Talk:Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/Archive 1

Archive 1

rationale

I just created this article, but already feel the need to justify its existence. I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it Wikiquote, but I think these phrases are significant enough to warrant mention (since they have usages in other contexts and they have interesting stories behind them), but not to the point they warrant their own articles. Sound good? - Furrykef 05:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strag is a term used to describe any non-hitchhiker.

Is the term "strag" notable enough for inclusion? By that I mean, does it ever appear outside the context of (though still in reference to) HHGttG? - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you give us some more information on the origins of "strag"?

No clue, but I imagine it's a contraction of "straggler". Serendi^podous 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quilliard

Would the term quilliard be appropriate for this article? Even though it was only mentioned in the television series.. DrWho42 05:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't see a problem. It's within the HHG canon IainP (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any old made-up word that happens to be in the HHGttG canon belongs in this list. I think for it to be notable it needs to be used outside the context of HHGttG itself. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, gotchya. So what we're really looking at are words/phrases which have passed from HHG and into (semi)common useage? Such as "Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike 'random object'"? IainP (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain "not entirely unlike" was around before HHGttG; I'm not sure why it's in here as an in-joke. 71.171.87.222 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

God's Final Message

Hey, I just realized... what is God's Final Message to His Creation doing in here, anyway? In what context is it used outside the series? - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it referenced On The Internets maybe twice in ten years when not related to the series. I myself remember more distinctly the serially reincarnated Arajagar (sp?) and the concept of flying as "falling, and missing the ground." Anyone got a second-hand reference for this? --205.201.141.146 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody had added this to the article:

The message is never actually written down in the books, merely spoken letter by letter for Marvin. Arthur and Fenchurch did this because Marvin's electronic eyes had died after being 37 years older than the universe.

I removed it, partly because the way it was written, it feels more like it belongs here, but also because it's wrong. It wasn't spoken letter by letter for Marvin; it was spoken letter by letter by Marvin. His eyes went out after he read the message, not before. He did require the help of Arthur and Fenchurch to read it, but they helped him by supporting his head, not reading it to him. (Also, his eyes, assuming they had never been replaced, were 37 times older than the universe, not merely 37 years. But they probably had been, as Marvin remarked that every part of him has been replaced except for the aching diodes in his left side.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

btw - that thing about Fenchurch finding it to be the ultimate question: doesnt seem right. She says "Yes, that was it." shes referring to the last words left by the creator (past tense) and it had an impact on her - it doesnt mean it was the question (does she even know the answer? she never refers to it). also if its personalised, then we only know what marvin saw - doesnt make much sense really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.88.7 (talk) 01:00, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

nowhere was it mentioned or even suggested that the message was personalized 59.182.152.58 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly Harmless

"Harmless." was the entire description of Earth in the Hitchhiker's Guide. Ford Prefect carefully researched and painstakingly detailed information on Earth's cultures, history, and species. The entry was later edited to read, "Mostly harmless." Ford Prefect's frustration at this dismissal of his hard work parallels the frustration of many an engineer or computer scientist whose intellectual work is later deemed to be unimportant to the project, and erased or severely revised. This is especially true of Wikipedia, where someone who posts an incredibly detailed revision to an article returns a week later to find it gone, without even a note as to why on the talk page. This also illustrates the central theme of the Increasingly Inaccurately Named Trilogy, which is the post-modern British nihilism that no matter what you try to achieve, the universe will foil you, and then you die. This also relates to the Ultimate Question and Answer being a very dry mathematical proposition without any emotional significance, and inaccurate too, frustrating the desires of those who want some Grand Universal Truth. What is Nine multiplied by Six? Forty-two. --205.201.141.146 22:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, "what is nine multiplied by six" was merely the incomplete (and probably corrupted) output of one caveman (millions of years early) already influenced by the marooned Golgafrinchams' interference. It wasn't the actual Question.--Frankymole 05:01, 06 July 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll

I find the link between 42 and Lewis Carroll to be dubious. The article also states Lewis Carroll to be one of Douglas Adams's favorite authors, which I do not believe was the case. In fact, I seem to recall that Adams disliked Lewis Carroll, although I could be wrong. I do remember him denying that Carroll was an inspiration, though. In any case, I'm removing this section because the link is too tenuous. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In my copy of HHGTTG omnibus, the introduction states quite clearly that Adams "had disliked what little he had read of Alice in Wonderland" 68.97.181.129 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Normally I wouldn't advocate merging an article as big as Answer to life, the universe and everything, but Notable phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is relatively short, and neither would lose much in a merge, which would prevent needless duplication of information. A lot of articles in Wikipedia's Hitchhiker domain are getting "lost" because they repeat information already found in other articles. Serendi^podous 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See also

How many of these are relevant??? 42 (number)

Mathematical constants, such as:

e

Golden ratio

Pi

Meaning of life

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

Universal constants, for example:

Gravitational constant

Planck's constant

Speed of light --nishantjr (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; mathematical constants shouldn't be listed unless they can be explicitly linked to HHGG. Serendi^podous 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Lost Numbers

I believe that the mysterious numbers in Lost really is a cultural reference, as the last number is 42. I find it very hard to believe that this is coincidence. In fact it has been mentioned that the writers have confirmed that their choice for this number is an homage to the HHGTTG. Referenced in the Lostpedia (Sorry, I'm new and I don't know how to reference an external link, but if you go to lostpedia.wikia.com and look for the interview with David Fury. (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reedited: Maxjenius (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sourced it. Thanks for pointing it out. Serendi^podous 23:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish

The phrase "So long and thanks for all the fish" does appear in the book by that title, but it also appears in the original Hitchhikers (the book -- I'm not sure about the radio show). Should the entry for the phrase be edited to make this more clear? Cancilla (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

reworded and expanded. Serendi^podous 08:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Answers to the 42 puzzle

There are some problems with this section.

• First this solution:

  What position in the grid does the computer that calculates the Question to the Ultimate Answer (the Earth) occupy? (42)

How is this determined? I don't see the earth anywhere in the picture. I don't have this edition of the book, but are there instructions for determining "grid positions" or did somebody just randomly decide what they would be?

• Secondly, this solution:

  The barcode is the number 42 as an Interleaved 2 of 5 barcode

  references a barcode. The "source" [1] says the barcode is on one of the globes, but I can't see it. Maybe that is just due to the low-res image.
• Thirdly, the color based solutions variously identify black as being a shade of red, of yellow, and of blue. It's been a while since I took art class, but unless the suggestion is that black is "every color all at once" then this seems contradictory.
• The bigger problem is of course whether this is a trusted reliable source at all. Should we be re-printing these solutions at all if this is the only source for them? I realize this isn't the most serious topic in the known universe, but I don't think we should reprint these solutions without a better source for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the site does reference DNA personally, and I think that's about as good a source as we're going to get in this. The source refers to the bottom right corner as position 42, though I fail to see Earth there either, though as you say that might be due to resolution. Serendi^podous 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It references him by claiming that he explained all this during a speech at an unspecified time at Washington University. Without an actual transcript or more reliable source reporting on said speech, I don't think that passes as verification. The solutions are confusing at best given that so much of what they claim is not visible in the available image. I'm going to check and see if there is a better image on the web somewhere. Even though we probably can't reproduce it here, it could be helpful in clearing this up. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, here [2] is a different image in which the barcode and the earth are clearly visible. However that doesn't get us past the verifiability issue with the answers and the fact that they don't correspond with the current image. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The current image is justified under fair use; we could just as easily upload that one and justify it under fair use. Serendi^podous 05:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

3 Idiots Reference

@Serendipodous: I would think that the connection to H2G2 is self evident. The lyrics of the song in question go that 'we didn't know the answer, and when we did find the answer, we had forgotten what the question was'. The lyricist (in the book cited as source for the info), states that inspiration for the lyrics is H2G2 and more specifically the fact that the Ultimate Question in response to which 42 was the stated answer, had been long forgotten by the time the answer/solution was determined. Again, did think that the reference was clear, but let me know how you want to better connect it instead of just undoing the edit. I did think it would be interesting to note that cultural references to 42,H2G2, Ultimate Question etc. is not limited to the Western world, unless of course the article is intended to have only a eurocentric focus.

Not self evident to me. In fact, it bears little resemblance to the original idea, which is that the answer was learned before they knew what the question was, not that the question was originally known but forgotten. If there is a source explaining that the lyricist did indeed intend it as a H2G2 reference, then please include it in a citation. EDIT: Oh, I didn't realise you added that citation. But you should make it clear that the writer intended it as a Hitchhikers reference, because it doesn't read like one.Serendi^podous 08:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, the actual translation should actually read (when we found the solution, we didn't know what the question was). Will clarify that.

Don't panic

Did you know the mobile operating system Android has a folder /data/dontpanic? Pjv (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just tested this on my HTC Aria. The data directory seems to be empty, though... - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Barring "Babel Fish"

If there is some "rule" by which it is felt that phrases that are names of THINGS should be excluded from this article, then that should be a prime example of a rule to "ignore", by Wikipedia guidelines.

You'll no doubt jump all over me for being "rude", but what the hell. This has become so ridiculous, I don't give a damn anymore. Y'all go ahead and mess up the article however you want, and I know you will. How anyone can think the article is better WITHOUT the information than WITH it, I can't imagine; but I'm sure there's some juicy Orwellian "logic" that you will stand behind. A Confederacy of Dunces if ever there was one. Those who can, do; those who can't become registered Wikipedia editors. I wash my hands. 108.1.68.190 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Babel fish" is already listed under Races and species in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That's where it belongs. If we follow your logic than absolutely everything in the series comprising more than one word, from "Zaphod Beeblebrox" and "Ford Prefect" to "Quentulus Quazgar Mountains" and "Kill-O-Zap blaster pistol" would redirect here. Serendi^podous 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just lending support. There is no sense including a section on "Babel fish" here when there is already a section on that topic in a different article. And, as within the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy universe the Babel fish is a type of fish, it belongs under species not phrases. There is an argument for adding to that existing section a note on how the name has been used outside of the H2G2 universe. 207.34.115.78 (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody might've MENTIONED that earlier, for #$%#$%-sake!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.68.210 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In an Edit Summary, I gave you a link to Babel fish (leech-like) which takes you straight there. (The other link I gave you, Babel fish, is for a disambiguation page which lists the other uses of the name.) HairyWombat 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

SEP (Somebody Else's Problem)

At the start of 'Life, the Universe, Everything' Arthur and Ford are watching a game of cricket at Lords, when a UFO lands and steals The Ashes, ignored by everyone but these two characters. When Arthur asks how this is possible, Ford answers because it is 'somebody elses's problem', meaning if it is not their business, then it is invisible to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigetheoracle (talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Paigetheoracle (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Somebody Else's Problem has its own article. Serendi^podous 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The way a brick doesn't

I think this article should have a section addressing the line, "The huge golden space ship hung in the air in almost exactly the way a brick doesn't". Among writing circles, this is almost universally regarded as a phrase that worked well in its original incarnation but which fails as a borrowed, cliched phrase whenever anyone else tries to use a similar phrase. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

citation? Serendi^podous 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Purple Dots

If you go from purple dot to purple you will count 4 and 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.206.203 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrabble-playing caveman

According to Ford, the "cavemen" live in huts, and thus are NOT cavemen. Technical error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.51.30 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Were they not called "cavemen" in the book? Travürsa (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

42

Douglas Adam's used to write for Monty Python, he made is acting debut in episode 42 "The Light Entertainment War". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Monty_Python%27s_Flying_Circus_episodes#3._The_Light_Entertainment_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Writing

Also, at the beginning of Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life", the stone with the movie's title raises up saying "The Meaning of Liff" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.168.230 (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but is there any evidence that the ep number and its use in the series are connected? Serendi^podous 05:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that Adams was saying that the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is that it's "for two". Life's not much if you're not sharing it with someone. I think he wanted you to figure this out for yourself, which is why he denied the number had any significance. He was a genius.

jj5 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In 2008 John Lloyd related that Adams has called 42 "the funniest of the two-digit numbers" and John Cleese also thought so.. When you consider the venerable Stephen Fry saying its "completely obvious" it all adds up to.. well, in my opinion jj5 who thinks that it's "for two" is near, in that there probably is a play on words at heart, just think funny.

Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arthur pulls random letters from a bag, but only gets the sentence "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" I mean, seriously? Hasn't anyone noticed that the actual answer is 54? I don't think Adams did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people have speculated about this, but as Adams said "I don't do jokes in base 13" - Arjayay (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A postumously-posted interview with Adams, release shortly before the film, indicated that 42 was the bin number at Harrods for his favourite tea (Earl Grey). [It does seem fitting that an English author’s Ultimate Answer is a perfect cuppa. ☺] [Posted on talk because I couldn’t find the reference] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.142.126 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely unlike

Isn't the quote actually "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea"? I could be wrong, but this kind of means almost, but not quite, the complete opposite ;) 2.24.0.135 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Above post was mine, sorry, forgot to sign in. JWBB1508 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is the phrase that has entered pop culture however, incorrect or not. Serendi^podous 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

End of Series

One part of this article states that the series ends with Mostly Harmless. However, since And Another Thing... is an official sequel, doesn't it really end with that book? Alphius (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Revised. Serendi^podous 20:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Split 42

I split the section on 42 to a separate page called 42 (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and got reverted because it wasn't discussed. (I was being WP:BOLD, people). So, comments anyone? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I count approximately 14 references in the section that may demonstrate notability. However, this article does not meet the size criteria in WP:SPLIT. Currently it is at 33k, while the threshold for a split is at least 50k. Certainly, we could try expanding this article and see if there is enough to fill out the other non-42 sections. In my mind, the question of WP:DUE might come into play. How much weight should we really give to "42" in this article vs. how much weight should we give other popular phrases such as "Don't Panic!" ? Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is not requirement that an article be a certain size in order to split. If it's 50K, it should be split, that doesn't mean it can't be if it's not. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size is a guideline, and lists the same size criteria, so really isn't as strictly binding as policy, but you haven't exactly provided a compelling justification for the split. Please collect sources that will establish notability (I counted 14 out of 30 that were not direct WP:PRIMARY or questionable sources, from the section.) Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a split based on article size, but based on 42 being much more notable than any other famous phrase from Hitchhiker's, as well as covering the bulk of this page. And if there's already 14 secondary reliable sources, why are you asking me to find more? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That is the first I've heard of your reasons - other than being bold. I am not necessarily asking you to find more, but you should be discerning which of the 30 references in the section will support notability, because by my very cursory count, 16 of them will not. It is also worth checking the rest of the article, which will be left with a whopping four references if we rip out '42', and whether the remaining article will survive a notability test without 42. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that based on my above comment, if the article is "split", it would be prudent to consider merging the rest of this article back into the main book articles and then this one would cease to exist. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How would you merge them? What would be left? Serendi^podous 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't, because I oppose a split in the first place. Elizium23 (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that this article, even as it stands, has already had to undergo an AfD, I really don't think splitting it is a good idea. Strength in numbers. Serendi^podous 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It had an AfD and passed, so I don't think that relevant. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no limit on the number of AfDs that a single article can undergo, and articles that pass one tend to attract more. Serendi^podous 08:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate Answer

There is no Ultimate Answer in the books. The actual phrase is "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything". This article contains several references to the "Ultimate Answer", which doesn't exist in the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.184.32 (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're largely right, though I am fairly sure that DNA used the phrase "Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question" at least once. Serendi^podous 11:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Siri reference

I tested it with Siri and she simply said '42', can anyone verify that she does give you a "long thought out response about the Hitchhiker's Guide books and Douglas Adams." --IdanElh (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable secondary source cited for that assertion, so it's probably the anon IP pulling our leg. Elizium23 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't panic

Shouldn't it be noted somewhere that the popular phrase "Don't panic" wasn't first made popular by Adams - it was one of the most famous catchphrases in Dad's Army, a seminal British sitcom on the BBC that ran from 1968-1977, and was spoken by Lance-Corporal Jack Jones. I always wondered why Adams used it when it was already so popular and attached in the UK public's mind to Dad's Army. Any thoughts? 86.133.214.31 (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be original research unless a reliable source could be found linking the two. Serendi^podous 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not original research to note that 'Don't panic!' from Dad's Army clearly pre-dated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; it's not original research to note that due to Dad's Army it was a massively popular catchphrase from the late 60s onwards - see the Nov 2012 obituary of Clive Dunn, the actor concerned, in the Daily Telegraph: "Clive Dunn, whose Dad's Army catchphrase "Don't panic!" was one of the most memorable in television history" [3].

The OR bit connecting the two, Dad's Army and Adam's use of the phrase, is common sense though: all this was part of Adams' cultural heritage. Americans may never have heard of Dad's Army, but it was a deeply ingrained part of the UK's culture.

I know the link between the two can't go in the article because I haven't found a cite explicitly linking the two, but shouldn't it be pointed out that this famous catchphrase was already famous from Dad's Army when Adams started using it? That's not OR at all. The reasons why he used it are the OR. 86.133.214.31 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's OR to present it to the reader as relevant; I could probably find a robot called Marvin from an earlier work, but it would be misleading to draw attention to this if there was no documented connection.

Drawing from existing sources is a good yardstick for judging whether something is worth mentioning - if Adams has never commented on his inspiration for the phrase, and no article or review has ever drawn the connection between the Guide and Dad's Army, it seems safe to take this as sign that it's not particularly significant in the scheme of things. --McGeddon (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made that argument before, but I've been shouted down on various political catch-phrases. I don't really agree this time; since we have a reliable source that the phrase "Don't panic!" was in common use as a catch-phrase in England at the time, we must, at least, not imply that Adams originated the phrase. If that requires mentioning that the phrase was in common use, we may have to do so, although there is an implied synthesis. As for Marvin, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest split The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (42) to a single article.

It seem it's long enough to split and have enough notability and reference.——Cwek (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed above, under "Split 42". The consensus was no. Serendi^podous 05:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It seem it have a consensus before one year that no yet.But now is change,I suggest a new topics to do that.——Cwek (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And because I compiled the relation of d:Q1879872,d:Q1879675 and d:Q721,DONT add the wrong crosslanguagelink again,please.——Cwek (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Answer to the Ultimate Question…" section slightly edited...

In this section, the paragraph beginning:

"In Life, the Universe and Everything, Prak, a man who knows all that is true, confirms that 42 is indeed The Answer, and confirms that it is impossible for both The Answer and The Question to be known in the same universe (compare the uncertainty principle) as they will cancel each other out…"

This sentence was edited to have the reference to the uncertainty principle (UP) removed. If this allusion appears in the original book dialog, please return it to the article here. If the allusion is one being made by the Wikipedia editor, then it is OR, and more critically, it is a weak/misguided allusion; the real UP has nothing at all to do with the content of the foregoing sentence. The UP "tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events" … "uncertainties, or imprecisions [that] always turned up if one tried to measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time … when measuring the energy and the time variables of the particle simultaneously … imprecisions in the measurements ... not the fault of the experimenter, [but] inherent in quantum mechanics." (See http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm, http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p09.htm, accessed 8 March 2014.

This has, in my opinion, nothing to do with a fictional relationship between question and answer (as if these were QM/subatomic phenomena).

More critically, neither my nor the original editor's opinion matter: If the allusion appears in the book being outlined in the article, or if there is a citation of a publication that makes this errant allusion, it belongs in. Otherwise, it does not. LeProf (Le Prof. chimie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Section on the 42 Puzzle edited...

The appended list of further solutions to the puzzle, items 7-11, which appeared without any reference, were removed because they violate the warning against editors adding unreferenced personal interpretations, and because various other serious content issues were present. For instance, entry 8. repeats earlier entry (6). Entry 10 appears to be a draft bit of text, ending with a truncated sentence and "???". Entries 7 and 9 demand sources, as they are neither common knowledge or in any way readily apparent. Etc. Etc. If any of these entries can be sourced, they can be returned to the text, preferably with similar numbering format, and within the table that the earlier editor began. LeProf.

"Other solutions include...

7: The globe is centered at 42NLat, 42WLong.

8: The spheres with a yellow tint (yellow, dark yellow, green and black) spell out "XLII", 42 in Roman numerals, across the top three rows.

9: The light is shining on the spheres at a 42 degree angle.

10: The first purple sphere is 4 down and 2 over. The second purple sphere is mirrored at 2 in from the end and 4 down. The third one is. ???

11: Counting diagonally starting from the top green sphere down 4 spaces and then up 2 spaces, comes to another green sphere. This is mirrored with the top right sphere too." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't panic

This is obviously a reference to Jones's catchphrase in Dad's Army, but I hesitate to add that without a reference to back it up. Rp (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is it obvious? It's such a simple and common phrase in real life, does there have to be a connection? --Roly (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

True, there doesn't have to be. Rp (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)