User talk:Robyn

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. -Robyn 00:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually have to admit that I'm one of those who would prefer to see a cleanup. Anyway, Not so much on the pages themselves but in the categories - I don't think it's appropriate to have dozens of "It's a field, does anyone go?" pages in a Category:Meetup in X Y and Category:Meetup on YYYY-MM-DD. Because there neither was a meetup/expedition in that place nor on that date. Currently the template puts the pages into these categories automatically, and some of these categories leave the impression that a graticule has been very active in the past although the only activity was creating the pages. So if we want to keep these pages, I'd at least vote to take them out of the regular expedition categories, similar to the retro expeditions. --Ekorren 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the cause of Ekorren's discomfort was in the original decision to name the categories "Meetup" when often no meetup is involved. I am never entirely happy with those tags, either, but I do support creation of such pages early in the planning process, so that people clicking through from the peeron page see that others might be going. The Expedition tag distinguishes between the "hey, it's a road" and "I went and no one else came" submissions. One argument is that it is appropriate for a planning page to have the proper meetup tags, and it isn't reasonable for the system to require people to go back and edit planning pages when they don't make the meet. -Robyn 00:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I too have been deleting the odd early page so perhaps I'd better take an interest in this discussion. I think I agree with Ekorren. To me, the "Meetup" tags indicate a successful mission (no matter how many people showed up) -- either to the hashpoint itself or to an alternative Saturday location. And for unsuccessful missions, the "Expedition" and "Failed: reason" tags are useful. That rather seems to me to be what they are for, taking the "Meetup" tag away from a planning page seems reasonable. (The slight problem then is that it can't show a meetup location map any more.) I am unsure about whether I think that it's better to keep the "Expedition Planning" category for those which are being currently planned, or whether to leave it on all old expedition planning pages. I would still support the deletion of one-line planning pages, though, which are the result of two seconds' tapping at a computer and not any actual planning. -- Benjw 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

People's levels of verbosity range. What if some of those planning pages you delete are both the initial planning and the placeholder for expeditions that actually happened, but whose expeditioners haven't written them up. They went but didn't meet anyone, so didn't see the point. They haven't finished the roll so haven't developed the film (not everyone has digital already) and intend to ome back and finish it, but you deleted it! Anyway, I don't see what harm the patheti planning pages do. The Meetup tags don't indicate a successful expedition. They indiate the time and place of the geohash being disussed. I don't think it's a good idea to change the system that is ore to identifying the things. And maybe my tomorrow's geohash will be achievable. -Robyn 06:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Robyn here (and you are always welcome to come south and expedite, er, geohash with us, okay, me). Deleting a "this sucks" page from a many moons ago and from a user who hasn't made a wiki edit in as many months is probably okay, but anything else should be left. Active users can (of course, and arguably should) mark their own planning pages for deletion - I have a few times. --Thomcat 06:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

January 22nd Multihash

First glance at the map put the hashpoint on I-5, but satellite examination has it off E Lake Samish drive. Been by that lake many times, but only on the interstate. Good luck! --Thomcat 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been there. I won a ribbon in a triathlon along that road. I wonder if I can summon proof of the deja vu! -Robyn 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2009-01-24

I'm doing Bowen Island! Want to come? Thepiguy 04:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I dooo. I was supposed to go to motorcycle show in Abbotsford, but I've just persuaded the person I'm supposed to go with that Sunday is a much better day for attending motorcycle shows. Target: Bowen! -Robyn 04:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gates

Since I trust you, and wouldn't want to miss a Gates achievement, I'm getting on a plane now...I'll see you in a few hours at your place... -- UnwiseOwl 05:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. See you here in 14 hours or so. I'll send the butler to get you at the airport. -Robyn 05:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's snowing today so I have to decide if I'm going to bike 100 km in the snow or not. -- I'll vote for "no"! -- Benjw 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I vote yes. -- 150.101.48.8 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)