h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The other one is categorised too. I can't see any difference between them, other than the fact that the other one is already there in the Edited Guide.

Tell me which one you're talking about, which is categorised alphabetically according to function. If you mean A765975 them, f'instance, the section on 'Stalagmites and Stalagtites' is not listed under 'Geology', which is the category one most reasonably might expect to find it. If you search using 'Geography' you don't find the Counties of Ireland. There isn't a category of 'Physics' under which to find 'The Right Hand Screw Rule' or 'The Colours of the Spectrum'. I could go on and on and....

Also, the style of A765975 is so idiosyncratic that I couldn't update it. It would need a total re-write. So, aas I say, my Entry is Categorised according to application, not according to type of mnemonic. Hence the two Entries are SUBSTANTIALLY different.

OK, you're saying that the existing entry is no good so that makes it substantially different from your one. You are writing a better one which will sit alongside the existing one.

Rubbish! That's totally against the principles on which the guide operates. If the existing one is that bad, it should be rewritten. I stand by my original statement.

Scouts, please DO NOT pick this entry.

I am not saying it's bad. I'm merely saying it's DIFFERENT. A765975 is about 'Mnemonics' per se. Mine is about using mnemonics to recall information. That is why it is not easy to use A765975 to find a mnemonic for a specific category. That is why my Entry is called 'CATEGORISED Mnemonics. The two are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. They are designed to do different things.

P.S. If I thought A765975 was no good then I wouldn't have hypetlinked to it. It gives a good overview of different types of mnemonic with examples. A765975 could conceivably be expanded by including extra examples of each type of mnemonic, but that isn't it's point - and, indeed, there would be no point in doing this. It's point is surely to explain that there are different types of mnemonic. Hence it is of value to the student who wants to know about mnemonics per se.

Mine is designed to be of value to students of various subjects who need to remember specific bits of information. Hence it is intrinsically expandable in that one can easily add in extra categories and also extra examples within categories.

It's the 'intrinsically expandable' bit that I think is a bigger stumbling-block when it comes to making this an Edited Entry. As I think I said earlier in the thread, if the entry is intended to be continually updated as you come across more examples, it's a poor use of scarce editorial resources to make this Edited, and then have to keep nagging the editors to update it on a regular basis. The easier and more efficient solution is to keep it as a normal guide entry, and do the updating yourself.


Azara

Yes, I might actually do that. I'll wait to see what the editors say. However, I have seen other Entries submitted to be edited where the author has explicitly stated that the Entry is designed to be added to.

(Also, I for one am somewhat irritated by the number of EG articles that have information added to Conversations at the bottom, but
nobody bothers to update the original article. I did read somewhere on h2g2 that Entries are intended to be periodically updated to keep them fresh and up-to-date)

You're wrong, Big Al. The original entry was intended to be exactly what your one is intended to be. If it hasn't achieved that, then it needs to be rewritten.

You can't make an edited entry that is inviting to be expanded. Edited Entries are supposed to be complete.

You seem to have misunderstood the way the editorial process works here.

I'm in agreement with Gnomon, here.

I'll pull it from PR.

Hey, Mikey,

I just tried pulling this from PR but the box which says 'Not for PR' was already ticked.

So I clicked it off and then on again. Is it now 'pulled'?

Ticking or unticking that box doesn't remove an entry from Peer Review. To do that go to the PeerReview page, and find your entry on the list -- you might have to click on "see more Guide entries" at the bottom.

When you find your entry, there should be a symbol that only shows up on the line for your entry -- a little x, I think it might be. Anyway, click on that, and it will remove the entry from PR for you.

I couldn't remember how to do that.

Don't take this personally. All the good writers have had to withdraw stuff from PR. I hope that you'll take the time to update the other entry. But if you don't, keep writing, because we need lots of good writers.

No, I don't take it personally Gnomon. I don't intend to update the other entry because, as I said before, it's very idiosyncratic and just not my style. If I updated it, it would loook completely different.

just bopping a note to say: a) I am unsubscribing and b) It's been nice to see how educated people solve their differences.

See you on the next PR thread, BigAL.

HELL

Hell. I haven't forgotten the 'moles' Entry. Just haven't had 'quality time' to do anything with it yet. Perhaps the Christmas hols.....?