Wikipedia talk:Guide for h2g2 Researchers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class Bottom‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Bottom This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.


checked and possibly altered - AFAIK the BBC doesn't anywhere claim that they've altered every single Edited Entry. Correct me if I'm wrong.

supposedly because - one could dispute the degree to which the edits and review made by the in house team are actually copyrightable. The BBC lawyers hedge their bets in the legal FAQ, by having a huge section starting "Assuming". Reporting the BBC position is enough, we don't necessarily need to agree with it. Martin 14:40 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Possible POV issue[edit]

Wikipedia is self-moderated to an even greater extent than h2g2's Peer Moderation system.

What does that say about h2g2's Peer Review system?

Peer Moderation? LOL, what's that? There's Moderation and Peer Review, but Peer Moderation? Where did that term come from? --Nerd42 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It refers (I assume) to the reactive moderation system (yikesing) that the BBC employs. Which is, essentially, peer moderation, because it's you and not some random body that's alerting people to content that breaks the House Rules. I think I'll make that a bit clearer, though.echomikeromeo 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, uh, perhaps the article should say something to the effect that there is no difference between the "Edited Guide"/encyclopedic portions of Wikipedia and regular entries on Wikipedia - that is to say, the minute you add something it's part of Wikipedia's "edited guide". --Nerd42 (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link back to Hootoo to highlight differences in style[edit]

The current link to "A Dominatrix and her Dog" as an example of Hootoo style is a bit odd. That entry isn't quite within the Writing Guidelines. I think that A1053901 and A3682352 are better examples of Hootoo's slightly quirky style that wouldn't be quite welcome here.

TRiG. (U612575). 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have now done that myself. TRiG 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to h2g2 Guide Entries[edit]

I have set up a template to link to h2g2 GEs. Based on the imdb templates, it is located at Template:h2g2. If anyone can improve it, go ahead.

An example of how to link to an entry is:

{{h2g2|450587|How to Make a Plastic Bag Bra}}

Replace 450587 with the relevant "A" Guide Entry number. Replace "How to Make a Plastic Bag Bra" with the relevant Guide Entry title. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors should be aware that a similar (if not identical) {{h2g2}} template was deleted back in February. See the log of the discussion for more background. As a recreation of deleted material, the recreated template probably qualifies for speedy deletion under G4. I'm not suggesting that it ought to be speedy deleted, but editors using the template should be aware it might not be around for long. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The h2g2 template has gone. Where should I complain about that?

TRiG 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may request reinstatement via wikipedia:deletion review, but I wouldn't expect that to happen. Martin (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the BBC[edit]

The BBC claims that it owns the 'overall copyright' to all Edited Entries, and so they cannot be moved to any other site, including Wikipedia, without permission. The basis for the BBC's claim is that every Edited Entry on h2g2 has been checked (and possibly altered) by an in-house Editor working for the BBC. [1]. Edited Entries are also checked by Sub-Editors, but this isn't relevant to the BBC's copyright claim, although the Sub-Editor will hold copyright over any material they have added to the Entry during the Sub-Editing process. Thus, you can't contribute any Edited Guide entries that you've written. However, you can contribute your "unedited" version. Of course, you could ask the BBC for permission by contacting h2g2's Editors, although such a request will quite probably be unsuccessful. Since the BBC takes the right to sub-license your contributions, they have the final say, but it would be polite to contact any other major contributors, such as the Sub-Ed.

I'm going to rewrite this, as I can't find a link to Not Panicking Ltd's position on Approved Entries. Martin (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worth noting people to ask?[edit]

If there's a couple of others, might be worth adding a couple of us to the page so we can be asked any questions on the process.

I was an ACE on h2g2 (mainly during beeb years, some while with Not Limited) and have now had 2 active years here, so am happy to answer any questions any newly arriving Researcher has.

(That applies to anyone who just sees this, even if it's not added to the page!) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]