Talk:H2g2

message: I just removed this from the article:
:The in-house editors make few changes—the most visible of which is appending a "Related BBC links" section to entries that includes a link for readers to search BBCi for other entries on the same subject.
In fact, one of the most frequent jobs of the curators is to remove this section from older Entries. They're put in as references instead now (along with other links: links to h2g2 Edited Entries, the BBC, and External websites can all go in the appropriate place in the text or in the references section, and all links, whether they appear in the text or not, appear in the sidebar, automatically divided into the three sections mentioned (See, for example A653230 The Big Bang.)). And usually the Researcher does it himself. Or the Sub-editor can add it .
TRiG.87.232.43.104 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Processes

message: {wrongtitle|title=h2g2}
This template belongs on the article, not the Talk page.  I'll insert it there. JamesMLane 23:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Isn't there some place off-site of h2g2 for members to talk when h2g2 is down? Report problems? It was down a few minutes ago so I looked up this entry to see if it had a link to such a place. Sadly, it does not. I heard once that there was such a site ... but I don't remember where or what exactly ... (by the way, I'm Researcher U203906) --Nerd42 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Twas n2g2, "nowhere 2 go 2," which doesn't seem to exist anymore. (I'm U166086) -GTBacchus(talk) 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to go now when h2g2 is down? 

message: User:Nerd42 has created "a template created for h2g2 Researchers who are also wiki users to add to their User Pages" at Template:H2G2Researcher.  I removed this from the article page in an effort to avoid self-references in articles. — Jeff | (talk) | 06:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with avoiding the self-reference, but I think the template could be useful.  I suggest to Nerd42 that he add it to Wikipedia:Guide for h2g2 Researchers.  (I won't be bold and do it myself because it's Nerd42's creation.) JamesMLane 07:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh!! Didn't know there was such a thing. I originally created the template for Uncyclopedia. --Nerd42 23:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User page template for h2g2 Researchers 

message: Are there any statistics on the number of entries or the growth over time?--Eloquence* 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I found this.--Eloquence* 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: The History revision marked "Added information on Editorial Feedback to the Update section". Have quoted from h2g2 UpdateForum. Am new to Wikipedia, and don't yet know the ropes. Should it be taken out again? TRiG 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see a problem with that TRiG. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Included quote from h2g2 UpdateForum: Is this acceptable? 

message: Should I have put it in
:: this entry is not signed and doesn't make sense.... if it is referring to something above it should be placed in that section. Vcrs 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking heads 

message: :::The content of the project is written by visitors to its website and is broadly divided into two parts: a peer-reviewed "Edited Guide", mostly consisting of more thorough articles on traditional encyclopaedic subjects, and an unedited part that includes many more idiosyncratic topics, such as plastic bag bras[2], teaching cats to fetch[3], or using spoons[4].
All articles mentioned here are actually in the Edited Guide. The EG can contain anything which conforms to the Writing Guidelines, which do not contain a requirement for notability. As long as an entry is factual and well written, it can go in. The Unedited Guide contains everything else, including rough drafts of entries in the EG.
I know I could change this myself, but I don't feel like it at the moment.
TRiG (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Martin (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This bit is incorrect

message: :::The rank given for H2G2 is misquoted.  If you follow the reference given and mouseover the rank (now 64 not 61) you will see this rank is for bbc.co.uk, not specifically H2G2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drown (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexa Rank

message: I've added h2g2 to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Websites wikiprojects, as I felt it belonged there. Some editors from those wikiprojects may be interested in helping improve this article too. Deltawk (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiprojects 

message: My impression of h2g2 is, admittedly based on the occasional anecdote, that it is a failed competitor to Wikipedia & has seen a corresponding fall-off in activity. However, following the link above & viewing its activity statistics, it appears that h2g2 is still active -- less so than Wikipedia, but on a level much higher than many social media websites. Can anyone provide information on what's been happening there in the last 5-10 years (yes, with verifiable sources), & whether its in a downwards spiral or its simply stabilized at a less active level? -- llywrch (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history/current status 

message: H2g2 has now moved from the BBC. The new log in page says 'No researcher left behind'.  I have been trying to get into the new site for several weeks now without sucess.  One of the 'gurus' said he had passed my problem on, and since then despite several e-mails to the site I still can't get in to up date my contribution.  So i hope others have better luck than me. It looks like the contributions I made over several years will never be added too!Betty Butt (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from BBC 

message: To anyone from h2g2 this is nbb (ACE). 
Can anyone figure out why Wiki accepts any EG as a reliable source for an entry, but is unwilling to trust h2g2 as a source about itself? The primary/secondary source rules seem a bit odd here - until very recently h2g2 was backed by the bbc. The bbc can be used a source when an entry is done on any of its programs.
An annoying bit of hypocrisy
Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where at Wikipedia is discussion of h2g2 as a source? --P64 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is EG as in "Wiki accepts any EG as a reliable source"?  Encyclopedia Galactica? 2.28.151.187 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "EG" is standing for "Edited Guide". h2g2 has articles in the edited guide, which go through peer review and checking, and the UG, which is everything else. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not accepted as Source? 

message: I dunno whether Douglas Adams ever thought of that when conceiving it, but it actually does remind one a lot of R2-D2, the Star Wars droid. However, putting this into the article might be considered original research, even though both Adams' novel and Star Wars are in the very same genre: Sci-Fi. -andy 77.190.12.81 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he somewhere explicitly states he did not refer to the Dalek like robot.
Besides C3P0 was the android, R2D2 the garbage bin. <TiT>
83.163.143.216 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's even one more allusion hidden in the project title... 

message: There's a lot of in-universe writing here, isn't there? Everything in the article needs to be sourced to reliable third-party sources, not to the site itself. Also, why the lower-case title? --John (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a trim 

message: Too loose language, 
not enough internal links 
not many external references.
Bullets for list. . .
Is there an Editor in the house? I am not GURU enough on this site (it has been years).
<tit>
83.163.143.216 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2015 

message: Traveller in Time <tit> chizzling the rules in stone<BR/>
"Well lets apply the rules as strict as they seem to go . . . ."<BR/>
83.163.143.216 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read our wp:talk page guidelines. Article talk pages are for discussions about improving the article. If you have some ideas about how to do that, based on reliable sources, feel free to propose here, but please try to avoid speaking in riddles. - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I have removed this unsourced part. If you have a reliable source, then we can add the content. Otherwise it does not belong on Wikipedia. I also warned you on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  APPLYING THE RULES 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on H2g2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920162212/http://www.examiner.co.uk/leisure-and-entertainment/whats-on-west-yorkshire/2009/05/15/forum-web-wonder-86081-23628073/ to http://www.examiner.co.uk/leisure-and-entertainment/whats-on-west-yorkshire/2009/05/15/forum-web-wonder-86081-23628073/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The info box says "Current status  Active", but when I visit the site, the links from the front page generally seem to be going to some sort of failure/not found page.  The description of it's true current status seems to need an update (unmaintained? unreliable?) 
DKEdwards (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you must just have been unlucky and caught the site during a system's problem. As far as I can see, it's still going strong, and the front page links to content published within the last few days. - IMSoP (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The facebook page did note their front article had had a technical hissy fit a couple of days ago, if that's still ongoing that would explain it. They're definitely less active than even in my time, but still ongoing Nosebagbear (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status: Active ?