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

Entry: Theater Technicians - A46603
Author: JediSlider - U35532

This is a completly accurate discription of us techies. I think this person needs to fix the repetivness but its so funny to see how accurate it is.

I think you've tried to use GuideML and it needs some attention. It's a little difficult to read all in one block.

Having had a look at what you've done, can I suggest that you remove all the BR/ stuff and format your paragraphs using in front and behind.

When I'm doing it from scratch, I usually type in the and put the text in afterwards. It makes sure I don't miss any of the formatting.

If you need headers, use Type header here.

Your entry will look much neater for it.

Oh yes, there's an existing entry on 'Theatre Lighting Technicians' that you could link to; A249239.

I'm assuming the subject of your entry is different to that? You might want to say a little more about what they actually do.

ZSF they can't edit it, they didn't write it. This is an old (well very old actually) entry that didn't have a 'not for review tag' set - assuming they had that tag back in those days.

The best plan for researcher 240304 to follow would be to take this out of Peer Review, write their own version, then resubmit it.

Oh, I see what you mean! Yes.

Though on reflection what I've just written does sound a little intemperate

Hi there researcher 240304 and welcome to the world of h2g2. The reason that we would have problems with progressing this entry to full Edited Guid status is because you can't edit it to take account of any suggestions made here. The reason that you can't edit it is because you are not the author. However what you can do is to use this entry that you've found as inspration for writing your own better entry on Theatre Technicians, and once you've done that we be delighted to help you prigress that to the Edited Guide

Or even 'progress' it!

What are your intentions with this entry, Researcher 240303?

Unknown by all accounts. They haven't posted since submitting this to Peer Review.

I'd say back to entry once the 2 month barrier is reached.



* twiddles thumbs *

Back to entry then?

It's only been five weeks now. Have a bit of patience before you get your prodding stick out

The author elvised in march.

It was submitted by someone other than the author, hence the discrepancy.

But the person who submitted it can't work on it, so shouldn't it go from when the author left?

Well, it's not uncommon for entries to be submitted whose authors have actually left years ago. Under the pre-Petunia system, the usual chain of events would be that if the work needed was major, the entry was moved to the FM for someone else to take on. If the work needed was more minor, the notes as to what was needed were collected in the PR thread, and the sub handled it after the entry was picked.

Now that the entries are expected to be pretty ready-to-go by the time they're picked, that's no longer as much of an option. Personally, I think that in that case, people shouldn't be able to submit other people's entries to PR at all. If the person is around and willing to see it through the PR process, they can submit it themselves. If they're around but not willing to deal with PR (or just not interested), it shouldn't be in PR anyway. If the author has elvised, the only way the entry should end up in PR is if someone takes it on enough to create their own entry from the text, giving credit to the original author, and agreeing to update the new entry with changes stemming from the PR thread.

So what's going on with this entry then?

Well, given that the reseracher that submittted it is a few days away from Elvising, I suggest that it's time to start thinking about a move.

Where do you want it to go? I'm happy with either FM or back to entry.


Geggs

I'd say FM - there's a lot of good stuff there if someone's prepared to work on it.

I would agree. Flea market is the best place for this one