Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 4 July 2005 and 13 June 2006.

Hitch-Hikeriana

The spelling of "Hitch-Hikeriana" seems a bit off - would it be better named "Hitch-Hikerania" as in Beatlemania? Gbeeker 18:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm... no. The appropriate analogy here is not Beatlemania, because the article is not talking about the "mania" for Hitchhiker's Guide, but rather about miscellany associated with the book. (An example of an analogous term is Canadiana.)--HDC 03:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the question's irrelevant, but if you really care, put up a poll, will ya? ;) No hard feelin's.--OleMurder 08:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of points, it says that the merchandise was 'dubbed Hitch-Hikeriana'. 1) Who was it dubbed this by (and a source), and 2) Hitch-Hiker is inconsistent with the spelling thoughout. Of course, a source would remove both these concerns. Ck lostsword 16:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Towel Joke?

Am I the only one who doesn't think that the origin of the towel joke, which didn't appear until the first book/second radio series, actually deserves a mention here? Wouldn't it best be suited in one of the sub-pages?--JohnDBuell | Talk 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's not important enough to the series to warrant a mention here. -- Norvy (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll go back to my original statement and say that perhaps it should be put into the description of Fit the Seventh which was the original appearance of the towel joke. Anyone agree? Or should it be moved to the description of the first book? --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well since it's survived this long, and is still part of the article on its "Featured Article Day" we could just keep it.... --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Not important enough?? If you don't think your towel is important, that's like saying your clothes aren't important! Now, if you're a nudist, that analogy won't really work, but for most people it should. -- KelticK | Talk

The towel, as every fan-boy knows, is one of the most memorable inside jokes of the whole series, surpassing the Pan-galactic Gargle-Blaster, and only barely beaten by dolphins and the number 42. Given that half of the opening night viewers at my local out-of-the-way theater had towels with them, I say it's worth a mention. Coolgamer 15:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

LinkFix Dump

I'd do the fixing myself, but I need to go somewhere right now. Here's a list of all the links on this page that point to redirects or disambiguation pages, it would be helpful if someone went and fixed them:

LinkFix dump for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", no edits made:

Depression ! Disambiguation Page
Magrathea % Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Stereo ! Disambiguation Page
Audio cassette % Compact audio cassette
USA % United States
Heart attack % Myocardial infarction
Magrathea % Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Mice % Mouse
USA % United States
Milliways % Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Prehistoric % Prehistory
Agrajag % Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
UK % United Kingdom
USA % United States
Walt Disney Company % The Walt Disney Company
IMDb % Internet Movie Database
Theatr Clwyd % Clwyd Theatr Cymru
UK % United Kingdom
USA % United States
Don't panic ! Disambiguation Page
BAFTA % British Academy of Film and Television Arts
Stephen Moore ! Disambiguation Page
Forty-two % 42 (number)
USA % United States

— Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. No outbound links to redirects or disambiguation pages. You're ready for Featured Article day! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anniversary?

Would anyone object to the listing of the first ever broadcast of the first ever episode (8 March 1978) being added to the anniversary page (NOT the selected anniversary page) for March 8? I probably need to ask this on the March 8 discussion page, don't I? :) --JohnDBuell | Talk 01:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Eponymous?

The article currently describes Ford Prefect as a "researcher for the eponymous guide," referring to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Doesn't "eponymous" normally mean "named after someone"? If the word is being used in a different sense, could someone please explain it? The article on eponym isn't much help for this context. --LostLeviathan 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's being used here in place of 'aforementioned'. Looking on Merriam-Webster Online didn't give me much clarifcation either. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, interesting, I'd never known the literal meaning of the term before; I guess the extension is a natural one, where the "person" is the fictional Guide, and the thing named after it is the work of fiction itself — thus Ford works for "the eponymous guide" in the same way that Robinson Crusoe (in the Wiktionary example) is "the eponymous hero". Now, whether there is a better term, or a form of phrasing that a strict linguist would prefer, I don't know; myself, I'm very much a descriptivist, so I'll happily leave it as is. :) - IMSoP 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Guide Versions

Technically, isn't Wikipedia the Earth version of the Hitchiker's Guide? - LSK

No. See h2g2. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Odd phrasing

One line of the article, a series of five books published between 1979 and 1992, makes it sound to me like the books went out of print in 1992, not as if the last book started being published in 1992. I think this sentence should be phrased better, but I'm unsure how to rephrase it or if anyone agrees with me. ~ Oni Lukos _c 12:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FIRST published between 1979 and 1992? (emphasis mine). "A series of five books whose first editions were published between 1979 and 1992, and which remain in print as of 2005." ? That seems even more unwieldy. --JohnDBuell | Talk 12:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think saying "FIRST published between 1979 and 1992" (emphasis yours) is a succinct way of wording it. --Negative3 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. I even considered, as an alternative, "a series of five books whose first editions were published in 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1992" but I didn't like that either. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comprehensive cast lists

This is an idea I've been considering for some time. I talked it over with Morwen tonight, and she thought it would be a good idea. I'm making a mega-table of different cast lists, for any versions I can find (1978/80 radio series, stage shows, tv series, illustrated book, 2004/5 radio series, movie and the two German radio series). Where we could/should/might put this info I have no idea. It's a work in progress, and can be seen (and contributed to, especially for the stage show casts) at User:JohnDBuell/Complete H2G2 Cast Lists. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to do a column for the LP adaptation cast. I went back and added it - the information is up to Radio/TV episode 4, or their equivalents. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because most of the adaptations parallel radio episodes 1-6, I've split my lists into two tables. I'm now up to radio episode 7. --JohnDBuell | Talk 22:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Abbrevs

I actually agreed that the abbreviations in the location were they are now interrupt the flow of the article and look cluttered. Since apparently these abbreviations are important enough to some to keep them, has anyone got some suggestions for a better location? Shinobu 03:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The abbreviations have been listed within an introductory paragraph for this article for the better part of the last two years now. When introducing a topic, it's been VERY common to introduce abbreviations associated with that topic as well, within the first few paragraphs (or within the appropriate subsection). The best other example I can cite is Star Trek where each series (and indeed, in fandom, each movie) has its own abbreviation (TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY/VGR, ENT). It's also important that during the lengthy peer review/featured article review process that NO objections were raised to there being a listing of popular abbreviations, and as I also noted in my edit restoring the abbreviations, H2G2 is most notable for the BBC website of the same name, derived from this very source (that is to say Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, not Wikipedia). -JohnDBuell | Talk 05:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to question the inclusion of the abbreviations (please don't get me wrong). It's just that their position in the article is a bit awkward, that's all. Since I didn't know the importance of the abbreviations, their removal seemed a change for the better. Your revert made clear that abbreviations should be included, but it doesn't fix the article flow. It's not something with high priority, but if someone knows a better location... Yours sincerely, Shinobu 11:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

And I would maintain that such things are highly appropriate within the introduction of an article. In terms of style, I think this is fairly common amongst encyclopedias. For examples, see the article on "World Wide Web" (where WWW/Web are given immediately as an abbreviation and a common nickname) on either Britannica or Encarta. --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fan Site Links

Can we please STOP with the games of listing fan sites in different orders? Does anyone REALLY think it makes a difference? --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I added a note on the links, I think you'll approve of it. --KelticK{Talk} 21:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did someone not like my note that I added???--KelticK{Talk} 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It was removed from appearing in the actual text as non-encyclopedic. However, we do often leave notes to other editors as HTML comments, and I changed part of your idea to that. --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks much --KelticK{Talk} 04:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Particular book cover image

I would like to have a picture of the book cover showing a joker with a device in his hand - it must be published in the late 1980s. Thanks, I would be delighted! Scriberius 08:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Anybody up for making a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book cover gallery page? --JohnDBuell | Talk 10:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the infamous "Thumbs Up" cover would be the best to use. --Benbread 16:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the first US edition book cover, by Peter Cross, that introduced the "Cosmic Cutie" (which Adams hated), it's on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon page, deliberately so, as it was used as the US edition cover for fifteen years or so. That's why I made the counter suggestion of a book gallery page - I _LIKE_ having the cover with the 42 puzzle opening this article, since that's a puzzle/cover that Adams devised. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that's not the one I mean - that guy (Adams?) wears a fool's hat and has a digtal screen (encyclopedia?)... Scriberius 03:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't one of the US Editions that I can remember. Anyone else? --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Critiscm?

With this book being such a phonemon I'm surprised there is no crtique section in this article. Do you think someone could get one up? Bancroftian 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd think that such things would best be placed in the appropriate sub-articles. Reviews of the radio series, in their subarticles, for instance, along with reviews of the TV series and books in those respective articles. Links to specific reviews of the movie are already IN that article, it should be noted. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Radio series

Is there a place I can download the audio of the original radio series from? Coolgamer 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Legally? No. The BBC has released the episodes on CD and MP3-CD, and if you search the web long and hard there are lower quality MP3s of the episodes running around. The original radio episodes aren't on any of the legal download services, though Audible.com does have the 2004/2005 radio series available to download. --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case, where can I obtain the CDs or MP#-CDs? It's the only thing I don't have related to the series. (Yes, I have the towel.) 69.242.90.133 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of advertising, Amazon's US, Canadian and UK sites have the CDs (though I think the US site has series 3-5 only, because of the music rights). The BBC shop sites (bbcshop.com for the UK, bbcamericashop.com for the US) also have copies. And Audible/iTunes Music Store also has them as downloads. --JohnDBuell 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"series" or "franchise" or "series of series" ?

There's been a bit of a debate today as to whether or not H2G2 is a "franchise." It should be noted that the definition of "franchise" that implies an ongoing series of media, movies or whatever, is NOT in wiktionary (franchise isn't defined there at all), nor is that definition included at Merriam Webster's online dictionary. While the word is in the introduction now, I'm going to continue to argue against its use. One editor claimed that my first rebuttal of a series of books and ONE film makes H2G2 a franchise, but I disagree. That's only two media formats, and Disney has shown no inclination towards a second film. Franchise to me also implies some method of corporate "milking" of an idea, comparable to Star Trek and Paramount milking that through ten movies, five television series, books, and other spin-offs (or even the BBC with Doctor Who in all its formats). As has been debated here, most fans really only have read the books, and perhaps only know of the radio series or TV series. Far fewer have heard the LP re-recordings, and far fewer still have seen one of the stage adaptations. With Disney in the mix, holding the movie rights, you could argue for a little more exploitation, in all of the movie tie-in merchandise, but I still don't see where that turns the entire thing into a franchise. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you just made the case for calling it a franchise. Val42 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where you're getting that at all. Star Trek is a franchise. Doctor Who is a franchise. It's easy to argue that the Harry Potter series has been made into a franchise by Warner Brothers (multiple movies, multiple merchandise licensees). But Hitchhiker's? There was only one merchandise licensee that I know of, NECA, and there's still only ONE MOVIE. That doesn't make a franchise to me. --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in the UK, where H2G2 originated, they first had the radio plays. These are repeated every so often on BBC and the like, and are one of the most, if not the most, know version in the UK. The first books were based on the radio plays. Further books were then released. A short TV series was made, which also appears every so often on BBC and the like. More books (and a lot of merchandise) were released. Then the movie, and finally more radio plays based on the last of the books. Not to mention all the spin-off stuff, like the comics. So if that is not definable as a franchise, nothing is. It's all in the article. And just because it was all done by one man (and it wasn't, Adams had help from lots of people (especially from those who didn't like the whoose sound of deadlines)), doesn't mean it can't be a franchise. --JQF | Talk 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree, but the biggest problem is the lack of a definition for this meaning of "franchise." It's not in the online American Heritage or Merriam Webster dictionaries (and sorry, I'm not spending $30 for one time access to the OED). I've always had the impression that "franchise" connotates exploitation of an idea or series by a corporation, especially in movies. Anyway your statement of "help" is wrong - there've really only ever been three credited co-writers. John Lloyd in the first radio series (and one episode of the TV series), Steve Meretzky in the case of the Infocom computer game, and Karey Kirkpatrick in the case of the movie. Dirk Maggs was only allowed to have an "adaptor" credit (due to pressure from Adams's estate) on the last three radio series. --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, your missing the point. You've just stated that that is YOUR idea of franchise. Why not leave it as franchise, and see if anybody else changes it? And for the record, I wasn't just talking about co-writers. There were people such as actors, editors, pulishers, etc. who helped him, as they all lent their two cents (for some of them it was kinda their job).

You're quite right. I am stating that that is MY idea of "franchise." It's undefined, I think I made my point about that. His own biographers don't use the term, which is why it's never been introduced before. And with that, I'm taking it back out again. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, change it. It will only be a matter of time before somebody changes it back. I'm just suprised you didn't even bother to Google it.

A google challenge on the term isn't appropriate here. We're talking about the definition for a word, and that definition is, as of today, undefined. Again, I am completely unwilling to spend $30 just to check the Oxford English Dictionary, but every other dictionary I have checked online gave nothing that relates to a movie franchise, or media franchise, or however else you'd like to attempt to define the term. And as Gaiman, Simpson and Webb have also NOT used "franchise" (and they're the published writers on the subject), I will continue to fight the use of the term "franchise" to define The Hitchhiker's Guide. --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I might also point out here that of the dozens of editors that have worked on this article in the last four years that there have only been THREE editors in only the LAST FEW DAYS that have insisted on the series being described as a franchise. Further, after discussing the usage of the word with UK residents, the general acceptance is that "franchise" when used in this context is an American English usage, or at the very least is used mainly to describe phenomena of US origin (e.g. Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.). As many editors have worked hard to keep Americanisms OUT of an article describing a series of UK origin, that just gives more grounds to NOT use the term. --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Hitchhiker's is not a franchise. It isn't owned by a corporation, but by Adams' estate, most of the works and adaptions out there were written by Adams himself - the movie and the new radio series were 95-99% Adams material, I expect. In british usage, franchise relating to media is a disapproving if not actually derogatory term, and this inappropriate casually. If or when there is a sequel to the movie, then it will be a franchise. Morwen - Talk 19:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Another way to look at this is the lack of non-canonical works, in the case of Hitchhiker's. Star Wars and Star Trek are media franchises, though started by individual men (and in the former's case, largely still controlled by one individual man, whereas with the latter, it's controlled by Paramount/Viacom). Both series have non-canon spinoff books, cartoons, computer and video games - Hitchhiker's has tie-in editions of each of these, based on the same, original, canonical material (well, as close as you can get to a canon in Hitchhiker's, as self-contradictory as it is). This, in my opinion, continues to refute the use of the term "franchise." --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to toss in my 2 cents since I seem to have stirred a bit of a hornet's nest about this, my rationale for using the term francise is based on the fact that besides the multiple radio series, the original spawned the TV series, the movie, the books, comic books, and-of course-the towel. I agree the word "franchise" isn't the best one, the Star Trek "franchise" has rather made the term in vogue. I've seen it used to describe Doctor Who as well as Law and Order, CSI, Firefly, Stargate -- pretty much anything that has spawned either additional adaptations or merchandising spinoffs. HHGTTG, IMO (gotta love those acronyms) fits the bill. Alternately, one way around this would be to recast the opening paragraph to more clearly state that the first use of the title was with regards to the radio show. (I think this has already happened). IMO, however, anyone typing in the title here will be looking for information on the "franchise" in general (and/or elements thereof such as the TV show or movie) rather than the radio series that started it all. 23skidoo 21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would hardly agree that the term is 'in vogue.' I would agree with Morwen that Hitchhiker's will really ONLY be a franchise if Disney milks the property for additional films (or direct to video releases, which is more their style) beyond the first one, the only one actually written by Douglas. Then please read the article again carefully. The main Hitchhiker's article, which is what we're all on the talk page of, describes the entire timeline of the idea and all of its adaptations: Radio show to stage shows to LP re-recordings, to book, to TV series, to computer game, etc. EACH of these already HAS their own subpages (with the exceptions of the stage shows and LPs). The opening paragraph TRIES to say that the title first applied to the radio series, then to the stage shows, LPs, book, etc etc etc. I don't think anything else needs to be said. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

LP adaptations as an "other adaptation" or a major adaptation?

Ever since I added the material about them, going back a few months, it's been decided that the LP adaptations should be a minor, other adaptation. There are several reasons for this. One, not that many people have actually heard them. Two, the LPs, as far as I can figure out, have never been that widely distributed beyond the US, UK and Canada (they MAY have been available in Germany, but it's also possible that this was someone selling them on amazon.de, not Amazon themselves). Three, they have been supplanted by the tapes and CDs of the original radio series. Four, they have been out of print for YEARS, and there is no indication that they will EVER be re-issued. Compare this to the tapes and CDs of the original series, which are still in print and easily available, the books, the most widely distributed/translated version of all (to date), the tapes of the original TV series, which only went out of print when the DVDs were released (and those are as available/distributed as the tapes/cds of the radio series), and now the movie and its DVD, which will also receive a worldwide release. To the anon editor who keeps trying to move this - PLEASE LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS (unless we suddenly get a number of votes to promote it to a "major adaptation") and PLEASE LEAVE THE US COVER IMAGE where it is - as this is the only evidence we have that they WERE released outside of the UK. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just seen this discussion. I came to this page to find something out about the LP's and was surprised / appalled to see them demoted to "other adaptations". It seems to me that this is a bad decision, for the following reasons:

- Many people came to H2G2 after the books started to come out and the second radio series was broadcast. At that time the LPs were the only way to buy an audio version of the guide. Consequently, for many it was the first version of the primary phase that they heard.

- They were created with Douglas Adams' direct involvement, and were close to the "Rock Album" concept he wanted to produce.

- They contain the first example of some material, such as the Disaster Area sequence, and material which was not recorded elsewhere (a good example being the "humans talk too much" sequence, only recently revived in a different form for the Quandary phase).

- They are a very good adaptation -- in some places the best version!

I would say that, if the TV series, with all its flaws, is considered to be a major part of the canon, then the records must also qualify. The fact that they are no longer produced seems to me to be completely irrelevant; they are freely available second hand (eg on eBay) if someone wants to hear them.

They are an important part of the history and should be recorded as such.

I'll stop trying to return them to their proper place, if you insist, but I'd love others to express their opinion here.

-- "Anon Editor"

I'm sorry, that's pretty much all subjective. In reality, they are pretty much a forgotten footnote, and whilst you may think that's lamentable, we aren't in the business of promoting worthy things. I support leaving it in "other adaptions". They only were created because of rights issues, after all... Morwen - Talk 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Some refutation: A lot of tapes were being swapped around of the actual original radio broadcasts BEFORE the LP adaptation was recorded, and that was done ONLY because the BBC took a pass on releasing copies of the actual original radio broadcasts themselves. Such "official" BBC recordings have LONG SINCE supplanted the LP adaptations. I would also disagree about the "rock album" point, especially since Adams was FORCED to change a lot of the music picked out for the original radio series to composed tracks that would have no copyright/licensing issues. The "humans talk to much" may not have been heard on radio until the Tertiary Phase, but it DID show up in the books and the TV series LONG before the Tertiary Phase. We don't disagree that the adaptations have their place in the Hitchhiker's canon and should NOT be forgotten, but for the reasons I've outlined before, and now, I don't think they can be considered a "major release." (Addendum: The stage shows saw the first addition of the "Dish of the Day" sequence, later added to the second book and the TV series. Does that ONE fact mean the stage adaptations should be promoted to a "major release/adaptation" too? I would think not.) --JohnDBuell | Talk 12:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Also worth noting that M.J. Simpson has the LP adaptations lumped into the chapter "Recordings" in the Pocket Essential Hitchhiker's Guide book (along with the singles, mentioned here in Hitchhikeriana, the Douglas Adams at the BBC discs, and the CD releases of all five radio series). --JohnDBuell | Talk 12:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

External Link to ebook

Do you really want to link to an ebook of, at best, dubious legality? There are ebooks of Hitchhiker's available to buy (see Amazon etc.) and so I very much doubt that the one linked to is authorised.

Anyone know if there's an established policy about this? What's illegal in some places is legal in others.... However, for the most part English Wikipedia seems to be deciding to follow laws of Florida, USA, so by that, it's almost positively illegal. --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The ebook is freely available on the internet. If linking to it is illegal, then is it illegal to look it up on a search engine? Because that's where I found it. What if we just linked to the search results for the book? What difference does it make? oneismany 10:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is that is should not be freely available on the Internet as it is copyrighted material. Linking to it is not illegal just unseemly. If people want to find illegal copies of books then Wikipeida should not be helping that.

Agree. Such links have no business on wikipedia, regardless of whether us making them would be legal or not. Morwen - Talk 09:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a primary source for the material in this encyclopedia entry. The book is nearly 30 years old and its author is dead. How do we know they didn't buy the rights to publish it on the Web? They aren't making any money from people reading the book, and Douglas Adams isn't losing any money. oneismany 11:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't prove that. Don't forget he has an estate. And copyright law has been amended to protect works for up to a century after the date of first publication, thanks to Disney. --JohnDBuell | Talk 12:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Link removed. After this discussion, please leave it off. --JohnDBuell | Talk 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No offense and I will not restore this text to the main page:

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - The complete first book, available to read online."

But I object to the use of copyright law to restrict the fair use of information, as opposed to commercial redistribution and plagiarism. The site is very strange, they have a number of copyrighted works free to download and read online and they claim to have permission. Personally I think the more people who read one of Douglas Adams's books the better; if he didn't want people to read it then why would he have written it? But, whatever, your call. oneismany 11:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Hitchhiker's being there, anyone want to contact Ed Victor, or better yet, Disney (who STILL have options on the other four books and both Dirk Gently novels) and find out? --JohnDBuell | Talk 13:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

New Wikicity

I am founder of a new wikicity wiki has been launched at http://hitchhikers.wikicities.com/ Should this be linked here or not?

I suppose if you get enough information pulled together it'd work. The German Wikipedia has an ongoing Wikiproject Hitchhiker's. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-reference comparing HHGTTG with Wikipedia

I put that back in because I am sure that Douglas Adams' idea of an net-based collaborative "guide" has influenced several projects, finally including the Wikipedia. We should mention this connection somewhere. -- ''till we'' <small>&#9788;</small>&#9789; | [[User_talk:tillwe|Talk]] 13:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The information, first of all, is redundant. The second paragraph mentions how the idea led to the creation of the electronic h2g2, two years before Wikipedia (though four years after the development of wikis - h2g2 uses its own software). Further, on any OTHER article where I have included a self-reference to Wikipedia, including the Hitchhiker's related articles, it has been forcibly removed from the article (which is why the {{HitchhikerSpellingDisclaimer}} is written the way it is). --JohnDBuell 20:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I might further add that it's also considered inappropriate, especially in a featured article, to have a lead section longer than three paragraphs. Has the fictional series influenced online compilations? Certainly, see above. Plus there have been other, "unofficial" online collaborations - I think the "Project Galactic Guide" has been credited as one. But going back to the Wired article, http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html (which I can't access at the moment, seems to be a problem with their servers) - I don't recall ONE SINGLE MENTION of The Hitchhiker's Guide as an influence on any of the Wikimedia projects.... --JohnDBuell 20:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wired's server is back up this morning, and after re-reading their article, I feel justified in saying what I have said, and leaving that reference OUT of this article. If anyone DOES want to talk about online projects influenced by the Hitchhiker's Guide, I would suggest The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references article. --JohnDBuell 12:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Time travel television series

"Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category. There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category. Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast as Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound

My understanding is that is was broadcast in 5.1 stereo. There is an chapter by MJ Simpson in a recentl book "British Science Fiction Television: A Hitchhiker's Guide" (ISBN-13: 9781845110482) which says, on page 238, that Hitchhiker's "was only the second British radio programme broadcast in Dolby 5.1 surround sound".

If I'm right the 5.1 version was only available on Digital Radio and over the Internet, not on Medium Wave. IainP (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct on both counts. Series 3-5 were recorded in 5.1 surround, broadcast in stereo, released on CD in stereo, and made available on the Internet and Digital Radio in 5.1. Unless you had software that could "capture" the 5.1 streaming audio, the 5.1 mixes won't be available until the DVD-As are released in March, April and May of this year. And Simpson's essay was written FAR in advance.... --JohnDBuell 13:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I also get the impression from Dirk Maggs's notes that accompany the Script Book vol. 2 that this is the case - recorded in 5.1, radio broadcast in stereo, but available digitally in the original 5.1. --JohnDBuell 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For the QPhases there were four edits of each episode. A stereo and a surround for the 30 minute slot and then the extended edits in both stereo and surround. By the way the first always had the Eagles signature tune and the other three had the Phil Pope / Illegal Eagles signature tune. The surround sound was used on the webcast.

All of that is documented in the respective radio series articles. --JohnDBuell 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Woo! I got an answer DIRECTLY from Dirk himself!

If the term 'broadcast' only covers transmission via "traditional" means to a purpose-built radio receiver, you're quite correct .... my assumption is that MJS was taking a short cut by including streaming as 'broadcasting', which, to be honest was probably quoting me in some conversation or other where I was not paying full attention to detail as I watched my sandwich being eaten by an actor.

But, yes, on BBC Radio 4 episodes were broadcast in stereo, as you point out AM/FM etc. can't broadcast 5.1 encoded files (well I suppose they can but who wants to listen to 27'30" of Pink Noise .... Kraftwerk fans I suppose ...).

To split further hairs I could say that we didn't record in 5.1 either, the most we did at any one time was run two stereo pairs simultaneously ... we only MIXED in 5.1 ... (not that the former is possible, really).

That's neither a quick nor official answer as I can't speak for what the BBC boffins may come up with next week (a comedy with laughs in, who knows) ...

--JohnDBuell 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Checking out random articles (yes i was bored), i stumbled across The Illustrated Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It seems a bit useless info, but perhaps there is something useful to include here. Either way, it should be decided by somebody who knows something about this stuff. Cheers! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just had a look at it - I'd say shove it into The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book) or delete it. I'm actually going to take some of the info, merge into that article, and do a redirect. --JohnDBuell 18:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out! (bah, I remember to leave an edit summary and forget to sign my comment) --JohnDBuell 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the quick action! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Other versions

What about the live album reading that spans selections of the first three books. 70.126.40.223 18:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "Douglas Adams Live" discs were only available in limited markets. I'm not sure they are in print anymore, there's a snippet about them at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon#Germany. --JohnDBuell 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sass Redirect?

This isn't a query on the article itself but I want to know why "Sass" redirects to this article from the wikipedia search. I can't see a link so why is this redirect in existence?

Probably because of "Hey, you sass that hoopy Ford Prefect? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is." (Radio Episode 7 I think, from 1978. Someone want to confirm?) --JohnDBuell 12:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it was episode 9, 1980. I'll be able to check with my script book later, when I'm at home. --JohnDBuell 15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gah I was wrong on both tries. It's from the start of episode 8, 1980. --JohnDBuell 12:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it was originally just a dicdef of "sass" from HHGG. Doesn't sass actually mean something now, though (I try to forget that episode of Made, I'm scarred for life)? --Rory096 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Towel page link

Just got a message back from Sally Kentfield. The towel page will be back up later this week after she's done playing with iWeb and redoing her entire site at mac.com. I suppose "We apologize for the inconvenience" would be appropriate? ;) --JohnDBuell 15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is back up and has been moved slightly. I'm going to put the new URL into the article. --JohnDBuell 15:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PANIC!

There's only one mention of "Don't Panic!", in the COMPUTERGAME section, of all places! Is it ok to panic now? :-) Kim Bruning 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

20th century popular fiction featured articles

apart from this & The Foundation Series (which is gonna be un-featured soon), there is no other 20th century popular fiction featured articles... so i'd like to invite editors of this page, who know what it takes to get something in the same genre featured, to comment on this article: The Illuminatus! Trilogy. its another cult sci-fi novel that has been quite influential in the last few decades, although it doesnt have as many "multimedia" adaptations so the article concentrates more on the book & its themes. its up for peer review before FAC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Illuminatus%21_Trilogy. any comments in that peer review welcome. Zzzzz 15:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

thx to everyone who contributed to or commented on this article in the past few weeks. this article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted unnecessary spoiler

I deleted:

By the time that the events of the fifth novel in the series occur, the publishers have been taken over by Infinidim Enterprises, a front for a group of Vogons, to assist with their plot to completely destroy all Earths in all parallel universes.

as it's really unnecessary in this section and is a spoiler without a warning, I havent read the fifth one yet and wasn't expecting any mention of it in this section. --Johnny 0 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki article for the fictional HHGTTG book?

Hiya. I've had a look around, but I can't find an actual page about the fictional HHGTTG book, the one that appears in the 'real' books, movie, etc.

There's pages about other fictional stuff that appears in the books (Babel Fish, Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, Infinite Improbability Drive, etc), so The Guide probably deserves one too.

If there already is one, and I'm just too dense to find it, maybe there should be a disambiguation at the start along the lines of "This article refers to the books, radio plays, etc by Douglas Adams. For the fictional book that appears in these, see x".

And if there isn't, anyone game to start one? Bumnut 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

UK spellings

Okay, because I'm getting REALLY TIRED of reverting this: The radio series, books, etc etc etc, all have origins in the UNITED KINGDOM, NOT THE UNITED STATES. And because of this, the spelling of words, such as "civilisation" in the "Restaurant at the End of the Universe" section IS CORRECT. Quoting the online unabridged Merriam Webster (subscription required):

Main Entry: civ·i·li·za·tion Variant(s): or civ·i·li·sa·tion , Brit often and US sometimes

PLEASE LEAVE THESE SPELLINGS ALONE! --JohnDBuell 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of changing the spelling either way, but having been raised in the US, I can find it very understandable to think that "civilisation" is spelled wrong just because we never see it spelled like that over here. The word spelled with an S seems to imply an /s/ sound rather than a /z/ sound, making it sound awkward if read aloud--it would sound sorta like the word "sensation"...

If it becomes too big of a problem, I would suggest using a different word altogether, like society, population, or some similar word.

Best of luck! Brandon Dilbeck 05:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)