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

Entry: How To Ring Up A Church Bell - A808265
Author: Universal - U200819

My first entry, and I am fairly pleased with it, but also I am terrified about what people are going to say! Anyway, here it is.

It seems to be well-written, but knowing nothing about bell-ringing makes it rather difficult to comment.

Were there any particular points you wanted help with?

Well that's the thing, I wanted it to be understood by anyone even if they don't ring. I have tried to simplify some things, I just don't know if there are any bits which are too confusing.

Fine, well if you are writing a piece for people with no prior knowledge, then I have to say I think this is too advanced. You would really need to explain the basics, and an entry on the basics of bell-ringing would be very interesting. The entry on Campanology at A126596 is spectacularly uninformative, and IMO a How To entry on the basics would be a Good Thing. Your present entry could then be a follow-up or follow-on.

What do you think? What do others think?

Bels (no pun intended )

Bels

Some might think you only joined this conversation to get that joke in.

Dr MT

Hi Monty

Were you involved in the Campanology entry I so mercilessly excoriated?

No not.

'Though now on your advisement I have read it and agree that it should be expanded. I am patently not an expert in the machinations of the editorial process, but suggest that Universal should be given free rein to tart it up.

And then include a link to this more esoteric but nonetheless informative piece.

Is that allowed?

Whilst the Campanology entry is a useful introduction, it barely scrapes the surface ... it is not correct that it currently stands as the Guide's definitve entry on the subject.

I think it would be better for Universal to leave the Campanology entry as it is, in all its splendour, and to write a separate entry on 'Bell-Ringing For Beginners' or something similar. The 'Ring Up' entry could then be incorporated in that, or left as a stand-alone follow-up entry. Thus giving us two entries for the price of two.

Bels

But these two entries that we hope Universal will find time to put in, together with others on other advance aspects of bell-ringing or campanology (Is there a difference ... I suppose campanology pertains to bells hanging in a steeple, whereas bell-ringing might refer to those 'handbells' that are lined up on a table?) should be referred to in the Campanology Entry right?

Or am I being to catalogue-anal?

I don't like the idea that if I searched the H2G2 for "campanology" I'd get the first overview entry but would not be 'guided' to Universal's efforts without referring back to the Search Engine. I like structure.

Structure is achieved through the wonders of hyperlinks. Universal can link each entry (if there are two) to the other, and either or both to the Campanology entry. As long as the word 'Campanology' itself occurs in Universal's entry/ies it/they will show up in the h2g2 search engine. It isn't a problem.

As Universal's entry/ies hit/s the Front Page the italics can be requested to add the appropriate link/s to the Campanology entry. I have found they can be bribed to do so with suitable food and drink smileys.

If Universal should find this all a bit confusing, don't worry about it, the subeditors can sort it out for you.

Okay. So I have understood this from reading these posts several times:

I should attempt to write an in depth entry for beginners. However I do not wish to offend the author of Campanology. (The term is simply another word for Bell Ringing although it is used by non-bell ringers more than bell ringers).

I could keep the article 'ringing up', maybe improve it a little.

I have not a clue how to hyperlink though. I think they definately need to be separate articles.

Did you actually mean, "Two for the price of two"?

Don't worry about links. You need GuideML for that. It's something that can be done for you after the entry has been recommended for the Edited Guide. It's not a requirement at this stage. You can write separate entries if you wish.

>Did you actually mean, "Two for the price of two"?

I was just being flippant. Ignore that remark.

>However I do not wish to offend the author of Campanology.

Quite right too. But how would writing a 'How To' entry on Bell-Ringing for Beginners offend anyone? Since no-one has done that yet, you are free to. There are many examples of multiple Edited Guide entries on some topics, and that's fine as long as they don't overlap in any major way. I don't think it's a problem here either.

Furthermore, the author of the Campanology entry is deemed to have 'left the building'. They haven't posted anything for nearly six months now.

Go for it!

Okay, when I get more time I will write a beginners guide, but when I have where shall I post it first? And when I have decided 'How to Ring Up a Churchbell' is ready, what do I do with it and how?

When an entry is, as far as you are concerned, finished it can go into Peer Review. To do that you go the the Writing Workshop, click the Remove link against your entry, then Submit for Review selecting Peer Review.

You might prefer to write the 'beginners' guide first - I don't know how much time you have. In that case you could submit both entries to Peer Review at the same time, which to me would make more sense. My personal view is that submitting the 'ring up' entry first is a bit like putting the cart before the horse, but you or others may of course disagree with that.

So it's your call.

Bels

Okay, I will do that, then you will be able to link them together or whatever seems the best idea. Thanks for the advice!

My pleasure. This is looking really good. With the two entries we can all ding dong merrily

Bels

How are you going, Universal?

Looks like a Flea Market case to me

I might possibly take it over, time allowing.

Right. Six years later (and the author of the re-written bell ringing article), perhaps I should make good my promise and rewrite this one. Again.