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

Entry: The Dodo surviving in culture (UPDATE) - A5813138
Author: Traveller in Time < 42 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ VOTE TWO LEGS ____ A5641931 ____ ____ ____ ____ Beat the two Headed Ex - U228046




Traveller in Time reading the original Edited Entry
"This is what one could call an _Update_ of the old Entry.
This Entry also does not contain any of the facts as we do know abouty the birds, merely discribing the 'popular image'.


I know the images will have to go. And I will adapt the GuideML during the process to fit within the GuideLines. "

Can you give us the A number of the original entry that you are updating?

< A138269 >

I'm confused, TiT! I thought that A5807919, the entry that you wrote and has been recommended, was an update of A138269. Why are you writing another one?

Traveller in Time checking 'The Dodo, an extict bird'
"Nope none of the entry is even remotely about the fame and 'legends' as the old Edited Entry is.
I did not recognise the old entry as beeing about the bird when I did my research about the Bird. I n the Peer Review Thread some also suggested it should be an update, however the only 'facts' they share are 'Mauritius' (should be known to a ) and the years noticed in the image.

What I also like to try is write two entries about the same subject that both fit in the Guide. This one should only concern the fame as many have used the icon the bird has become. "

I understand now.

You should add Ant to the list of Authors of this entry.

There is so little in the original and so much in this that I recommend that it should be put through Peer Review as a "Complete Rewrite" rather than through the Update Forum. This would have the advantage of getting much more people to look at it and make suggestions.

Traveller in Time eternally confused
"Will have to check the used links erm, did notify 'Ant' about the reworks in progress about two years ago I am not a newbee .
And you are probably rigth about the amount of Feedback I hardly see anybody here.

Perhaps there is the same problem as once was with < <./>Askh2g2</.> > being used for every kind of discussion, most not beeing remotely questions. Either we should change the GuideLines or our behaviour . "

Here's what the instructions for the Update Forum say:

"If it's a question of junking the whole thing and starting completely from scratch, then the entry should be submitted to Peer Review with clear instructions in the first posting that this is a new entry intended to replace the old one. That way, the new entry will eventually get its day on the Front Page. If, however, most of the content of the original entry is still present in some way in the update, then the new version should be submitted to the Update Forum."

"Getting its day on the Front Page" of course means a description, a link and possibly a picture. Even if it goes through the Update Forum, it will still get mentioned on the Front Page, but only as a link in the Recently Updated section.

Traveller in Time trying to make other sense of it
"Well, that is just what I did, The previous entry was a complete rewrite without any of the content of the existing Edited one. This entry, originated as a spinoff, does the thing as general rewriting adding to and complementing the original one.
For what I understand of it this one is an update, where the other one is completely new.

Actually I think it is up to the editors what will be the Update, however concerning the comments on the Edited one I think this one can replace it and the other one (about the birds) does not make sense at all. "

I still recommend Peer Review for this. Let's see what Jimster says when he comes by. Meanwhile, there are a lot of changes that should be made to this, but I haven't time to point them all out at the moment.

You'll have to remove the green background for the text "as dead as a dodo".

It is Penguin, not Pinguin.

Traveller in Time on a very small system
"Can not even reach the penguins with this system, got to clear it and ship it to our customer . See you on another platform. "

Traveller, could you please try harder to make your posts easy to read. You do not need to keep adding the 'Traveller in time' bit to every post because your name automatically appears above each post. Also, your nickname does not need all those underlines, which often break the page and leave it looking very messy.

Sorry for snapping, but it's only because of this conversation that I've discovered your entry in Peer Review on Dodos was an update, while this is a wholly new entry. As a consequence of not stating clearly that your submnission to Peer Review was an update, we now have a duplicate entry that we don't need, as opposed to simply over-writing the original entry and putting it back into the Editing queue. It's a real nightmare to fix.

While we try to work out a way around the problems this has caused the editing queue, can you please remove this entry from the Update Forum as it is not an update and needs a lot more work on it before it's suitable for Peer Review.

Traveller claims that the entry in Peer Review was not an update, but that this one is.

Traveller in Time unconvenient on the edge
"If my nickname breaks your pages then either your system is having a bug or you have found a bug in the Parser software.

First try to reboot and have a look again. it the page with problems still breaks it is probably the parser choking on something. I only once had my nickname fixed as one unbreakable string. Beeing a guinnea pig did course some trouble. "

I came here via a link posted on the Dodo PR entry conversation, by TiT, does this work require reviewing?
Is it meant for the EG?
If so, this para:

<>

doesn't belong in the entry I'm afraid.

I don't know what the current status of this is, because TiT and Jimster do not see eye-to-eye about it and the other one in Peer Review. It's very hard to see eye to eye with TiT since he is so hard to understand and never gives a straight answer to anything.

Traveller in Time counting words
"Feel free to write an _update_ on the existing entry. That is what this was supposed to be. Ok not finished by far, but as far as I can get it in one go by myself.

By the new rules for updating I can forget ever writing something like an update.

You both know the other entry, I was trying to collect facts about the birds.
The Edited Entry 'Dodos' is about the icon of the bird, the sum of the things writers and other artists made of the bird. The Edited entry does not mention the island, nor the timescale, those are added by others.

My 'problem' with 'Jimster' in this is he only jumped to the conclusion as it is about the same bird.
Well, for me all the dead presidents are dead and were president, that should go in one entry as well ! "

I accept that, TiT, but I'm not sure that Jimster does.

My problem here is that I genuinely can't work out if you're deliberately misinterpreting the original Entry or if you're just incredibly confused, which makes it very hard to know how to pursue this.

Many of the very early guide entries were rushed together and acted merely as rather light-hearted dictionary definitions. Compared to the way we now write entries, that entry is not that useful. To use that as an indicator that the original entry was discussing only the iconography is to miss the point that the original entry (with respect) wasn't trying to do either approach; it was just trying to fill a gap.

But anyone who has subsequently linked to it will have done so because it's the only thing we have on the bird. Anyone who has searched for the Dodo in our Guide will have been looking for information on the bird (and will no doubt have been fairly disappointed with what they found so far). Your first entry was about the bird too, which makes sense to have that as an update, but this entry is about the iconography. If the entry here were to go into the Edited Guide, it wouldn't be used to replace an entry on The Dodo - it'd be a completely new entry 'How the Dodo Survived in Culture' or something.

Therefore, this is too far removed from the purpose of the existing Edited Entry to be the Update when your other entry is exactly what could be (and indeed is being) used as an Update.

In its current form, this entry would be too rough for Peer Review; nor could it be considered as part two of your update and used as an addition to your other Dodo entry. It really needs to go through the Writing Workshop first.



I'm genuinely puzzled how this situation could be viewed in any other way - how could the entry submitted here possibly be an update when it's an entry heading in a completely different direction, which was created *after* an entry that's so clearly an update to the existing one it doesn't make sense to see it in any other way? Sorry if that suggests we're just 'not seeing eye to eye', but that's the way it is.



After this blew up last week, we realised through this incident that the Update rules were far more convoluted than they needed to be. As a consequence, we're now *only* accepting updates via the Update Forum.

Luckily, there's only one Edited Entry pointing to the original Dodo entry, and that's "Non-electric can openers" A256871, so this is very easily sorted out.

Well done on streamlining the Update Forum, Jimster!