Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Abbreviations

Quite Frankly this is rediculous. This is not 'How-do-you-form-impropper-leet-based-abreviations.com' I am taking them out fully expecting you to put them back in. In a propperly Formed abreviation only the capital letters are relivant enough to be apart of the abreviation, however people tend to ignore this aspect in popular culture making abreviations of World of Warcraft as WOW (not even using WoW for crying out loud). There for, because it both looks bad and is urbandict worthy material I am removing the improper abreviations.

1) who taught you how to type? A penguin? 2) That is quite possibly the most ridiculous reason to get angry I've ever heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.156.173 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

1) You should really grant more time for responses before editing like that. 2) It would also be a good idea to go through the talk page archives, precisely because issues such as this one have been covered before. I have restored a couple of the more notable abbreviations, for reasons stated in my edit summary, but which I will restate here: H2G2 was used by Gaiman in his biography of Adams, and Adams used it himself when launching h2g2 the website. HHGTTG is used by one of the notable fan sites: hhgttgonline.com. --JohnDBuell 23:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't share the above commenter s seemingly harsh attitude about them, I also think the article would be better if the abbreviations were removed. They make the first sentence of the second paragraph highly confusing -- on my first time looking at the article they pretty much stopped me dead in my tracks. If that paragraph instead began "The title The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[3] can refer to any of the various incarnations of the story..." it would be significantly stronger. The only one that really seems relevant is h2g2 and that is covered later in the paragraph in context as it should be. If you think other abbreviations are related to other substantive facts about Hitchhiker's, then maybe those should be included lower down the article near the relevant fact. Atduskgreg 07:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a VERY common encyclopedic convention to introduce a topic and its most common abbreviations within the introductory paragraphs of that topic's article. The trouble here is that it seems to be a magnet for everybody's favorite custom abbreviation, when really only two or three have gained meaningful usage, and those are the two I pointed out last October. --JohnDBuell 12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it; I think that paragraph scans much better now. My one other suggestion would be that the next sentence, the one that starts "The series is often referred to as...", is just plain unnecessary. Again, it makes the whole paragraph harder to follow, and those aren't even really true abbreviations, more truncations. -- Atduskgreg 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again the usage convention is the same. Adams himself often referred to his own creation as Hitchhiker or Hitchhiker's in interviews. --JohnDBuell 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit anything, but I think the H2G2 abbreviation makes no sense and is ridiculous.

 67.161.77.15 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole series makes no sense and is ridiculous. That's what makes it fun.

Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, two H's, two G's, H2G2. --JohnDBuell 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And as stated above, since DNA used H2G2 himself, I think it makes perfect sense. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If its DNA you want, HHGTTG looks much more like DNA.24.184.101.129 (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Venus on the Half-Shell vs. Hitchhiker's Guide

I can't help but notice some interesting similarities between the Hitchhiker's series and the lesser known Philip Jose Farmer novel Venus on the Half-Shell. Both works are about men who search the universe for the meaning of life after a catastrophe destroys Earth.

There are differences too, of course, but it's nevertheless worth noting that Venus on the Half-Shell was published a good four years before Hitchhiker's Guide made its radio debut. Could Hitchhiker's Guide have been inspired by Venus on the Half-Shell, or is wandering through space after losing one's home planet a common science-fiction theme that has existed well before either book was published? Inquiring minds want to know! -M.Neko

I've never heard this come up from any of Adams's biographers or seen any other connection made. I would tend to doubt that the work was known in the U.K. in the early 1970s. Adams had explored the theme of "the Earth blowing up" before - Out of the Trees for example - but it was only later, with Hitchhiker's that he sent characters off into the Milky Way after that destruction. Adams's peers have also said that Adams had read a lot of English literature, but very very little science fiction (and this IS brought up in the published biographies), so I would tend to doubt that he was aware of the work at all. --JohnDBuell 12:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! It's entirely possible that this was a coincidence. Both books were science-fiction comedy, but Philip Jose Farmer (writing under the pseudonym Kilgore Trout) took his story in an entirely different direction, with less subtle, more sexual humor. It's like the difference between Red Dwarf and Spaceballs, really.

--M.Neko 07:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read this above, I remember hearing Adams on a Radio 4 series in the early 1980s. I think it was called 'It Makes Me Laugh' where, as the title suggests guest presenters chose things that make them laugh. I remember that he chose a piece from Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Whilst Venus on the Half-Shell was written by Farmer, he borrowed the fictional Kilgore Trout name from a recurring character in Vonnegut's books including Slaughterhouse Five. So maybe Adams had heard of it? Pure speculation, of course but quite interesting. Tony Corsini 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This article was re-written a year ago to be a "jumping-off point" for all of the various versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, not just the novel, or the film, or the radio or TV series. Those four versions now all have their own sub-pages, and many other versions are discussed within the text of this article. The aforementioned sub-pages are now all linked in the introductory text of this article - links like dablinks were tried, but eventually edited out, as they were thought to cause too much clutter at the top of the article, since there IS a template at the bottom (in addition to the links to sub-pages in the text, as mentioned). At any rate, this article has almost become a Portal to H2G2 in all forms, in all but name, and saying that this article is about just the novel is simply incorrect. --JohnDBuell 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

John, and others - with great respect for your work here, I have to insist that The HG2G – or a general page about it – is not best categorised by the name of a business model. If the work has been licensed by the copyright holder to a variety of progeny, this is incidental – other than in a business context. To make this the first information that the user encounters on the page upon searching the name, is to trivialise the creative importance of the original work and inflate the relative value of commerce involving it. I have therefore replaced the term "franchise" with the more general term "work", as would be used to refer to a book, play, painting or other such oeuvre, whatever the medium. The disputed term was introduced in 2005 but much lower down the page, in a notes section template. I'm not going to trace its bubbling up to the top from there. If anyone wants to mention the franchise model of the commercialisation of the work lower down, that is not a problem for me. In the page header, it is just crass. So, with a lot of thought, I've edited the DABlink without changing its functionality in any way. Best, Trev M  ~  16:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

book or radio series better?

I'm currently listening to the radio series, and I love it. Are the books much different? Is there a general consensus on which one is "better" or are they fairly equal in quality? What are the most important changes? Which is considered the most important "source"? etc.--Sonjaaa 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You will likely hear an equal number of arguments from fans of both. The radio series WAS the original, but the books are much more tightly edited.... --JohnDBuell 21:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If we wanted to list the differences between the radio series and the books, we would need a whole new article for that... I like the books better. They make more sense than the radio series. For example, in the radio series they are blasted to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe because the computer at Magrathea explodes. In the books a lot happens before they get to the Restaurant from Magrathea. I also didn't like the whole Lintilla part with the statue of Arthur etc... They do not exist in the book except for the shoe event horizon as a rather brief mention at Frogstar B. --ZeroOne 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Been done. There's a four page spread in SFX Collection, Special Edition Issue 22 "Best of Cult TV" that compares Hitchhiker's books to radio to TV series to movie, written by Pat Wright. The magazine was published about a year ago. --JohnDBuell 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that there is no consensus when it comes to the books or radio show. There are bits of content that are exclusive to each and there are advantages to each type of media which makes a straight comparison impossible. For the record, I first read the books and then heard the radio show and enjoy both. Also, the tertiary to quintessential phases of the radio show stick much more closely to the books than do the first phases for the obvious reason. Probably the only consensus is that the recent movie is not particularly great for fans that have in-depth exposure to the book or radio series

... to complicate things further there is also the old BBC miniseries (which uses most of the radio series cast) which I have bought but have yet to watch. --Mucus 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sonjaaa - I much prefer the radio series - original and best. It's the ideal medium for this type of craziness (like the Goon Show) and the music, sound effects and voices (especially Marvin) are great. The stories diverge fairly soon so its worth listening to / reading both. I also liked the film - again the story is different but it is in much the same style. Let us know what you think. Poujeaux 12:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how you look at it. You could say that the radio series was original and therefore better, however, another could say that with the books Adams had more time to perfect it and get it the proper way. I personally like the books better, bu that might just be that I read them long, long before I listened to the radio series.  ?

Mbatman72 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares (probably not), I'd like to pitch in that the book took the best bits of the radio series and edited them into a more sensible, yet just as zany and obscure order, gave it a stronger plot, etc...breaking habit for a hardcore H2G2 fan, I think the film was actually quite good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.2.191 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The books are very good but the radio series is better for the following reasons;

• 1 - it was the original upon which the books were based, so if you had already heard the radio series then the books are merely elaborations on the series.
• 2 - at the time of the first broadcast, AFAIK there had been no other sci-fi comedy radio shows of note, and so the programme was quite a novelty. FWIW, it preceded Red Dwarf by ten years or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.218.42 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's as an "English Icon"

I just found out that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels are under nomination as an "English Icon" at www.icons.org.uk - currently polling with 80% for and 20% against, whereas Harry Potter is getting a 50/50 split! --JohnDBuell 15:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Of course it's a English icon... cup of tea anyone? -- Treen

2005 Movie image

I noticed there was no image for the 2005 movie section, so I was bold and added one. I was careful not to duplicate the movie poster used in the main article on the film, so I used an alternatre version. Upon further investigation, however, I see that my image is already in use in the article HHG2 as an International phenomenon. I will try to find a "foreign" (that is, non-English language) poster for the latter article, but in the meantime, what does everybody think about the image being used here? It seems the film section deserves some image, main article or no. Thoughts? Reimelt 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fine addition, and a great idea to use the #2 poster to be different from the movie article. --JohnDBuell 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Towels and canon

I removed the following sentence that got reinserted:

"There have also been a series of towels that are considered by some to be canonical, as they include text from the first novel."

As I said in the edit summary, that doesn't really make any sense to me. The towels themselves are considered canon because they contain text from the first novel? The text implies that the towels don't include anything that hasn't been published in the books before, so they don't introduce anything new. So how can the towels be canon, then? By that logic, if I write something from the book on a piece of toilet paper, the toilet paper becomes canon. That really doesn't make too much sense to me, so am I missing something or should this sentence go? --Conti|✉ 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I guess I can remove the sentence again soon, unless anyone has any objections. --Conti|✉ 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the appropriate noun/adjective pair is "official version." Most of fandom (see the listed websites, alt.fan.douglas-adams, Don't Panic, etc.) lists towels as one of the official "Hitchhiker's versions", after the radio series, stage plays, books, TV series, computer game, etc. I believe that the article has said 'canonical' for the last year and a half, at least, and it did pass Peer Review and FAC without being questioned. --JohnDBuell 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it's either "considered by some to be canon" or it's official canon, it can't be both at the same time. If the towels are officially considered canon, that's fine with me. My point is that it just doesn't make sense to consider something canon that doesn't offer a single new sentence. I understand that it's funny to consider towels canon, and if that's officially so, we can state this. But I have a problem when "some" (weasel words!) consider them to be canon. --Conti|✉ 15:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's really just Adams's fans - and I don't think it'd be fair to say ALL of Adams's fans.... Digging around the a.f.d-a FAQ lists towels under merchandise, and I don't know that anyone gives it as an official version anymore, but Adams clearly wore one during the 1985 interview with Kevin J. Davies.... --JohnDBuell 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether he wore one or not doesn't say much about whether they are considered canon, right? Not even the reference for the canon-sentence mentions anything about the towels being canon or not. The main point is, still, that the towels logically can't be canon when they don't contain a single new word, but only quotes or excerpts from the books. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought we'd already come to agreement that 'canon/canonical' was the wrong descriptive word. I've changed the section. --JohnDBuell 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, then. I'm fine with the new version, thanks! --Conti|✉ 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Towel manufacture

There seems to be a misconception about the towels that feature the text of the towel entry. These were not printed, as JohnDBuell (who clearly doesn't own one) insists – apart from the label, which introduces a novel misspelling of 'separately'. Neither were they 'sewn', as he also mysteriously deduces – except around the edges, of course.

No, these were quality items. The lettering was incorporated into the fabric by the use two different coloured threads: white and either navy blue or dark red. Consequently, when the towel is viewed from the other side, the lettering is not just a mirror image but also a negative image.

More recently, ZZ9 produced a smaller towel, featuring a hand gripping a towel, and the words 'Don't Panic'. This image was, I believe, printed on the towel. Grant 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The one shown on Douglas Adams's shoulder during the interview with Kevin Jon Davies looks like a silkscreened process to me. Where the towels have been described in available literature (Don't Panic for instance), the process has NOT been described. I would insist on a reference, or rule this as a violation of WP:OR, except that it has occured to me thanks to Sally Kentfield's research that a rewrite is in order anyway, to discuss the variety of towels manufactured from 1984-2005. Thus I am removing the description of the Beer-Davies towels altogether, in order to reflect 20 years worth of towels, and thus nip any edit-warring in the bud. --JohnDBuell 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm what is said by Grant. I own examples of the orignals towels in blue and red (actually a dark purple) and they are white with blue/red writing on one side, blue/purple on the other with white writing. I also own the Pan "Don't Panic" towel that is on Sally's site (which is also woven) as well as movie towels from the US, UK, France and Australia. The towel shown over Douglas's shoulder actually belongs to Kevin Davies who also owns both blue and red versions. I have a photo somewhere of him at the movie last year with the red one.--Gusty42 24 September 2006.

The burden of proof is still on the editor making the claims, and no verifiable sources have been given, thus the rewrite. That's the way research works. --JohnDBuell 15:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That is very funny. 5000 copies of the thing were 'published'. It even had a copyright statement. And if you care to look at the site you yourself cite, you'll see that the advert at the bottom describes the towel as "woven with text from the book". But if you choose to censor an interesting fact simply because it contradicts an error that you have previously reinstated, then it seems that I shall have to be the one to avert an edit war – by leaving as it is the unsatisfactory mess that you have created. Grant 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(I was wrong about the hand gripping the towel, though. That was the ZZ9 logo.)

I don't see why multiple "generations" of Hitchhiker's towels should not be described, instead of just the one. I hadn't actually noticed that Sally had cited Mostly Harmless issue 25, which would naturally be an acceptable citation. However, this had NOT been cited in the article, and I don't know any editor that wouldn't back me on not previously having a listed source. Every time any edit is made, you should see the legend "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." If you'd now like to reinstate the text, using <ref> tags and the {{cite journal}} template, feel free. --JohnDBuell 22:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. I don't remember seeing a citation when you changed 'woven' to 'printed'. The only difference is that I was right and you were wrong. Or am I missing something? Grant 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No you are quite right in saying so. The prior statement had been based on visual evidence (mostly the towel on Douglas's shoulder). There still has not been, to my knowledge, any photograph made available that provides a close-up view from which anyone could deduce that such a towel was woven, instead of silkscreened. Another form of the advertisement reproduced from Mostly Harmless issue 25 also appeared in the first edition of Neil Gaiman's Don't Panic, but I no longer have my copy of that edition, and it was not reprinted in subsequent editions as the offer for the towels was no longer valid (thus I don't have any other way of stating/showing what phrasing was used in the advertisement in question). My perception of production methods without proper view of a closeup was, I admit, faulty, and you have correctly pointed out the appropriate evidence that I overlooked. Again, if you wish to reinstate the text, with the proper tags, feel free.

By the same token, there cannot possibly have been any photographic evidence that the towel was silkscreened rather than woven, and yet... Oh, never mind – I think I've made my point. Grant 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, there is a picture of the towel here, but it's probably no more conclusive than your DVD screenshot. The 'Kevin' in some of the other pictures is Kevin Davies. Grant 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No it really isn't (nor the one on Sally's page), which I think makes your point. Photographic evidence alone proves nothing (and come to mention it, it can all be photoshopped anymore anyway, as we all know). Again, point conceded. --JohnDBuell 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to prove the point I PM'd Kevin on the DAC forum and his response is here http://douglasadams.se/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202640#202640. I think it is pretty clear this is woven. Even the most talented photoshopper would find it difficult to fake that and sources don't come much better than Kevin when it comes to Hitchhiker.Gusty42 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

could wiki be the new HGG?

Since you can find info on just about any subject, could it? just a thought

Not really - see our archive and H2G2. Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 17:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. I checked Earth and instead of an entry saying 'mostly harmless' there's a load of fancruft about some obscure lump of rock in space. I've reported it for notability. Totnesmartin 10:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy People Vertical Transporters or whatever such gibberish

What about the Happy People Vertical Transporters that can look into the future? There aren't any definitions about it.

I suppose the Happy Vertical People Transporters (a product of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation) could be included either in the SCC article or the Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article. But certainly not in this main article. --JohnDBuell 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"What does it want, a pension scheme?" Briantist 13:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That number again ...

Now then, folks: isn't it obvious? 42 may be 6 * 9 (in base thirteen), but is also the number of Laws which govern the game of Cricket!

'Nuff said? 86.6.13.136 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just another meaningless coincidence. :) ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it IS enough said. It's only a coincidence. --JohnDBuell 22:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

42 is NOT the answer to the meaning of life and everything. The computer that gave that answer did not know the question so it gave the answer of 42 and even told the two people that they did not state the question clearly enough to get a good enough answer. The computer also stated that it would create another computer that could give the answer to the "Ultimate Question", Earth. R d the savior 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that you mistyped. I think that you meant that the other computer (the Earth) was built to find the Ultimate Question. Val42 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has been written by the man himself, Adams, that it is impossible to know both the answer and the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.156.173 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was in the book, if that's what you meant. Ged UK (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

-Hi, I'd like to point out that the number 42 strikes me as the number of chromosomes laboratory rats have, which are identified as the most intelligent animal on Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.36.202 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw a documentary some time ago (on tv) about Douglas Adams and I seem to recall someone close to Adams reporting that a great deal of time was spent (I think with Geoffrey Perkins?) debating the choice of number, purely on the grounds of humour. "42" was eventually selected solely as they concluded that it was the funniest number to use. Apologies for the vagueness and lack of cast iron authority on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.170.97 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry said in an interview that Adams once told him the reason for choosing 42 and implied it was something more than just a random choice or it being a "funny" number, but unfortunately was sworn to secrecy. One thing that did occur to me is that "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" contains 30 letters and "Douglas Adams" 12 letters - 30 + 12 = 42. This is definitely original research though! MFlet1 (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

BBC Radiophonic Workshop

Sound design, as the article correctly states, is a such an important part of the original radio series that I was very surprised to find the BBC Radiophonic Workshop receives no mention (despite name checking Paddy Kingsland). Can someone rectify this and do the reqd linkage to workshop wiki article please? 86.134.236.217 12:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Ed

It wasn't just the famous Paddy Kingsland, but also Dick Mills and Harry Parker.

Some of the Hitch Hiker's sound effects (book acitvation, Slartibartfast's aircar, Penargulon relocation device) appeared on the BBC Sound Effects #26 album, and "The Whale" (the music behind the TV whale) and "Brighton (sic) Pier" (during the 2nd TV espisode where Arthur and Ford are rescued) appeared on the BBC Radiophonics 1983 SoundHouse album.

Briantist 13:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

5.1 Tertiary phase in WMA were downloads

The Tertiary phase WMA 5.1 files were downloads, you could save copies of them by clicking "Save As...", which is what I did! They files were severed by http, not via a streaming protocol.

Please see http://web.archive.org/web/20041009205833/http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/

Briantist 15:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be the only one that worked for then. Everyone else I know had to either capture the stream or wait for the CDs. The BBC website described them as streams, as did Dirk Maggs, as did Nick Webb (the source of information on the legal dispute with Disney on having downloads available in the first place). And anyway, if it "worked for you" and all other sources state that both formats were audio streams, that would clearly be Original Research. If you're going to throw URLs at me, have a look at [1] - the archived BBC page shows that the Windows Media files were .ASX, which are clearly audio streams. Sorry. --JohnDBuell 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd Phase episodes were only supposed to be available for streaming but the BBC carelessly left downloadable versions in the same directory they were being streamed from and left this directory publicly available. The filenames were coded but it wasn't difficult to figure out which was which. They even goofed so far as to put the version of Episode 2 (fit 14) up before it was even broadcast. There is some correspondance on this at www.douglasadams.se if you can be bothered to trawl through the posts on the HHG Media section. Gusty42 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to change the relevant section in the article to indicate that the BBC intended to only permit streaming, per their agreement with Disney, but that downloads of the Tertiary Phase were inadvertently made available AND post the appropriate references, that would be the best compromise. --JohnDBuell 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Project Galactic Guide

There is actually another HHG-inspired encyclopedia project that predates H2G2 by a number of years, it is called Project Galactic Guide (no relation to The Galactic Guide Project). It started out in the early 1990s or so as a Usenet project to create their own version of the HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy space encyclopedia. They made their own special reader for the articles, and split the article types up into Real, Semi-Real, and Unreal. Eventually they converted the whole system into a wiki-like online system and dropped the reader software.

It can be found here:

http://www.galactic-guide.com/

I actually wrote a few articles there myself, way back when.

There was also an independently-created HHG-like encyclopedia that existed as a computer system some guy was carrying around to various sci-fi cons back then, and included (with Douglas Adams' permission) many articles exerpted from the novel interspersed with original articles. I gather that some of latter also appeared in Project Galactic-Guide.

An article about that can be found here:

http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/1R16.html

Yours Galacticly, Nomad Of Norad 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see we've already got a page on it here: Project Galactic Guide

...so why isn't there a link to http://www.galactic-guide.com/ within this article?

Nomad Of Norad 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

"6x9" might symbolize a Yin Yang cosmology which could answer the QUESTION

In many eastern philosophies, the Yin and Yang, expressed numerically as 69, symbolizes a truth that all things in the universe have two opposing but complementary forces. Such as up and down, yes and no, good and bad, -1 and +1. This can be put into a cosmology: In the beginning there was nothing. From nothing came something and a negative something (mathematically: 0 = -1 + 1). That function, repeated infinitely and in all dimensions, would result in - and , in other words, Life, the Universe, and Everything. The issue of computer getting the wrong number, while subconscious revealing "6x9," is a comic telling of technology's failure and humanity's triumph. Csapien2 03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Chuck

That's WP:OR. And that's not allowed on the page.--SUIT^{What!? 42!} 03:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Or it could mean The Answer has something to do with sex!  :-D --Nomad Of Norad 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

US LP adaptations

"The front covers of the US cassette releases of the audio adaptations of the first radio series. These are roughly the same programmes as the UK LPs, released a few years afterwards"

roughly? what does this mean? "same programmes as UK LPs". The UK LPs are not programmes, they are re-recordings. Can someone please clarify if the US tapes are edits of the UK ones, re-recordings or what? Ta Briantist 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn that I remember reading that when Simon & Schuster released the LP re-recordings on cassette in the US they had to be slightly edited to fit on one ninety and one sixty minute cassette, respectively. My point was to indicate that the contents of the cassettes are very nearly identical to the UK LPs. They absolutely are NOT the radio series, which as mentioned in my edit summary were issued in the US at the end of the 1980s in a white BBC Radio Collection box containing six sixty minute cassette tapes.

I just skimmed through Pocket Essential Hitchhiker's Guide and Hitchhiker the biography, and find reference only to Simon & Schuster doing US distribution, not a slight re-edit. The US/Canadian LPs were identical, but I can find no difference cited about changing the LPs to cassettes, even looking through the FAQs. Alibris has a copy of the first tape for sale for about US$20 (I'm keeping mine, though). --JohnDBuell 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It may not be in any of the secondary literature about the series, but after finally getting my hands on a set of the US/Canada LPs, I have already confirmed that the Veet Voojagig sequence from side 3 is missing from the Simon & Schuster cassettes, as is Ford's departing shout to Arthur that he should read through the Guide while stuck on guard duty with Marvin, and the line from Peter Jones in the center of the LP that Arthur bruised his arm (like the TV episode). --JohnDBuell 04:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Guide itself

Is there any article on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as it exists within the story? I can't find one, and it seems odd that there wouldn't be one. Raistlin11325 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there really isn't. I don't know how that would work since it changed quite a bit between each version. There would probably be a serious debate about how to title such an article: The Guide (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (fictional device)? Mainly the different versions tell about how the guide was implemented for each (Here, radio series, television series, movie, computer game). --JohnDBuell 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that at least a stub can be created of it. Once such an article exists, it is up to the people of earth to edit it to what is the most proper form. Mortsggah 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, such a page HAD been created, but nobody ever bothered to follow up with that information here. It's The Guide (character). --JohnDBuell 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tim Souster's Journey of the Sorcerer

I'm just a tiny insy winsy bit confused about a bit of the front page article which mentions that Tim Souster's version of JotS was used for both the LP and TV series. I can definitely hear that they are two very similar. But for accuracy's sake, should it be a good idea to mention that the TV version is slightly different?

JasonXV

Frood

Why does Frood redirect here? What is Frood? There is no mention of Frood in the article, so why should Frood redirect here? -- Leothar 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Because, Frood is a slang term used within the series meaning a "really together guy who knows where his towel is" I know its wierd, but it is in the book.10acious 01:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

According to our own talk page archives here, Sass used to do the same thing. The quotation is "Hey, you sass that hoopy Ford Prefect? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is." --JohnDBuell 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think 'frood' means 'really amazingly together guy'- sass was 'meet, know, have sex with', and hoopy meant 'really together guy'. If memory serves, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.136 (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea the above commenter is correct in the meanings of those words. felinoel (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if it is a redirect, then there should at least be an explanation of that. Talk page explanation isn't quite enough. 85.217.44.99 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC) This is rather missing the point if your a Frood you will know the explanation is on the talk page is and if your not your never going to be and frankly it's too late — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.60.214 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can anybody include the pronunciation in english ?. Thanks in advance. --HybridBoy 08:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ...what? --JohnDBuell 13:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...good question BlazeOfGlory15 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Wait- a featured article without an infobox? Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, sorry. I noticed that this wasn;t about the book. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing Links

Hi—great article. I just wanted to let you know that the two articles cited in the "media which have used this article" (I'm paraphrasing here) section above have both apparently been removed from their servers. Neither displays, so you get an error message if you try to view them. I'm not sure if they should be removed or just unlinked, so I'll let somebody with more knowledge take care of it! MeegsC | Talk 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For a Featured Article, the Lead/Intro looks absolutely awful

Compare to the article's WP:TFA appearance on the Main Page back in 2005, in paragraph form. This article should either be demoted from WP:FA status, or fixed up. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Cosmic Cutie

I might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article about the Cosmic Cutie, which appears on all the U.S. covers of the novels and videos. "What is that green thing?" is a frequently asked question by American readers/viewers. DNA himself answered the question in the 1980s on the Usenet newsgroup alt.fan.douglas-adams (on which he was a regular participant), pointing out that it's called the Cosmic Cutie, and was invented by the U.S. publisher. DNA was never shown or told about the character prior to publication. Although it was created without DNA's knowledge or approval (though it didn't seem like he minded too much, as I recall), it has become a recognizable icon of the series to U.S. fans (didn't it even appear in the starfield in one of the U.S. trailers for the movie?).

The only problem with adding this information is getting the citation. There aren't many -- or any -- Usenet archives that will go back that far to find DNA's post about it, and particularly not for alt groups. But, hey, "wiki" stands for "what I know is", and this is what I know. So... there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.48.252 (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you were joking : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki 203.32.16.175 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mega"

The Cultural References section suggests that the liberal usage of the prefix "mega" (mega-donkey, mega-big, Megadodo) in HGG played a significant role in promoting its slang and marketting usage. To my recollection, the fad was already well under way, and i saw Adams' overuse of it as poking fun at it.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's unsourced, and like you I suspect it's wrong, so I've taken it out. Ged UK (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"HHG Disambiguation page"

HHG is also the abbreviation to High Harmonic Generation, an optical phenomenon. I suggest that a disambiguation page should be made to those seeking info on that topic. I don't know how to do this, and I don't know if this is the best place to suggest this modification. Sorry if it's not the proper place. Thanks

Not to mention the Holy Hand Grenade. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 21:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this main article should be spelled "Hitchhiker's", but...

...don't forget that the radio series was released as "Hitch-hiker's" and the TV show as "Hitch Hiker's". Shouldn't those articles retain their original spellings, in the interest of accuracy? Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 14:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but did this ever get done? felinoel (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4