Difference between revisions of "User talk:DanQ"

From Geohashing
(Unnamed graticules)
(Unnamed graticules)
Line 64: Line 64:
Non-related: Do you have some input [[Talk:Dark_Ages#End_of_the_Dark_Ages|here]]? --[[User:Fippe|Fippe]] ([[User talk:Fippe|talk]]) 12:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-related: Do you have some input [[Talk:Dark_Ages#End_of_the_Dark_Ages|here]]? --[[User:Fippe|Fippe]] ([[User talk:Fippe|talk]]) 12:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
: I think #3 is best, personally, but I'm not super-fussy (despite my ninja edit!) -[[User:DanQ|DanQ]] ([[User talk:DanQ|talk]])

Revision as of 14:58, 1 March 2020

thanks for bringing back a space for communing!

cheers, Arlo (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

woo, thanks DanQ! I have a few expeditions I made in the past months I have to report about :) --SastRe.O (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, DanQ! --Fippe (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You cannot believe how happy I am to see the wiki back up, so many thanks! -- Mampfred (talk) 08:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi DanQ! Thanks a lot for bringing back the wiki. However, I can't find the option to upload images; can you help? FelixTheCat (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! Should be back now. I've also added gpx as a permitted file type because it always bugged me that it wasn't. --DanQ (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I just created my first new expedition report, and everything seems to be working fine! I'll start working on my backlog tomorrow :-) FelixTheCat (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Bots and Maps

Hi Dan, thank you again for bringing the site back.

I have a request: Could you add User:FippeBot to the bot group? That way it won't spam the recent changes when making it's edits. Before the Dark Ages, it tagged expedition pages with {{location}}, but it could also take care of changing the links to wiki.xkcd.com. --Fippe (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Done! --DanQ (talk)
Thank you very much! --Fippe (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A weird error happens when I try to access 2019-01-02 -43 172. Do you know why? --Fippe (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the <math> tag was breaking it; not yet sure why. Removing it fixed the problem for now; I'll look more-deeply later. --DanQ (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Nice, thank you! --Fippe (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The new OSM maps are nice. It is good that we no longer have Google's "for dev purposes only" message. I haven't encountered any problems at {{meetup graticule}}, but at {{meetup global}} the map does not display anything. There was a bug pre-Dark Ages as well, it used to display wrong coordinates. Now it does not display any coordinates at all, which I find weird, as it seems to call the same function which {{meetup graticule}} is calling. --Fippe (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't get a copy of the original mapping extension with my dump of the database, so I had to reimplement by reverse-engineering; I missed globalhashes when I did so. I've now added them, aaaand... I've hopefully managed to fix them so globalhash maps work. If you're able to check a few (you might need to purge/edit-and-resave pages to refresh the maps) that'd be appreciated! --DanQ (talk)
Currently it seems that there is a mistake in the calculations. I checked 2019-12-15 global, where the map now exists, which is very good. However, even after editing and purging, it currently seems to show the coordinates for the Geohash in the graticule of the Globalhash, not the coordinates of the Globalhash.
And now as I am writing this it seems that now it changed and the correct coordinates of the Globalhash are indeed marked, even on Globalhash pages such as 1990-04-20 global which I have neither edited nor purged. Did you just change something? It is working now, thank you! --Fippe (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Cache gremlins, I guess. --DanQ (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I found a map bug. For expeditions so far in the future that the coordinates are not yet known, for example 2020-02-29 53 -2, a marker gets displayed anyway. In those cases, the map gets error\ndata not available yet as the value for the dow, and thus the result of echo -en '2020-02-29-error\ndata not available yet' | md5sum, which is 4833c98649ca509cb315699d45792c16 as the hash. In accordance with this, a marker is drawn at the resulting coordinates, in this example at 53.282040210042204,-2.699545479675611. This should not happen. It would be better, if in cases where the Dow value is an error, that no marker is drawn. --Fippe (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well-spotted. Fixed. -DanQ (talk)
Thank you very much! --Fippe (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


I can't seem to get special:confirmemail to work. Do you think this might just be on my end? Arlo (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Unnamed graticules

I have considered cleaning out Special:WantedPages. Currently, this special page is not very useful since it is swamped by unnamed graticules. One way to fix this would be to create those graticule pages. We have had three approaches so far.

  1. My first approach, redirecting the page to unnamed graticules where the situation is explained.
  2. Your approach, putting the page into Category:Unnamed graticules and leaving the page blank.
  3. My second approach, giving the page a full graticule info page, just not naming it.

One issue that I see with #3 is that it will create even more Wanted Pages if the unnamed graticule has neighbours which also are unnamed. However, since the number of graticules is not infinite, it would be not impossible to do this, but it would take the bot longer to do this.

One issue that I see with #2 is that it could be confusing for a user to just see a blank page, and may not see the link to the category.

One issue you brought up with #1 is "Just being of the right category ought to be sufficient to encourage its eventual naming, and makes adding expeditions to it less-hard". I agree that a user may not know how to add expeditions to these redirect pages, and that giving the graticule a non-redirect page is better.

I am currently favouring #3, and could make FippeBot do the work if you are okay with this.

Non-related: Do you have some input here? --Fippe (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think #3 is best, personally, but I'm not super-fussy (despite my ninja edit!) -DanQ (talk)