change to #4, before I move the list to the main page: if a page is tagged as "Expedition planning" as well as "New report", just remove "New report". I see interesting locations that I promote for expeditions on Twitter (@geohashing), and making a page by posting a message from Geohash Droid is a really convenient way for me to do that. -- [[User:Jevanyn|Jevanyn]] ([[User talk:Jevanyn|talk]]) 13:15, 16 December 2013 (EST)
+:I got back into looking at the backlog here, and I found some cases of expedition pages that are empty templates, but the creator has comments on their own user page. Rather than deleting these, I'm going to tag them with "Needs attention" and notify the "owner". -- [[User:Jevanyn|Jevanyn]] ([[User talk:Jevanyn|talk]]) 10:26, 6 March 2015 (EST)