Difference between revisions of "User talk:Robyn"

Revision as of 00:03, 21 January 2009

Make a new category at the bottom and add your comments, or add them into an existing category that makes sense. I'd really appreciate a good summary, too, as I might not get to the wiki for a week, but I'll get the notification e-mail. Feel free to move a section back here if you want to talk about it more.

I moved all the old comments to User talk:Robyn/OldTalk because I was having trouble finding the new ones.

Deletion of old expedition planning pages

Hi Robyn! I hope this is the right place to ask (if not, please move it to where you think it should be). I recently started tagging old "yyyy-mm-dd nn ee" expedition pages for deletion, where they contained only very preliminary planning or no useful content, such as "point is in a field, i might go there if the rain stops" or "the algorithm sucks, this point is in the ocean"; pages that were created in May or June last year when rules for doing that sort of thing had not yet been established. I had asked about it in #geohashing, and we decided those pages weren't really needed anymore and merely clutter up the wiki. A few others joined in the delete-tagging frenzy and now we have a lot of these pages tagged. Joannac is (understandably) reluctant to delete so many pages (which she thinks may someday be interesting to look back to), and is asking for your expert opinion on the issue. What should we do with those one-line, single-user expedition pages that never even really deserved the "Expedition planning" category? --dawidi 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit to being a little dismayed when I returned from my vacation to see the frenzy of planning deletions. I think the failures and planning are part of the process, and I wouldn't have voted to delete any page that consisted of someone considering a location and how to get there, or simply cursing their fate at not having a boat. I have seen a few that look like automated page creation with no thought, and wouldn't mind discouraging the people who seem to sit and compile lists of geohashes but never try to reach any. But "clutter up the wiki"? If we're running out of room, we haven't left enough space for a growing sport. I think I have created a few "planning" pages that I knew at creation were for expeditions that would never happen, but they reflected days when all I could do was look. I wouldn't want them to be deleted. Good on Joannec for showing the stuff a moderator should show. I wouldn't delete anything unless its presence was actually posing a problem, e.g. causing confusion by being a duplicate page or a wrong name graticule page. -24.85.130.130 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 == Deletion of old expedition planning pages ==
 Hi Robyn! I hope this is the right place to ask (if not, please move it to where you think it should be). I recently started tagging old "yyyy-mm-dd nn ee" expedition pages for deletion, where they contained only very preliminary planning or no useful content, such as "point is in a field, i might go there if the rain stops" or "the algorithm sucks, this point is in the ocean"; pages that were created in May or June last year when rules for doing that sort of thing had not yet been established. I had asked about it in #geohashing, and we decided those pages weren't really needed anymore and merely clutter up the wiki. A few others joined in the delete-tagging frenzy and now we have a ''lot'' of these pages tagged. Joannac is (understandably) reluctant to delete so many pages (which she thinks may someday be interesting to look back to), and is asking for your expert opinion on the issue. What should we do with those one-line, single-user expedition pages that never even really deserved the "Expedition planning" category? --[[User:Dawidi|dawidi]] 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
+:I must admit to being a little dismayed when I returned from my vacation to see the frenzy of planning deletions. I think the failures and planning are part of the process, and I wouldn't have voted to delete any page that consisted of someone considering a location and how to get there, or simply cursing their fate at not having a boat. I have seen a few that look like automated page creation with no thought, and wouldn't mind discouraging the people who seem to sit and compile lists of geohashes but never try to reach any.  But "clutter up the wiki"?  If we're running out of room, we haven't left enough space for a growing sport. I think I have created a few "planning" pages that I knew at creation were for expeditions that would never happen, but they reflected days when all I could do was look. I wouldn't want them to be deleted.  Good on Joannec for showing the stuff a moderator should show. I wouldn't delete anything unless its presence was actually posing a problem, e.g. causing confusion by being a duplicate page or a wrong name graticule page. -[[Special:Contributions/24.85.130.130|24.85.130.130]] 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)