 | | | Subject: Update Forum: A20180369 - New Zealand - Update
Posted Feb 25, 2007 by  U168592
| | Posting
1
 | | Entry: New Zealand - Update - A20180369
Author: Matt - U168592
I've updated the Entry on New Zealand A165601
This was due in the main to the fact that nearly all the h2g2 links in it were dead or unedited. Then I found loads of other New Zealand Entries worht adding to it. And I cleared up some of the contentious stuff. And loads of other things to bring it up to scratch. I think. I hope.
The only problem I had was crediting the original author Eck, as I can't seem to get them onto the Researchers bit. I've given them an original Entry credit though.
|
| | | Subject: A20180369 - New Zealand - Update
Posted Feb 25, 2007 by Gnomon
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
2
 | | Hi Matt! Thanks for doing this.
But since Eck wrote the original, you'll have to give him equal credit for the new version, which is based on his one. Add him to the researcher list, and he'll be listed as author, you'll be listed as "edited by". But when it is edited, you'll both get credit together. He'll be listed first, because his U number is before yours.
|
| | | Subject: A20180369 - New Zealand - Update
Posted Feb 26, 2007 by Gnomon
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
5
| | Yes, it certainly looks as if Eck's account U34825 was cancelled. I edited the entry, and clicked the Set Researchers button in the hope that it might enlighten me, and Eck's name was removed from the entry. I can't put it back again. It is now listed as "Edited by Kate", without any author! Since whoever Eck was, he or she is long gone from h2g2, I suppose the only thing we can do is to leave it as it is and make you the sole author when the time comes.
|
| | | Subject: A20180369 - New Zealand - Update
Posted Feb 26, 2007 by U168592
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
10
| | Curiouser and curiouser...
Will the Original Entry credit work with U Number and name though? That way they are getting credit of sorts, just not in the Written by section, which is a shame 
Perhaps Jim Lynn might be able to shed some light on what could be done, if anything. 
Anyway, I've left a note at the Kiwi Researchers group about the Update so there may be more to come in it, but from my point of view I think I'm done 
|
|  |
| | | Subject: A20180369 - New Zealand - Update
Posted Mar 8, 2007 by Gnomon
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
20
| | You call them The North Island and The South Island. I don't think the word "the" should be capitalised here.
The claim that New Zealand is as far from Australia as London from Moscow is not true. London to Moscow is 1,550 miles. New Zealand to Australia is 1,040. So it's only about 2/3 the distance, although parts of New Zealand are certainly more than 1550 miles from Australia. You could say that London is as far from Algeria as Australia is from New Zealand. That would probably be impressive as well as accurate.
The South Island is slightly bigger than the North Island, but South Islanders often refer to themselves as 'Mainlanders'
-- I don't think it should be "but" in that sentence. It should be "so".
In fact, if the truth be told -- I think this sounds odd since you are talking about a myth. I'd say "In fact, according to the myth"
about 1000 years --> about 1,000 years
the newcomers staggering generosity --> the newcomers' staggering generosity
popularly advertised as New Zealand's founding document was signed -- insert comma after document
a bunch of kiwi sailor's -- remove the apostrophe. You've used a capital k for Kiwi in other places. I think you should here as well.
Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy were filmed there -- was filmed
G
|
|
