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

Hi, I just checked my Cookham entry (A9115292) in ComingUp and noticed that one of the footnotes has disappeared. It was there at the end of the subbing process but now it has gone. Why? I really liked it and it was commented upon in PR as good.

This is what it was:
Cookham Bridge leads out of the village, and was a toll bridgeTrip-trap,trip-trap...oh no, that's a TROLL bridge... up until the 1940s.

What was wrong with it?

You must have got his goat, Kelli. No need for him to be so gruff about it, though.

The h2g2 nanny state strikes again.

I'm genuinely confused about why this has gone, presumably taken out by the italic editor rather than the sub, who had left it in at the point where I was contacted and told it was done and was asked what I thought.

It would be courteous for them to tell you - perhaps by posting to the PR convo.

I don't know why it was changed, but I can only agree with the decision. There wasn't anything *wrong* with the footnote, but it doesn't add anything to the entry and could detract from it. The thing about footnotes is that some people do find them tiresome, especially if they have to scroll to the bottom of the page only to discover the footnote was actually just a joke.

The footnote does remain in your original, unedited version of the entry though.

So if I had put it in brackets rather than as a footnote it would have been fine? It isn't a long entry, there isn't too far to scroll.

Will remember to be as dour and humourless as possible in future.

I'll hold him, Kelli - you hit him, OK?

Whatever the value of the footnote, it's a shame when something goes through the rigorous PR and subbing process, only for someone anonymous to take a unilateral decision like this, without even discussing it with the author. It could serve to put people off contributing.

"The footnote does remain in your original, unedited version of the entry though."

Phew, and there was me not understanding the process *at all*.

That is it Icy, I didn't know if it would stay in when I submitted it to PR, but it did, and made it through the subbing process too so I thought it was ok.

I actually thught we were supposed to have a sense of humour about our writing here - if I wanted to write joyless lists of facts I could do that over at wiki.

A note for whoever is behind h2g2 support up there - perhaps you are unaware that it is possible to read a footnote by hovering the mouse over it, or that by clicking on it you get taken straight to the footnote (no scrolling involved), and clicking again on the number takes you right back to where you were.

I'm surprised you don't know this to be honest.

I would like to know why the italics are pushing this po-faced humourlessness, where a silly aside "detracts" from an entry. There are lots of gags and one-liners in the EG, should I start looking for them to be updated to removed any trace of a sense of humour?

I think your reaction's unwarranted and over the top kelli. It's all a matter of where different people draw the line, isn't it.

Personally, I draw that particular line on the side of removing the fotnote - it's a dreadful pun and and doesn't bring anything to the party. Anything that happens purely for its own sake and for no other reason never comes over well. I found the footnote utterly, utterly unfunny.

When you write an entry, submit it to PR, and said entry gets picked, you hand over all editing rights to the editors of this website - I'm sure you've been around h2g2 long enough to know that. They will do what they think best, and unless they've made a factual error in their editing, there's nowt we can do about their decision. And nor should there be - they wouldn't be editors otherwise.

When you send something off to an editor *in any walk of life where editors exist* you lose control of your creation. Your footnote has ended up on the h2g2 equivalent of the cutting room floor.

By the way, I'm sure that the Eds are aware that you can click on a footnote number and then click back again, but that's not the case for everyone who reads an h2g2 entry, especially non-members. And both the Eds and you might not be aware that hovering your mouse over the number to get the text in a box only happens with certain browsers.

It was me behind h2g2 Support this morning, by the way - I was logged in to check a moderation issue and hadn't logged out. So yes, I do know that. But that little function doesn't work in every browser.

And Icy - you are *such* a stirrer!

Utterly, utterly unfunny? Well, that's me told to f**k right off isn't it.

Christ. It was just a silly aside - I never said it was the height of comedy. I just didn't know why it went after nobody else had said there was anything wrong.

Seems like I was told it went because it is tiresome to scroll down to a footnote that isn't vitally important, having been told (incidentally in the same PR thread) that footnotes shouldn't contain any important information at all

Being told that it remains in the unedited version is just patronising.

Kelli, if I had wanted to tell you to f*** off I'd have told you to f*** off. You'd have been left in no doubt. But You weren't told to f*** off. Not by me. You're right about it having been a silly aside, and it detracted from what is otherwise a damn fine entry.

Actually I thought that was an ideal use of a footnote. Nothing was missed if people didn't want to scroll, click or hover - if we're going to remove footnotes for that reason then can all footnotes please be removed? Because some people use them for information that should be in the entry. For instance in this entry half of footnote number 7 should be in the entry, not in a footnote. Acronyms should always be written out in full in an entry the first time they are used. So why was one perfect use of a footnote removed, and others which should be in the entry ignored?

On <./>SubEditors-Style</.> it suggests *exactly* this use of a footnote.

Footnotes are also used to great effect on h2g2 as witty asides

It may have appeared 'unfunny' to some, but if we all had the same sense of humour we'd all be laughing at Jimmy Tarbuck.

I can't see a lot of point in an Edited Guide that's actually making its authors miserable to write for it.

Jim, is there any reason it can't be added back in? After all, you admit there wasn't anything actually wrong with it...

Funnily enough I ummed and ahhhed over the WI footnote - in the end I thought that most people in the uk at least would know them better as the WI than as the Women's Institute so I put the abbreviation in to the text for preferance.

You know what? I don't care about the other one, after all, it is the least funny thing anyone has ever written.

Oh. It is on the front page today. Can't seem to feel any excitement about it though - and the blurb attached to the link makes *no sense whatsoever*.

"Cookham, Berkshire, UK - it passes through the quiet village of Cookham, just north of Maidenhead and has a population of over 5,000..."

It passes? What does?

I've fixed the Front Page - writing it up last night it seemed to make some sense. Looking back at it today it clearly doesn't. Sorry about that.

>> having been told (incidentally in the same PR thread) that footnotes shouldn't contain any important information at all. <<

That's not quite right. If someone is going to scroll down to (or hover their mouse over) a footnote, it really should be worth their while. When I'm subbing, I do tend to change a lot of footnotes into bracketed information, or else incorporate the information elsewhere. Wry observations tangentially related to the subject work well in footnotes, but reading the footnote here, it did feel just a little too forced and didn't actually add anything to the entry. I'm pretty certain I would have subbed it the same way, and as BH points out, the rest of the entry is much, much better than this joke deserves.

>> Being told that it remains in the unedited version is just patronising. <<

Sorry, I thought it was worth pointing out again. Have to say though, I felt your comments about how footnotes work to be just as condescending, so maybe it's all in the reading. I don't really agree with the suggestions that anyone should 'reproducing at some distance' though. Can we try to at least keep this civil? It's putting me off my cucumber sandwiches and .

Yes, I was intending to reply in the same manner I'd been addressed.

It felt forced? As I said somewhere else (possibly in the pr thread or possibly in a separate thread discussing footnotes) that pops in to my head *every single time* I see the sign on the bridge. That is just how my sense of humour works although I see now that I am utterly, utterly unfunny. And given all the other unfunny things I've seen in the EG then I must have set some kind of record. I'll just chalk it up to a failure in PR then, and nurse my now very shaken confidence in my writing on the off chance I ever feel like contributing ever again.

The argument I've seen against having anything useful in footnotes is that mobile users don't see them.

I've noticed another edit that is now wrong:
"two Roman roads crossed - now Camlet Way and Alderman Silver's Road"

No, Camlet Way and Alderman Silver's Road are the names of the roman roads, not the names of the roads now. If you had to move these out of the footnote then the meaning ought to be correct. Could be something like:

"two Roman roads (Camlet Way and Alderman Silver's Road) crossed.

*sigh*

That was me, btw. The street names looked utterly un-roman to me...

Consider it fixed.