Talk:Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"The answer is simple: there is no spoon. Follow the white rabbit" should be removed or supported.

The final sentence of the first paragraph of section 1 seems to be a quote from The Matrix. Without additional knowledge, a reference or an explanation, it makes no sense in a HGttG context, and comes across as an "in" joke. Either it should be removed, or enhanced so that a casual reader will understand its relevance to the topic of the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism of the sort that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Thanks for spotting it! Serendi^podous 11:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

42 and six times nine

Of course, this answer is deliberately wrong: six times nine is, in fact, fifty-four - a misunderstanding entirely too common in those that fail to recognise that the universe is based on misfortune, the decimal number of which is thirteen. (If it still needs spelling out in black and white, six times nine base thirteen is, of course, 42.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.77.35 (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Adams made clear that base 13 was a coincidence. Serendi^podous 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

42

When one looks at the number 42 something seems to be missing. However, since 0 literally equals nothing, then nothing is missing, making the answer to life, the universe and everything 42(0) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.37.55 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• The Ultimate Question to Life, the Universe and Everything is "how many cups of tea should a person drink each month?" Scientists are constantly researching tea-drinking and will eventually come to this conclusion. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523005850/http://www.douglasadams.se:80/stuff/qanda.html to http://www.douglasadams.se/stuff/qanda.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120405171149/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/3593/silent-witness?page=0%2C0 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/3593/silent-witness?page=0,0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090715213748/http://news.qthemusic.com:80/2008/05/coldplay_viva_la_vida_1.html to http://news.qthemusic.com/2008/05/coldplay_viva_la_vida_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't panic

Did Adams get this phrase from the 1960s/1970s BBC comedy series Dad's Army? It was one of the best-known catchphrases from this very popular tv series (as shouted (usually) by Corporal Jones), and I wonder if Adams ever talked about his use of the phrase and whether he 'borrowed' from Dad's Army? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.37.219 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this has a point. See also below, where 42 in context of the German V1 attacks on London plays a role.--79.199.181.159 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ascii

I explained my reason for removing it; you did not explain your reason for reinstating it. This is just some guy off the street's headcanon about a possible origin of 42. The citation does not mention HHGG and merely backs up the fact that 42 is the ASCII for *. The connection with HHGG is purely in this person's head. Serendi^podous 23:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Serendipodous You have a legitimate concern that there is not a source directly connecting it to the book.

User:RogierBrussee I found your information useful. Whether by design or serendipitous coincidence, 42 as an ASCII wildcard was an amusing and worthwhile connection.

You are both respected and experienced editors.

I reduced it to a note. It is context, and its inclusion at that level benefits the reader, and does no harm to the article. This was a compromise; both of you are sincere and acting in AGF. We should consider our readers first, and err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant.

Some fights are not worth fighting. I suggest you both think about WP:Dead horse.

Have a happy Thanksgiving (depending on where you are). Let us all give thanks for working together and producing a great encyclopædia. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia discussions don't work that way. You can't just shut one down because you think it's silly. If material shouldn't be on here, it shouldn't be on here. If we include any random reference to the number 42, then why not include every reference to the number 42 ever published? And I live in London; I won't be seeing turkey til Christmas. Serendi^podous 17:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I allowed for your geographic difference.

I think it belongs here; and this is an saddle point in the discussion.

Nor was I 'shutting down' the discussion.

You don't own this article. Neither do I.

We will have to wait for consensus to build, and agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I am a mathematician, and I think I know what I am talking about (case in point: I fixed up the page on Hurwitz automorphism theorem just to have something correct and easy to follow to refer to). Many of my non mathematics friends and all of my mathematician friends (several of whom are math professors), agreed immediately that the characterisation of 42 is the "right" one, and makes it actually a rather _interesting_ number. They urged me to put it on Wikipedia for several years, and I eventually succumbed. Riemann surfaces are really a core thing in more advanced mathematics, and very similar arguments crop up elsewhere, for example in the ADE classification of Lie groups, which is another really central thing in math(it doesn't quite give 42 so I didn't include it but it is a very similar idea). It is perfectly ironic that even most mathematicians think 42 is a "boring" number. In fact there is a Numberphile video (a popular you-tube channel on mathematics) where the first sentence is that 42 is not a very interesting number mathematically but very special in nerd culture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6tINlNluuY . They even explain 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/7 + 1/42 = 1 as an example of "pseudo perfect numbers" (see 4:20) but unfortunately they miss the importance of having just 3 factors which makes it look a bit artificial. The importance of being the largest of the form 1/ (1- 1/p - 1/q - 1/r) and its connection to Hurwitz automorphism theorem is pointed out in the remarks, but I was the one doing that (my earlier halfhearted attempt to make it better known), so it doesn't really count.

The little paragraph has grown a bit when I reworked it a bit to make Hurwitz automorphism theorem a "Life, the Universe and Everything" question. I don't particularly mind having it reverted to its earlier slightly shorter state, except I don't recall if I fixed small typos and link thingies. I have no connection with the ASCII asterisk paragraph, other than seeing it, and thinking that a bit of math was at least as much on the topic for the number 42.

User:RogierBrussee

We're not talking about that. I'm not qualified to make a judgement on that. What we are talking about, specifically, is the reference to the 42 "*" ASCII code. Serendi^podous 11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you may not be talking about that, but you removed it. Threw out the Baby with the bathwater? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove it. I only removed the ASCII line. Please do not accuse me of doing things I did not do. Serendi^podous 19:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, if I got it wrong. I guess there was no collateral damage by you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The ASCII part seems irrelevant to me, and of the kind of trivia that would fill up this article with useless information. The ASCII table can not count as verification, as it makes no mention of HHGG. This is WP:ORIGINAL and numerology.
Hurwitz's automorphism theorem has at least been mentioned in the context of HHGG.[1] Maybe one can defend to mention it in a half sentence. I wouldn't support the mention, and much less spending an entire paragraph on it. The reference [2] is almost certainly a joke making use of the Strong Law of Small Numbers (there is a Numberphile video for this, too, if you like that). There is no denying that the number 42 appears in serious mathematical contexts; but that can be said of any sufficiently small number. If Adams had chosen 41 or 43, this discussion would be about lucky numbers of Euler instead of Hurwitz's automorphism theorem.
The fact that "mathematicians found a question whose answer is 42" is irrelevant for that reason, as that is true for every number that is small enough. The "hint at the fact that 42 is mathematically not just any random number" is in fact just that: A hint that 42 is too small to be random.[3] Renerpho (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice that 42 is enclosed by the two prime number of 41 and 43? How many other numbers are like this? Only a few in the range below 100 and there are relatively more of them in the lower end, such as there are primes. *gg* --Alexander.stohr (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

To a large extent, you are right: all small numbers are special in some sense. But 42 and (2,3,7) really are rather more pervasive than the numbers 41 or 43 which are essentially just a boring pair of twin primes and not very special twins at that. Try finding halfway interesting _questions_ that give them as an answer. Note for example that you don't have to ask for the largest _integer_ n such that 1 - 1/p - 1/q - 1/r = 1/n but any _rational number_ for which there are obviously an infinite number of small ones to choose from. Sure that blog by John Baez (who is not just a prolific blogger but a very good and well respected mathematician) mentions 42 in relation to the HHGG because he likes an informal tone in his blogs, but he really wants to talk about hyperbolic tilings, the Klein quartic and Hurwitz. It is a complete coincidence that Adams chose 42 as any stupid integer number, and it turns out to be not a stupid number at all. I am biased but I find that all cute and ironic in a fitting way.

User:RogierBrussee

This is all very subjective, and unless you back it up with reliable sources (rather than personal opionions/preferences), the argument that any number is more pervasive than any other is void. I understand your fascination for the mathematical topic, but as you said yourself, you appear to be biased. Remember that Wikipedia is not a blog, it is an encyclopedia. I think the paragraph about Hurwitz in its current form is unencyclopedic (subjective,unsourced and irrelevant). On that ground, it should be replaced by a single sentence that links to Hurwitz's automorphism theorem and the blog post by Baez. Renerpho (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Another false myth of the origin of 42

A recent internet meme is saying since Douglas Adams was a software engineer, and the ASCII symbol at position 42 (decimal) is an asterix, therefore the answer is "*", where "*" in mathematical expressions is multiply, and in regular expressions means 0 or more, and in SQL can mean "anything", or "all". TimeHorse (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Connect Four

This Connect Four set was from a mental ward in SCUH, Australia, between Jan and March 2019. At the time I thought that the meaning of life, etc, (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) was 42, and the question was "what's 6x7?" (according to the movie script). For some reason I thought I'd count the pieces and the result was unexpected. I wonder how often sets are like this - 1 in 1000? And it was the first time I'd ever tried counting the pieces. There should be 21 of each because tied games are possible.

There were ages and place where you got adult at the age of 21. So think about two persons waiting for getting adult. What would allow this to happen? A one-on-one multiplication? At least it sums up to 42 - and this means its life, the universe and everything of course for the involved ones. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

42 in V1 bombing of London in WW II

Decades before Adam's novel, the number "42" played a crucial role in World War II. Nazi Germany started to use V1, their first V-Weapon on June 15, 1944. According to David Irvings book "The Mare's Nest" from 1964 the order for the 55 German launchpads reads (p. 189 bottom): >>> All catapults open fire on Target Forty-two with salvo synchronised at 11:18 p.m. (Impact at 11:40 p.m.) Uniform range 130 miles. Then sustained fire until 4:50 a.m. <<<

42 was the codename for London. Would it be appropriate to mention this coincidence in the article? --79.199.181.159 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it would most certainly not be appropriate. Unless you have reliable secondary sources which explicitly draw a straight line from the Nazis' "42" to Adams' "42", which I sincerely doubt that you have. Anything else is original research and prohibited here on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Diameter of a proton

or that light requires 10⁻⁴² seconds to cross the diameter of a proton. - actually, it takes light 10^-24 seconds to cross the diameter of a proton. Should I remove it? --Upquark (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the statement is still factual. That was a genuine proposed rationale for the use of 42, regardless of whether it was based on fact. Serendi^podous 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Connection with ASCII code 42

Regarding my edit, I summarized the introduction of Asterisk. I just followed the style already present in Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition: I did not do any fancy ordering, I just added facts to the end. If you see a connection, then maybe there is a connection, and it looks like people think there is one.

msmvps.com is good enough for DirectShow and Windows MultiPoint Server. Is this source good enough for you? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a source from Coast (radio station). 84.120.7.178 (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a source from Sourcecon. The website is good for Switch (app). 84.120.7.178 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an archived source from Viralthread.com. Website is good for Flying Spaghetti Monster. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This source is from SAGE Open. Do I need to continue? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussing the ASCII character and the novels are on topic. Sources discussing the character that do not discuss the novels are off topic and WP:OR.

How are they OR? They are being included to imply they have something to to with "phrases from Hitchhiker's" (the topic of this article) which the sources do not state.

Similarly, sources about Tom Cruise's 42nd birthday party, the year 1942 (or 42 A.D. or any other year), a math equation leading to 42, etc. are all off-topic and should not be included unless they specifically discuss the topic of this article.

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."- SummerPhD^v2.0 21:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your rationale: there is something called editorial judgment that modifies your interpretation. If you maintain that I tried to imply anything, then you are wrong. On another hand, thank you for the explanation. Now, could you tell me whether the five sources I have presented are reliable for you? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If the sources don't directly relate to the topic, the question of reliability is essentially moot. Reliability can also depend on context, especially for self-published sources like blogs or reddits. I would agree with the first respondent that the sources do not directly relate to the topic of the subsection. All the other examples are of instances post-H2G2 where 42/the Answer/the Question has been included as an homage or reference to H2G2. ASCII predates H2G2, so any mention doesn't fit in this subsection.

I will say it may (with appropriate sources) fit in the preceding "Why the number 42?" subsection. The 1st, 2nd, and 5th sources listed above merely support the claim of "here's a weird/funny/interesting coincidence with ASCII" which is not what this is article is about. Only the 4th source, which is quoted by the 3rd source, makes the claim that there is a theory that Adams chose 42 because that was the ASCII code for the asterisk and it's used as a wildcard symbol in computers. IMO, viralthread source though is insufficient to determine if this is a significant or prevalent enough fan theory to be included per WP:WEIGHT. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to fight censorship in this article. Thank you for your replies. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Who said anyone was censoring anything? We are saying sources which do not directly discuss the subject of this article are not reliable sources for this article.

Yes, by including sources about 42 that do not discuss the subject you certainly intend to imply there is a connection. Otherwise, why would we include those sources and not a random newspaper article from Tokyo in 1958? Whatever connection you intend to imply is not in the sources. That is original research.

You need to either present a solid argument that this is not OR (it clearly is) or establish a consensus here to ignore one of the pilars of the project because this issue is some kind of a special case. Other than that, the sources off-topic and simple do not belong here.

(If a newspaper editor removes random comments about tea in China from an article about Walt Disney, that's not "censorship" (suppressing information deemed obscene or somehow dangerous to society) it's "editing" (correcting, condensing or otherwise improving material for publication). - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are still talking about the sources I included firstly; forget them. I presented five new sources which were systematically discarded:

1. "not what this is article is about."
2. "not what this is article is about."
3. quotes 4th source
4. WP:WEIGHT
5. "not what this is article is about."

If you do not agree, then we are talking. If you do agree, then we are over; consensus does not mean unanimity and I stated my conclusion. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that sources that do not discuss the topic of this article cannot be used as sources in this article. The consensus seems to be against you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You are beating around the bush; please be clear. Do the five new sources discuss the topic of this article or not? Is consensus against me or not? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hitting the bush squarely and solidly with a cricket bat:

• Windows Server Clustering & PCNews is apparently a blog. With a limited number of exceptions (described at WP:SPS), blogs are not reliable sources.
• Drive with Jon Dunstan seems to be a blog post by a radio DJ. He gives a just so story without a hit that it is anything other than a casual guess. I'd classify it as another self-published source, i.e., not reliable.
• SourceCon, as described at [4] is "a daily blog" (with instruction on how you can contribute a post). It's another self-published source. Additionally, as noted above, what it's actually saying about the subject is quoted (though not cited) from another source. As such, it isn't a source for any of that info.
• An archived page from viralthread gives exactly the same wording as the previous source. Is one quoting the other or are they quoting a shared source or sources quoting other sources? I don't know. "Viralthread" doesn't sound like a reliable source. Does it meet the criteria at WP:RS?

SAGE Open is an open-access, "pay to publish" journel. I'd see a hard road to having it declared a reliable source, but my main complaint is WP:SYN. Yes, the author did start his digging for "what 42 means in different contexts" because he chose the number 42 from the novel for an unrelated use. The ASCII code for an asterisk being 42 the author relates as one of the answers. He does not in any way discuss that meaning (or any of the others) as having anything to do with the novel. Including the material here would be meant to imply that there is a connection between ASCII and the novel -- a connection not directly made by the source. The source would be on-topic (in found reliable) to say 42 is the author's favorite number because of its association with the number. I cannot, however, imagine why it being a non-notable economics professor's favorite number would be worth mentioning in any context. It's not a significant fact about the number, the novel or (really) even the professor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. FyzixFighter and you might accept the source from Viralthread.com. Would you settle on this claim in "Why the number 42?"?

There is one fan theory stating that, since Douglas Adams was a computer geek, Deep Thought's answer was connected to ASCII code 42, which represents an asterisk.

84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO, viralthread.com does not look like a reliabe source. I can find only one other article - one in the entirety of all of wikipedia - where this website is referenced as a source. I don't know, maybe I missed some. However, I don't think it really rises to the quality of reliable sources that we generally look for. If you want to get a wider audience of editors to weigh in, you might try WP:RSN. If this is actually a common, notable, and non-fringe fan theory, than we should be able to find other sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again. Censorship in Wikipedia is no novelty. Let us leave this horse. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"Censorship" is a fun word, but does not apply here. No one is saying the guess about Adams' use of 42 because of ASCII is "objectionable, harmful, or sensitive". We do, however, have plenty of content that many would find objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or all three. Next time you're afraid Wikipedia is censored, check out Ejaculation#Stimulation or Nitroglycerin#Manufacturing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to Wikipedia censorship. You are talking about outside censorship and you are right. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

word counting

When yesterday using https://www.dcode.fr/word-value a little, I suddenly came to the bold idea and entered this word into the dialog - after hitting the submit button i got this pairing:

fish - 42

No, its not guessing. Its just plain fact.
Having the answer in my hands sounds interesting. And it sounds pretty in tune with the religious background of the Monty Python group, such as "Life of Brian" and how it was all time meant to be a pun towards strict "bible belt" style Christian power people in the UK. What's the symbol of Christ? Indeed Ichtys, the fish.
Of course there can always be other meanings like a phonetic one: 42 = for two, such as found in "i want to book a hotel room for two persons" - Adams denied telling you its about an adultery story? But think again... the legendary Babel Fish is also meant "for two" persons, for communications with one sender and one receiver. - Its all about the fish. Thanks. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Don't Panic (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Don't Panic (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Don't Panic (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

fan theories about 42 in the Reasoning section

The Invisible comment is "Please do not add your own speculations about the significance of the number 42. Sourced examples only. Thank you." but I note that the existing theories listed aren't well sourced. The "42 laws in cricket" links to a Guardian article, but that article doesn't mention cricket. Maybe there was a comment buried deep that mentioned it, but I'm sure I could find a random comment from alt.fan.douglas-adams or similar if needed. More interesting to me though is more clearly refuting these theories.

It wasn't a cricket reference - at the time Douglas wrote the 42 joke, there were in fact 47 laws of cricket (http://archive.acscricket.com/research/Laws_of_Cricket/1947_fourth_edition.html) and likewise it's clear it was not an ASCII/wildcard reference - Douglas wrote on a typewriter at the time, some years later described his attitude towards computers at the time as "I was a real technophobe" (youtube: qa2vDmgiEaM from 2:40)

There are other common fan theories that pop up from time to time too.

IMHO, none of them are worth space on wikipedia unless they are SO common in fandom to be notable for that aspect, in which case any clear and obvious refutation should be included in the text. (I delve pretty deeply in Hitchhikers fandom, and dont think any of these should be listed here)

Thoughts?  …/NemoThorx (💬 • 📜) 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Some articles accrue a lot of fancruft. Any theories or mentions not properly referenced by independent reliable sources should be removed from the article. The "On the Internet and in software" and "Cultural references" sections could use some scrutiny. But the article's purpose is not refuting any theories, unless there's an RS that says "here's this theory and here's why it's wrong", in which case both could be summarized. Schazjmd (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree the articles purpose is not to refuse those theories, but to list them without refutation gives them an elevated status, and I dont think the article should be doing that either. As said - my preference would be to not give any of them credence at all - except perhaps as you say: ones that can be cited and refuted in a summary with a quality cite.

I think I'll start looking into drafting up a reworking of some of these sections. I'd not given an editing thought to the Internet and Software or Cultural References sections, but they do read as a bit of a crufty list!  …/NemoThorx (💬 • 📜) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)