Talk:AD 42

Article content
I deleted the following:
 * 42 is the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything, as discovered by Deep Thought.

See 42 (number). RickK | Talk 02:48, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seems somebody put the Forty-Two thing back. I'll delete it. Veemonkamiya | Talk 18:56, 07 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why do you delete this information? Was this a policy decision, or are you being arbitrary? Downstrike —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that question. I finally noticed that this page is for the 'Year 42'. It may help if we can emphasize that more. I'll see if I can do that, without being obnoxious about it.

Wikipedia seems to take a person to this page by default, rather than to the primary '42' page, or even a disambiguation page. That wasn't a good choice the term, 42. Downstrike —Preceding comment was added at 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that Wikipedia isn't going to let me put bold or italic in: "This article is about the year 42. For other uses, see 42 (number)." I also now see that there is a comment at the top of the Edit page warning Hitchhikers that this isn't the page for that. Most of us will never see that, since the top of the page isn't where we would insert Hitchhiker-related information, if we're being reasonable. If we can't find a better solution, this page is going to continue receiving unusual amounts of inappropriate additions - including vandalism. Suggestions desired. Downstrike —Preceding comment was added at 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the Edit page title, Editing Year 42, instead of Editing 42? Downstrike —Preceding comment was added at 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new otheruse template, to the disambig page rather than the number, as 42 refers to more other than just h2g2 now. Dingdongalistic


 * Why can't this article be called Year 42 instead? The title '42' should redirect to a disambiguation page.

Problem with the lead
I notice for this article, and others like 43, the lead sentence contains a misleading statement about how the year has some characteristic of the Julian calendar, such as the year 42 starting on Monday.

This is ridiculous. The Julian calendar didn't even exist until the year 46. What is the point of the lead sentence? =Axlq 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're slightly mistaken. The Julian calendar was adopted in the year 46 BC and this article concerns the year AD 42 - when the Julian calendar had existed for almost 90 years. Thus, there is no misleading statement. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 09:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha! Got it now. Got the BC/AD confused. Thanks. =Axlq 17:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Page content
I think that it'd be more useful for the article '42' to be the disambiguation article... I'm sure less than half of people who type it in are after the year. Oliver beatson .talk  .cont  17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates) on why it shouldn't. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even so, I think 42 is important enough, being the answer to life, and Jackie Robinson's number, that it should be an exception from these conventions. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)