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

ooh thanks Menthol Penguin!

here ya go!


A66942336

and the page turner too:

Entry: Deep Purple Live - A Guide for the Purplexed - A66587782
Author: Giford - U187177

Ooh, tenterhooks!

Gif

you could sway the voting by saying which you prefer Gif

I am going to post a phrase copied from the 'Grove Family' thread in PR

>>> I thought we were moving away from tables though - they look rubbish on mobiles
<<< smij /jimster


Just thought it was worth bearing in mind . . .


Lanzababy

I prefer the...


footnote version. To me the table is a touch off-putting when you see it.

I didn't canvas you too hard did I Menthol?

Well, nice to see we have a working majority - back to footnotes it goes! (When I get time...)

Gif

Hi Giford. Sorry to add our two penneth at this late stage (after keeping silent for so long), but we'd much prefer that you kept that information as a table. It presents it really clearly and concisely and you've obviously spent a lot of time on it. So we vote table.

BTW, your Entry rocks, appropriately enough.

Tsk Get my hopes up then dash them, why don't you!



btw, I'm about half-way through listening to all the albums with a view to putting together a brief section of recommended entry-points (i.e. albums that are of good sound quality, don't have various band members incapacitated through drugs or in a snit and refusing to play, aren't part of a 12-CD set, etc). At the same time, I'm adding in a brief comment on each album.

Gif

I really really don't understand the huge antipathy to footnotes.

Having one or two footnotes isn't an issue. Having loads, (in this case there were 32) can and does spoil the flow of the article. For me, if the information can be included in the main body of text then it should be. It makes for better reading, more clarity of detail within the text and looks better overall.

You see, generally I'd agree with you that it can (not always) break up the flow.

In this case the footnotes are all of the same nature: thy give dates and details about concerts. That information, in the body of the text, would totally ruin it.

The table is ok, but... the Guide is really supposed to be a reference work. We have Peer Review. That is supposed to make it a somewhat serious, cheeked by peers, publication. And in such publications (I'm reading a book about Behavioural Economics at the moment which is fairly littered with footnotes - none of which I need to check while I'm reading unless I'm really interested as they all refer to names and publication dates of relevant papers)

I just think that in some cases people see a couple of footnotes and have a knee-jerk "oh NO FOOTNOTES!" moment.

I view a table at the bottom of an Entry as an Appendix. I can choose to read it or choose to ignore it depending on how much detail I want.

I look forward to the results of your research, Giford!

Still progressing.

Just a note to to say that although I have long considered the 'Bootleg Series' 12 CD set to be a 'sister release' to the 'Soundboard Series' 12 CD set released around the same time, the more I look into it the more certain I am that only one of the two is an 'official' release. I've finally bitten the bullet and rewritten the Entry accordingly.

And sadly, Ronnie James Dio (who contributed lead vocals on a couple of songs in the Sounboard Series) passed away over the weekend.

The listening continues...

Gif

I thought of you when I heard the news.

Hi Giford. Could you let us know when you're happy with this Entry. And if others are okay, we'll accept it for submission. Thanks

Hi Eds,

Not yet, I'm afraid.

As I said earlier, I've rushed into PR with a bit of a spur-of-the-moment Entry, and I'm now slightly rethinking what I want to say/do with it - it will probably take me another week or so to get it presentable.

Sorry about the delay, which is rather my fault...

Gif

No worries Gif. There's no rush so just let us know when you're ready.