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

Well done!

Well done Ekaterin

Congratulations - an article worthy of the guide!

to everyone who contributed to this thread for all their help in making the article much better than it was to begin with!
Ekaterin.

You are very welcome - you didn't need to credit me! Anything to do with companion animals and I will usually add my !!



Well done on filling the space in the guide!

for Ekaterin!

Azara

Coolness!

I see that you have included me as an author as well, and I am a bit embarrased! You needn't add me as my contribution is so small and is typical of anything I might type in Peer Review.

I was about to say the same thing.
I don't deserve to be named as an author. Didn't actually make a contribution . . .

2/3

The same goes for me, too. I just made a comment or two, I didn't do any of the w*rk, so I feel a bit odd having my name on the entry.



Ivan.

You all contributed something that caused me to modify the article. 2of3 pointed out that I should explain why you ought to check that the owners have spayed the mother cat when getting a "free kitten", and Ivan added local by-laws on cat ownership. Mort, you supplied a lot of very helpful information concerning buying a pedigree cat, so you definitely deserve a credit.

I don't know whether I can take anyone off the researcher list now that the article's been recommended, but for future reference, how much help does someone have to give before they are deemed to deserve a researcher credit?
Ekaterin.

Generally we use as a rule of thumb that the research has to have personally written something that gets included in the entry. Peer review is for pointers and extra info to be supplied and we generally don't expect to be credited. A nice thank you is usually enough

Researcher PSG

It's a pity there's no differentiation between the writer of the entry - that's you, Ekatarin - and the researchers who chipped in a thought here and there. I expect this would be technically possible...

The rule I always apply is that if anyone helps me to put things into the entry that otherwise wouldn't have been there, they get a credit. I see no prestige in creating 'solo' guide entries.

Oh, and congratulations!

As a practical and de facto aside to Ekatarin, ultimately it's the original author of the article who has the say-so and the judgement-call as to who has contributed significantly to the Edited-Entry-to-be. I've never seen a forcible overrule unless one of the added authors brings the matter up to the italics and declares herself offended. We do like you, and we want you to continue writing great articles like this, so I don't think anyone here will. We're just embarrased, is all, so when you get published, you can expect several Conversation threads to be attached to your Edited Entry by some of us giving the main credit where it's due, which is to Ekaterin.

That said, I myself have sneakily gotten myself removed (in a non-offended matter) from an Edited Entry written by a Researcher who Elvised by posting in Feedback Editorial (since the Researcher wasn't around to discuss it).

I know you can remove yourself from non-edited entries, just by going into the entry and clicking on 'remove my name' or something.

In the article it states 'In the UK, breeders should be registered with The Governing Council of the Cat Fancy'. This is not strictly correct because the GCCF do not recognise all cat breeds. Breeders are free to register their cats, even if recognised by the GCCF, with TICA ( http://www.tica.org - The International Cat Association which is a worldwide organisation.) , Felis Britannica (http://www.felisbritannica.co.uk - Linked to FIFE a mainly european organisation) or GCCF.

Hi kpknutz

The final version of this entry that appears in the Edited Guide can be found at A2430127

You may want to copy your post to the Edited entry as it will be more likely to be seen there.



Mort