Template talk:Expedition Images/How-to

Graticule name

Why does it have to be the Graticule Name? Your example (which is my pic) is wrong then, it should be Rheine, not Ochtrup (I also wrongly named the 52 7 graticule after the main river, Ems). The problem I have with graticule names is, cities are often at the edge, or in a corner. When the hash is not even near that place, it seems wrong to me to name a hash after that city. I use the nearest city/town/village, which in this particular case was also weird, because the hash was sort-of in the _middle_ of nowhere between multiple towns.

Also, the all-graticule page is very outdated. 52 7 is not even in it.--Arvid 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All Graticules is not automatically generated. If your graticule is not covered, you are welcome to add it. In the past, the standard for galleries had been to list the graticule name for ease of recognition. However, looking at recent entries, I see the paradigm has shifted a bit during the last few weeks. My apologies. I will correct the instructions. --Tim P 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

4 picture limit

Expedition pages that are linked at the gallery appear to get significantly more views than such which are not linked. That wasn't any problem during winter, when the limit was never exceeded anyway, but...

• this was only because some participants don't add their pictures,
• geohashing is growing again
• just recently it happened that pictures couldn't be added because of the limit
• the great expeditions tend to have their report finished later (if only because you don't return from them at afternoon UTC), so...
• if the limit is exceeded it will prefer the short and easy expeditions

I don't know whether it is possible to have some kind of automatic rotation for days where the limit is exceeded. Otherwise I think the limit should be raised significantly or dropped at all, or, at the very least, be encouraged that the rest of expedition pages are added as a textual link to the template to make them visible. I understand that the limit was introduced to avoid that the main page gets seriously clogged, but if that means that expedition reports get hidden and not read, I don't feel comfortable with that. --Ekorren 19:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to read the Recent Changes page and completely ignore the main page, so I probably see most of them anyway, but I wonder how much the main page is actually being 'clogged up' by more than four photos per day? I've just had a quick look in the daily expedition categories: the first 14 days of May have had 3, 10 (Saturday), 10 (Sunday), 1, 1, 1, 4, 6, 5 (Sat), 6 (Sun), 4, 2, 7, 2. So if there was a photo added for each expedition, there'd be, what, an extra seven photos added to the gallery, or about one extra photo every two days. I think we can cope with that, so I would support removal of the four-photo limit. Why don't we try it, at least? We can always reinstate the limit if it gets unwieldy. -- Benjw 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the convention of one photo per expedition is respected, I don't think that it would be a problem to remove the limit. If geohashing does get so popular that even that becomes unwieldy, we will have to work out a way to select which expeditions are featured (or a rotation as mentioned earlier), but until then, I support removing the limit. -- Rhonda 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)