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

Entry: Earth According to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - A810479
Author: spook - U183955

ok, a while back i suggested this as an update on the earth entry at A482933 . it wasn't accepted so i thought i'd make it into an entry and submit it. although it isn't large it is extremely factual, contains a reference to the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy entry, and meets the writing guidelines.

spook

The earth entry actually ahs a very thorough update already linked to it written by Joanna if memory serves.

yeah it links to a factual entry on eart, which this also links to, however, the earth entry itsel is not factual. this is.

spook

Quite true - the Edited 'Earth' entry - A18541 - is quite similar to this one and is linked to the one written by Joanna (under the title of 'Mostly Harmless'), Spook - so since it is already in the Guide, would you consider removing it from PR

Stay ,
WD

the earth entry is not a factual entry. it is a joke entry wich is supposed to be funny, but does not in any way meet the writing guidelines. i proposed this as an update and it was rejected. this entry is factual and there is nothing else in the guide providing this information. so i will not remove it from peer review.

spook

A18541 is the number of the entry i wanted updated. i put the mostly harmless number before. woops.

spook

The A18541 has been kept in the guide and any fan of the books will expect to find this when they look up and that is the reason the PTB have kept it in as a mark of RESPECT to he late DNA U42

i can understand that they have left it in as respect to the late DNA, but not because fans will expect this as this guide is supposed to be fact not fiction. just because i am a fan of star trek does not mean i expect to see an entry entitled Vulcan which states that Vulcan is the home planet of a race called the vulcans who we haven't met yet but they will come to earth in the year... etc etc. this entry is completely factual and for that reason belongs in the edited guide. it is not similar to any other entry in the edited guide that is factual, as the earth entry called earth is not meant to be.

spook

Additionally, if you click the words 'mostly harmless' in that entry, it will take you to the 'proper' entry on Earth.

Jimster

Yeah but this is the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Earth addition.

Take this up with the editors not me and do us all a favour nad remove this from peer review.

Please

this entry belongs in the edited entry as it is factual. the other entries are they and that is fine. i am fine with the earth entry staying as it is and the mostly harmless entry staying how it is. they have nothing to do with me.

this entry is simply a factual entry telling people what the earth is according to the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, and it meets all the writing guidelines. i should know, i just spent the last 15 minutes re-reading them to make sure.
spook

Ok if you are going to take that angle you ad better to make it totally factual say how the revision came about Ford's week long mission which became 15 years and all hte stuff he did end up research and how the editor chopped it to mostly harmless.

Write that up and I can warrant it's inclusion in the guide.

ok - i've done that now.

spook

Hmmm...

Still not sure there is enough substance to it all.

I'll think about it while I'm on holiday.

The thing is... the entry on Earth contains the update. The fact that it says 'Mostly Harmless' and not 'Harmless' means that it is already the updated version of the Entry.

If you're going to try and get an article out of this, maybe a study of Ford Prefect? However... given the fact that it was turned down as an Update, I don't see how this would represent a backdoor. And as it stands the entry really doesn't say a great deal as it's mostly quotes from 'Mostly Harmless'. The article is made up of one-third quotes and the rest states material from the original books in a brief reordering.

Rejection can lead to offence... but sticking to your guns on an entry that has already been rejected seems a waste of energy that you could be focussing on writing other prospective entries.

"it meets all the writing guidelines. i should know, i just spent the last 15 minutes re-reading them to make sure."


So you'll have read the line where it says that an entry won't be accepted if it "... makes gratuitous reference to Douglas Adams and his books"?

A little confession - when h2g2 first started up, before Peer Review was in place, the team used to be bombarded with entries that just said "Earth - mostly harmless" with all the gusto of people who thought they were the first people to think of doing that. So the entry you're referring to (A18541) was created just to stop people from doing that. Admittedly, it's not 'factual', but it serves the purpose of stopping people from trying to submit that joke again and again. Or so it was thought...

However, when J'au-æmne wrote her superb 'proper' entry on the subject (A482933), a link was added to it from the original entry.

Jimster

people listen please. this entry is "Earth According to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". it is not "Earth". when i proposed it as an update to the earth entry i proposed it with the subject change so that it would be a factual entry. it wasn't accepted as an update. i can understand why, but i still didn't think the original entry on earth deserved to be there. so i thought to myself - "hey, why i don't i make my proposed entry into an update. it would be factual, as it is giving the view of earth according to the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. i could have called this entry just earth if i wanted to, but then it wouldn't be factual. the entry of earth called mostly harmless is a good entry, and this entry even links to it. this isn't meant as a joke, and doesn't make any gratuitous references to Douglas Adams and his books. it simply states what his books view of earth is. if there is slightly more information needed to be added then i'll add it, but i'd rather have people suggesting some improvents to the entry then calling it a joke when i can search through the edited entries right now and find entried that are in there from the old h2g2 days like the earth entry that are way more of a joke and do not contain much relevant information, and break a whole load of writing guidelines, while this one is factual and meets the guidelines.

i don't mind critiscism, but i don't like my entries being called a joke.

spook

We're not saying it's a joke.

"...it would be factual, as it is giving the view of earth according to the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy."

You got yourself there - as, obviously, the HHGG view of Earth, in this respect, is fictional NOT factual.

And, as previously mentioned, this entry is 35%+ straight quotes out of a DNA book... so that is probably a good example of gratuitous Douglas quoting.

Please remove this from Peer Review. There really is anything else that can be said.

write an entry about a TV show. u tell ppl about the characters. they don't exist, they r fictional, but u tell ppl about them. this is an entry about something in a book. it is factual in the fact that it is in the book, but is fictional in the fact that the book is fictional. this entry is factual about something that is fictional, and when talking about a book you should always include quotes, something i've learnt from english lessons. it's not gratuitous. and i will not remove an entry that meets the writing guidelines from peer review. and i would prefer comments in this thread to be about improving the entry rather then telling me to remove it because i am really getting p****d off.

thank you

spook

Give up spook. Everyone has said pretty much the same thing and no one has said anything in your support. The entry is little more than a brieft acknowledment that the book exists containing information that any who have read the books would be well aware of.

I couldnt even be classed as a review of the books for somebody who had never heard of the Hitchickers Guide to the Galaxy, although I cannot imagine there can be many around that fall into that category.

Stuart