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

I'd split it into ten entries.

You mean split it up into ten articles, by murderer, and flesh each one out? Yeah, I guess I could do that. Is there any way for me to keep them linked, though?

Well, I agree with Gnomon on this one; it needs to be kept as separate Entries for 'digestibility'. I haven't really read it properly yet, so can't comment on whether the current splitting is the most appropriate.

Link them up in the same way that the 'Years of Billy Joel' project was done - A2700488

@GreyDesk: But I thought the university had been closed? Were all the articles in the project sent in all at one go, or did the guy editing it string them up together? I know my chopped-up articles could probably stand on their own, but I thought it would make more sense if they could also link up to one another, given that they're all related (especially if I were to wind up cutting up the poisons and poisoners sections into a total of about 20 different short entries; Lord, I'm a clutterer, I know - I obsessively collect my books this way), so if you could tell me how I could go about it, I'd be really grateful.

Master B's project (Billy Joel) was done after the University closed.

I thought Gnomon was being facetious when he said split it into 10 Entries. I think this would be excessive.

However, there is also the 'nested set' of 'Romans in Britain' Entries by Elentari, e.g. A3240037


Have you thought about including anything about Napoleon, under arsenic?

@BigAl: Well, I did mention Napoleon in 'A Brief History of Poisoning', under 'people who thought they were being poisoned'. I thought the article on notorious poisoners was long enough without including him, especially when they now say it's not murder after all (unless... I include a section called 'Napoleon's Murder: His Wallpaper Did It' ). Maybe there should be an article about the 'mysteries' surrounding Napoleon's death? ... not that I'm likely to embark on such a project anytime soon (you're welcome to it ).

Hmm, might do that - but I've got a huge catalogue of Entries waiting to be written. Trouble is, the more I write the more I find there is to write brecause, like you, I find a paucity of Entries to link to.

I was not being facetious.

The entries should be readable by a casual reader. One way to do this is to make the entry short. Another is to make it very simple. Of course with some subjects it is not possible to do this. For example, advanced mathematics (or chemistry) can not usually be simplified much and will usually cause the casual reader to give up. But if you make it simple enough at the start, the reader will have learnt and enjoyed quite a bit before they quit. If they're going to quit reading, we want it to be with the attitude "That was interesting, I'll have a look at it later".

It may be that there is no way to make a list of poisoners shorter. So it is up to Farlander to make this really gripping stuff, so that the reader doesn't want to stop reading.

Cool Entry, I wish I could do something that good, wah!
Hint: DOn't drink out of a cup that your enemy has gven you, duh!

My feelings are that if you have the slightest interest in poisons then the entry draws you on - whilst in Peer Review I read lots of articles on subjects I'm not interested in, but only the 'good' ones do I get to the end of, or comment on, without some interest, or knowledge in the first place.

I like the long one, but I'm happy to go with the majority, but if you're going to split it up, then 1 on poisons and there symptoms, either 1 mentioing 'some famous poisoners' or lots of individual entries - the h2g2 poisoners club.

Just as a bye the bye I find my entry on Coventry City Fottball club, a much narrower topic, and only covering 133 years, ran out at 4,100 words.

H2G2 Poisoners' Club!!! God, I hope that if something similar to the Paladin books' 'Hit Man' happens here, that I don't get charged with aiding and abetting.

I'd like to ask the opinion of all the reviewers: should I keep these poisoners together, united by a common theme, or should I 'honour'() them by giving each their own article space, and sort of round each one out? (Hmm... given the fact that I can't stop writing, however... )

I'll accept Farlander's present splitting into three, but feel that researchers should try and keep them short in future.

I know that Number Six and I managed to hit 5,000 words with both the Prague and the Venice entries, but I feel that entries about places are different. They are more likely to be dipped into to find useful information, not read through from start to finish.