Category talk:Expedition outcomes

Hey Thomcat, a nice project you have going here. I will categorize my previous and future ones (you did two for me!). I'm probably just lazy, but I find creating a new expedition page really time consuming. Is anyone working on a page generator? It would save us all time, and guarantee properly constructed and categorized pages. Juventas 02:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of an auto-expedition-generator, but it would be a good app. Not sure if it can both create the page AND post into the contents of the page. Wiki research is in order... --Thomcat 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You do know about the Template Thomcat made, right, Juventus? You have to copy it in and save the page and it magically sets most of it up for you. -Robyn 06:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I had never have seen that page until now. :( I see it was added to the "Help" sometime after I was first here figuring this stuff out. I tried it as a preview, but I guess you can't see the editable page until after it's published.

I spent the evening re-learning forms and created this: [1] It's non-functional, except the URL button is partially. All the fields I filled in would represent values that could be pulled from the user's PC or a cookie. As far as I can see, after a few clicks, everything would be generated except for image names and some achievement details. It seemed cool until I saw that expedition template, which is pretty similar. Juventas 08:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering how automated Thomcat had in mind when he answered your question no. Maybe it is a TSR (or whatever they are called these days) that downloads the daily coordinates, monitors your movements and then automatically uploads an expedition report if you make it there. I wouldn't like reading expedition reports that were that automated! -Robyn

"Failed" Should Be "Thwarted"

Hi Thomcat, it's really nice you take the time to organize and categorize all our stuff. But! I'm going to change the Failed - Did not attempt on 2009-03-21 41 -87 to Failed - Mother Nature. We didn't have a boat, and if it weren't for this I wouldn't even have gone at all. I would also like go a little further and suggest the word "Failed" be replaced by "Thwarted". It is more accurate and less anti-celebratory. I would like to help to do this myself but I do not know how many links would have to be changed. Virgletati 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally second the wording "Thwarted". I know that the answer to changes is "hundreds if not thousands" unless there is an admin ability to change a category name. I'll ask JoannaC. -Robyn 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't.--Arvid 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The only way to move a category page is to manually change all category tags that link to the category, and copy the editable part. There is no automatic way to move a category page in the way one moves an article page..

On a different note, the failed indicates you failed to reach the coordinates. Is there something I'm missing, or are people really that upset with having the word "failed" on their pages? --joannac 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter. Someone goes and has a glorious day and writes about it and someone comes along and tells them they failed. Thanks for checking. -Robyn 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a you failed to reach the coordinates. Nothing to do with the actual expedition (in fact, there are failed expedition reports that are vastly more entertaining than successful reports). The failed also may have nothing to do with you (Mother Nature, No Public Access, wrong date, etc). It's just referring to the fact you didn't make it to the coordinates. I don't understand why there is such a problem with it. --joannac 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I was temporarily stupid. We could REDIRECT the Failed categories to equivalent Thwarted categories. I say yes. Virgletati says yes. Anyone object to this? We'll give it at least a week. -Robyn 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like both. -- relet 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The redirect won't change what's displayed on the user's page though... will it? Also, Redirecting a category page is possible, but almost certainly won't have the desired effect (it can be abused for other purposes). --joannac 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to create the "Thwarted - Mother Nature" and other similar categories and redirect THEM to the failed categories, so people can choose failed or Thwarted. -Robyn 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only 123 page which are categorised "Failed - Mother Nature". Changing all those links wouldn't take too long, especially if several people did some each. -- Benjw 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But look at all the other "Failed" categories, like Category:Failed - No public access. Not to mention people's habits in using those tags. We can do both a redirect and change links. -Robyn 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Using_the_python_wikipediabot

Yes, I have read and understood your reasons, but I do not think that thwarted puts it any better. Worse, rather, as failed is neutral while thwarted includes that someone or something "evil" kept you and you would have reached the coordinates by any means otherwise. What's so worse in calling a failure a failure anyway? Why is it necessary to make clear already by language that you yourself would never fail? There's failure everywhere. And as a conclusion, I totally fail to see any point in renaming. --Ekorren 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion fails to not be a storm in a teacup. But I'll weigh in on the 'leave it as is' side of the camp, basically for reasons noted prior by others --Nemo 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer Ekorren's "Why" questions: putting "failed" on the "not reached" expeditions implies that the whole point of the exercise was to reach the coordinates. It seems to me that the point is to have fun on a spontaneous expedition. Most of the expeditions marked "failed" were not failures. -Robyn 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to what my dictionary says about thwarted (yes, I actually checked again), that's even more of a fail: If my expedition was thwarted, that would usually mean I wouldn't be able to go at all. The difference you describe here is about the expedition as a whole vs. reaching the coordinates and not about fail vs. thwarted. A thwarted expedition is a failure, while failing to reach the coordinates doesn't thwart the expedition. --Ekorren 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

...and like I said, "fail" relates to the coordinates bit of the expedition, not the expedition as a whole.

If it's really an issue (which it seems like it is), then get rid of all the failed categories. I don't see that changing it to thwarted fixes that issue. --joannac 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We like to track what prevented people from reaching the coordinates. But youse guys are convincing me that changing the category to thwarted isn't the right move. -Robyn 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the point is to reach the coordinates. If you want to put labels on how much fun you had or how much effort you put into getting there (or failing to get there), there are achievements (some count even if you didn't reach the coordinates) and consolation prizes. I support keeping the categories as they are. "Thwarted" to me suggests that it's somebody else's fault you didn't succeed. --dawidi 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed is the opposite of succeeded, as in "succeeded in reaching the coordinates." I am not PC, nor am I a Mac. Suggest a solid pair of opposites to replace succeed and fail, and I vote yes. Until then, count me a no. --Thomcat 03:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a simple solution that you've all missed.  :-) On a successful expedition (that is, one where the coordinates are reached), the only category to be added is "Coordinates reached". There is no "Success" category. So why not simply change the "Failed - Mother Nature" category to "Not Reached - Mother Nature", and the others likewise. That way, it's still accurate, it fits in even better with the category currently use for success, and it removes the alleged "failure" stigma. Howzat? -- Benjw 05:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Benjw's suggestion. -Robyn

Seconded (thirded?) If it has to be done, then that sounds like a good compromise mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 07:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here to suggest "Not Reached". It's the obvious (?) and neutral solution. --Ilpadre 08:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Reached and Not Reached - good descriptive opposites. Success! --Thomcat 13:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with this label. I am glad Robyn was able to express my view of things, too, thanks Robyn! Count me in for helping to change the links, how and when do we start? Virgletati 05:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess #1 is to make the Not Reached categories, #2 to redirect the Failed categories to the equivalent not-reacheds, and #3 is any going back and changing old ones that people want to do. When is ... at least after Thomcat okays that redirect, because he is the one who uses the categories to keep stats. He may want to wait until he has done the March stats, or some such.- Robyn.

I use the categories "expeditions" and "successes" - only the latter falls in the purview of this project. Now is a good time to go for it - the earliest I run the numbers for March would be April 7th. --Thomcat 06:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop in and mention that we now have User:ReletBot who can help in automatically moving pages from one category to another and the like. Once you have reached a consensus on what's to be done, maybe drop me a note. -- relet 08:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)