Talk:Douglas Adams/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 31 August 2002 and 20 November 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Douglas Adams/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. JohnDBuell 23:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers
I think it would be nice if someone had left my spoiler warning there, as the following passage concerning the deaths of characters spoiled Mostly Harmless for me, and I don't wish for it to happen to other individuals.

--Gitaroo Man 01:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did not forsee
Removed the paragraph on how HHGG "foresaw" future scientific discoveries and inventions, as there was little factual content in it and a great deal of stretching. FWIW, Marvin was *not* named after Marvin Minsky but was, according to Adams, originally named "Marshall" after a friend of his, name later arbitrarily changed to "Marvin" to protect his friend's identity and/or sound less like a cowboy; the Earth being a giant computer has little to do with actual concepts of organic computing; and though the Guide itself does presage modern e-book devices it was not a particularly original idea at the time.

Starship Titanic

 * I sort of recall that DA even wrote a computer game, namely a text adventure titled Starship Titanic, in the 80s, and that this game was later reedited as graphics adventure. Has anybody details? Sanders muc 22:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that was Scott Adams (game designer) that wrote the text adventure games --ssd 20:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, Douglas Adams was the author of the HHG text game by Infocom, and did a lot of the writing on the Starship Titanic game, a text adventure with pictures, more or less. --Ben Brockert 00:12, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * See Starship Titanic Ausir 22:10, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Digital distrbution of HHGG novels?

 * I also remember that DA explicitly allowed for digital distribution of the hitchhiker novels back in the BBS times. Is this true? Sanders muc 22:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Update from Salmon
Would be nice if someone who actually has a copy of The Salmon Of Doubt would update this page with info on that. AW

Twelve fits?
What's a "twelve fit radio series"? Is it the same as a "twelve-part radio series"? --Heron
 * Aha. I just found the answer to my own question on the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy page.  --Heron

It's a nod to The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll. --Anorak

"Teatime", "Tea-time", "Tea-Time"?
Is it "Teatime", "Tea-time", "Tea-Time", or... yes, I know I'm terribly pedantic, but just humour me, okay? :o)
 * My copy says it's Tea-Time. --Anorak

Salmon of Doubt
Is it "A Salmon of Doubt" or "The Salmon of Doubt"? There seems to be some confusion over this issue.
 * My copy of the book agrees with the "The Salmon of Doubt" --Qaz
 * As does mine. -:)Ozzyslovechild 14:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Dr.Snuggles
Perhaps it should be mentioned that Douglas Adams also wrote scripts for Doctor Snuggles. I think there at least a two part story called "Dr Snuggles and the Nervous River" he wrote somewhere between 1978 and 1984. // Liftarn 14:21 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

it is "THE SALMON OF DOUBT"

"Hitch Hiker", "Hitch-Hiker" or "Hitchhiker"?
''Note: Moved the following comment from article. Proposals belong on the talk page.''

It's clear from the radio series (which started it all) and the Pan Original editions of the first two novelisations that "Hitchhiker" should probably be "Hitch Hiker" or "Hitch-Hiker"; this is also supported by the common abbreviations for the series, HHGG and h2g2.

It's just as clear that "Hitchhiker" is in common use, including evidence on old FAQs, snippets from DNA postings to his forum, and the alt.fan.douglas-adams Usenet group. And even original editions of the early work are inconsistent. Barring any definitive pronouncement from the late Mr Adams somewhere on the Internet, a compromise is proposed: follow the old IETF maxim: "be liberal about what we accept [e.g. in searches], but conservative about what we generate [in page edits]. Thus no attempt is made to choose what pages result in redirection and what pages don't, but the text in whatever the base pages are should attempt accuracy in original spelling, influenced by the use as originally released.

This issue is also skirted by using 'HHGG' as much as possible. :-)

Admittedly, this is an anal-retentive issue (remember the old joke: "Is 'anal retentive' hyphenated?"). But what would wikipedia be without occasional sorting through of anal-retentive issues?


 * I think we should use only one form for the sake of consistency. A Google search shows "Hitchhiker" is four times as common as "Hitch Hiker" and "Hitch-Hiker" combined:


 * "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" - 48,400
 * "hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy" - 12,400 (this catches the hyphenated version too)


 * Besides, Hitchhiker has also been the Wikipedia standard before you started to change it. You would have a lot more changing to do if you wanted to establish the other spelling consistently. --Wik 03:36, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:


 * Note: Unfortunately, the different editions of the Hitchhiker's Guide spell it differently -- so you'll find "Hitch-Hiker's Guide", "Hitch Hiker's Guide" as well as "Hitchhiker's Guide" in different editions (US or UK), versions (audio or text) and compilations of the book. For the sake of coherence Wikipedia spells it Hitchhiker, which is reportedly the way Adams himself preferred it. 


 * --Spikey 00:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zark Off
Did the well-known HHGTTG imperative have any inspiration from the movie guy Samuel Z. Arkoff? 142.177.20.150 21:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I never heard "zark off" in H2G2, do you mean "Holy Zarquon"? As in "Holy Zarquon's singing fish!". -Wikibob | Talk 23:02, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)


 * I clearly remember the term "Zark off." It may have not been in the first book, but it was in the series.  Zaphod said it to Trillian.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:15, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it was in the beggining of Mostly Harmless. --User:24.95.67.19

"He said to meet him at his ship," said Arthur.

"What in the name of zarking fardwarks is the old  fool  doing?" exploded Ford.

"Meeting us at his ship in two minutes," said Arthur with a shrug which indicated  total  abdication  of thought. --LTUAE, chapter 4.

"It is my pleasure to open for you ..."

"Zark off."

"... and my satisfaction to close again with the knowledge of  a job well done."

"I said zark off."

"Thank you for listening to this message."

Stomp stomp stomp stomp. --LTUAE, chapter 11.

She carried it through to him and asked if he felt like  talking things through.

"Zark off," said Zaphod.

Trillian nodded patiently to herself, counted to an even  higher number, tossed  the  tray lightly aside, walked to the transport room and just teleported herself the hell out of his life. --LTUAE, chapter 11.

Twice again in chapter 18 and chapter 22, once in chapter 25, once in chapter 31, also in YZPIS and MH. --Ben Brockert 17:50, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

An all-purpose expletive coined by the late Douglas Noel Adams for his internationally bestselling science fiction novel "A Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
 * I think it should be included in the main article. Fatalis 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nationality category?
Why is Adams listed under Category:American writers and Category:California writers? Writers are typically listed under their own nationality/region, even if they did live somewhere else. Jihg 11:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * At what point does one become an American or Californian writer? How many years do you have to live there, or how much do you have to write? &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  18:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe if he'd lived in America/California for a long time, or if his work was somehow American/Californian in spirit. But he only moved there in 1999, and his work, if anything, is British in spirit.  Given that Charlie Chaplin and Alfred Hitchcock are placed in British but not American categories, how can we call Adams an American writer? Jihg 16:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

On a related subject, I see the removal of some redundant categories has been revoked. Why? We don't need Category:Humorists if we already have Category:English humorists. Its recommended policy to use the most specific categories available, and not (usually) to place in both child and parent categories. What does "until the categories are sorted out" mean? Jihg 02:44, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The tree structure of the categories is not very good. I'll poke around, then remove or revert my edit. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  03:43, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Adams was not an American, or Californian, writer. His work was recognisably, indeed quintessentially English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  01:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Premature death
I know this might sound dumb to most people, but isn't the phrase "premature death" POV'ed? I mean, who is to say it was premature? I just looks like fan-love to me. It's not important, I just felt like mentioning it. T2X 11:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are some fairly well established medical and actuarial definitions of premature death, so if anyone is going to seriously challenge this we could use such methods to determine whether the word premature could be used. I won't bother unless I see a serious challenge because I think most readers would agree that the death of a man by natural causes at age 49 is premature.  Adams did not expect it; he had a young daughter and had just moved to Santa Barbara.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another Article stolen...
http://www.famous.tc/Douglas_Adams.html <It looks the same to me. Isn't that illegal? --Radiodj19 00:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting to note that they're not keeping up with our edits here :) --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

DNA was a Doctor Who Script Editor
Douglas Adams was a script editor on Doctor Who (according to the page refered to above, for the 17th season, in 1979). He should be added to the category of Doctor Who Script Editors.

Photo
So is there a policy regarding the primary photo on an article? A process for selection, laid out etc.? It doesn't seem to be a Facilitated Discussion, but perhaps could be? Also, what is the policy on animated GIFs? I've bumped into a ton of articles that maybe shouldn't be allowed to be represented visually, above the fold, by just the one picture that was currently representing them there. Are there licensing issues that are being given their rightful due? Seem to recall that GIFs & prolly therefore animated GIFs had some poison pills on those fronts, but that was mostly a purist flow (righteous in its way, but not to be given too much due).

Is there a mandate from the herd on the topic?

In other words: Is it permitted on Wikipedia to post an animated gif that has a couple different photographical representations of something, or is it forbidden to do so?

-:)Ozzyslovechild 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So many points, so little time. You may read about the GIF patent kerfuffle elsewhere.  GIF.  Long story short, software that creates GIFs requires a paid license until the patent expires.  Those who are paid-license-phobic (i.e. all open source developers) concluded that there shouldn't be any more GIFs.


 * As for animation, it's an odd choice for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be portable to offline reading as well, and there's no simple way to print out an animation.  There's also the difficult issue of properly attributing all of constituent photos.


 * As for GIF, GIF is a very bad choice for photographs for its limited color palette and run-length coding. JPEG was specifically designed to photographs.  JPEG typically produces smaller files for a photograph of the same dimensions, and the resulting quality can be higher for very colorful images.  JPEG is going through its own patent mess right now, but that's another story entirely.


 * -- Ventura 22:50, 2005 May 7 (UTC)


 * I know the GIF long story. I curtailed, but referenced via 'poison pills' bit.


 * Animation would indeed be an odd choice for a traditional encyclopedia, but we're not.


 * A wonder that comes to mind is, 'is there a way for animated GIFs to degrade gracefully?' (so that printed or other more static incarnations of Wikipedia might not be hindered too much by such an addition to the mix.) Don't they default to just showing the first frame if animation is disabled?


 * re: GIFs being poor for photos: I'm most definitely with you there, but there ain't animated JPEGs, and on-balance GIFs aren't that bad, and where they're lousy (at least on on-screen resolution fronts) they're poor more-so on the file-size front and not the quality-of-visual-representation front (and since the actual impact of file size issues isn't grave, it might be deemed acceptable).


 * But the question still stands: Is there a policy on the usage of animaged GIFs? I couldn't find one.  I'm hoping the next person that posts to this discussion page topic links to the place where it's laid out cold.  Could be.


 * -:)Ozzyslovechild 05:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is an animated JPEG, but it's used as a movie format, rather than an animation format. MNG (animated PNG) would be the optimal solution for this problem, but it's not widely supported. For the semi-official stance, have you gone through the Manual of Style? WP:MOS. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  04:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Contents of The Salmon of Doubt
The article indicates that there are introductions/eulogies by Stephen Fry (check, UK edition only), Richard Dawkins (check again, UK and US editions), and Terry Gilliam?! Last I looked, and I didn't buy a copy of the paperback, as I own the UK and audiobook editions, it was Terry JONES who added an introduction to the paperback edition. Can someone who owns the paperback edition confirm this please? --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I own the paperback (UK), and the foreword is indeed by Stephen Fry. The prologue is by Nicholas Wroe and the epilogue is by Richard Dawkins, both articles published in The Guardian before the book. I can't find a mention of Terry Jones or Terry Gilliam at either end of the book, and am now confused. --195.92.67.208 1 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)


 * Christopher Cerf wrote the US Edition (hardcover only?) foreword, and reads it on the CD. Terry Jones IS listed (thanks amazon.com!) as having written the introduction to the US Edition PAPERBACK.... (to confirm: search for this edition on amazon.com and use their 'search within the book' functionality). But Terry Gilliam? I think this is a screw-up. --JohnDBuell | Talk 8 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

The Radical Atheist
Why is there no mention of Douglas Adams' describing himself as a "Radical Atheist"? I think that is quite an important point in his biography. This interview (which can also be found in "The Salmon of Doubt") should also be linked: http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html User:Quasimondo


 * If you want to do a whole paragraph or two about how he started as a devout Christian, participated in religious services in Brentwood, but with the logic classes they taught, Adams started questioning his beliefs, and evolved into being an agnostic first and then a self described "radical atheist" go right ahead! --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hitchhiker (the M. J. Simpson biography)
Again, verification needed. My US edition of the book has a foreword by Neil Gaiman, and the article here states there's a foreword by John Lloyd. Is that the UK edition only? --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox?
Is there a reason NOT to use Infobox_biography anymore? --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There was never a reason to use it. It is nonstandard and uselessly repetitive. You know, the name and birth and death dates of the person are given right at the beginning of the article, just a bit to the left of the infobox. Such a box makes sense only for people in certain categories, like U.S. presidents, with many standardized data fields appropriate for that category (in that case term of office, name of first lady, predecessor, successor, etc.), but if it's just name and birth and death info and some random fact (like "fifteen million books sold"), an infobox is pointless. NoPuzzleStranger 13:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're going to remove it, at least re-introduce a caption, per the Manual of Style. Manual of Style or Captions --JohnDBuell | Talk 13:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This template is now up for deletion. Jooler 17:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * An anon user restored the infobox, claming that there's no consensus on TfD. But regardless of that, THIS page now does better without the infobox - I am able to include a footnote to the photographer who took the photo of DNA that we use for this article by having a regular image box, and I can NOT do this using the Infobox template. I vote that it should STAY GONE (from THIS article). --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Footlights
I changed 'Footlights Revue' (dead) link this to point at Footlights but I'm not sure now, maybe revue would be better as footlights has a mention already. Any opinions?Alf 29 June 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Noel or Noël?
Was his middle name with or without diaeresis? I have only seen the diaeresis on wikipedia, so I have my doubts. --Palnatoke 10:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Both M.J. Simpson and Nick Webb, in their biographies Hitchhiker and Wish You Were Here respectively, use "Noël" so I'd stick with it! --JohnDBuell | Talk 11:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, just had an opportunity to check the full online Britannica, and they use "in full Douglas Noël Adams  Douglas Adams " --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixing up the biography
We could really REALLY use sections on his school days (such as the letter and short story published in "The Eagle") and his Adams/Smith/Adams and Footlights days in Cambridge. The bio is skipping from birth, to barely mentioning Brentwood and Cambridge, right into working with Graham Chapman and selling the occasional sketch/joke to the BBC. --JohnDBuell | Talk 07:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've filled in some more details for family members and early life/career (except I forgot the contributions to "The Eagle" myself, argh!). Probably the only other thing that SHOULD be mentioned (IMO) is his l-o-n-g courtship (10 years, I think?) to Jane Belson, their marriage, and daughter Polly. Are there any other suggestions? --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * FINALLY got around to parts of this. Added quite a bit on his years at Brentwood. Haven't touched the personal/family life (1980s/90s) yet. --JohnDBuell | Talk 13:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Usenet
Do we really need the section on Douglas' interactions on USENET? I'm sure its fun for the people who posted there, but it doesn't add anything to our knowledge of Adams, does it? DJ Clayworth 17:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Move to Wikiquote. --Bonalaw 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it should be tightened up to say that Douglas DID respond to his fans, first through postal mail, then through other technologies, since Douglas himself embraced many of them. He DID reply on USENET, and through e-mail, and at the end of his life on a forum hosted on douglasadams.com. --JohnDBuell | Talk 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

New Sections?
Going with my earlier suggestion, if we clip the a.f.d-a section but move a reference to a "Adams's responses to his fans" section higher in the article, and include the references to mail, e-mail, USENET and his forums, how about we also add the section about his own family (wife and daughter) and also add a section about his love of science and technology? --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Finally. Added a general technology sub-section to the section on Adams's beliefs, though it is large enough that it could be pulled out to stand alone. --JohnDBuell 21:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Question for those who primarily constructed this article.
I was thinking the other day about Douglas Adams (as I often do; him being a large influence in my life), and I thought that it might be a good idea to reconstruct this article, with all the same information, only in Adams's style of writing. This would probably be difficult, and require a lot of collaboration between multiple individuals who contributed most of the information to begin with.

It's just an idea now, but I think doing such could really add a special touch to the article.

Thoughts?

email me, if any of you want to attempt this..

fentgphx@gmail.com


 * While that might seem like a good idea, I have a feeling that would get "shot down" as "not being encyclopedic." --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh please no. I think if anyone were to try this, it might become necessary to kill them. --Bonalaw 07:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cover images wanted!
If anyone has UK first editions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and/or Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, could you please scan and add them under ? Blah, I never signed this. Oops. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Such cover images are, in my opinion, the only things that are really still "missing" from this article. I feel it is FINALLY complete, and covers the major themes and works in Adams's life. --JohnDBuell 21:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cricket pitch
Is it worth adding a note to the Doctor Who section about how the cricket pitch scene from the January 1 1966 episode, where the TARDIS materialises in the middle of a test match with the commentators taking the entire thing completely in their stride, is so similar to the scene Adams later wrote for Life, the Universe and Everything? Angmering 07:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, I don't see why there can't be a paragraph about in-jokes from the two appearing in each other's series. Just added one. --JohnDBuell 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Futher examples; and quotes, would me good, please. Andy Mabbett 12:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The examples of Hitchhiker's references showing up in Doctor Who are listed elsewhere, and that is linked. This article is getting long enough already. And the Cricket Pitch scene in the third novel is really the only notable reference I can think of in Hitchhiker's of Doctor Who (it's already noted that the first Dirk Gently novel borrows heavily from two Doctor Who stories that Adams worked on). --JohnDBuell 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So they are. Thank you. Mind you, some seem tenouous, in the extreme! Andy Mabbett 13:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Hitchhiker's references in The Pirate Planet mostly come through the DVD's production note subtitles. The Ghost Light reference came from the BBC's online episode guide, and the rest can be seen or heard in their respective episodes. --JohnDBuell 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There also appears to be a character named Arthur Dent in Doctor Who, because the Doctor claimed to know someone by that name in one of the more recent episodes. (The Christmas Invasion, I think (the one with the Sycorax, in acse you didn't know.)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.178.158 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although Arthur was indeed mentioned in The Christmas Invasion, he's not really a character in Doctor Who, since he never actually appeared (and was not mentioned again either). The incident has been covered at both those articles (follow the links to see just where); but it doesn't really belong on this one as well. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DNA wrote Dr Who episode
I got the DVDs of the series for X-mas, which contained lots of features including an interview with the great man himself. In the interview he states that he wrote the episodes, it's mentioned as he got the Dr Who job just as the H2G2 project was launching. Webhat 16:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) I should have added the H2G2 TV project. Webhat 16:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to City of Death that has already been documented in this article and that one. And his getting the commissions for the radio series AND The Pirate Planet and his leaving the script editor's job on Doctor Who to spend more time working on H2G2 is also well documented. --JohnDBuell 21:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

More Pink Floyd influence?
I feel like it should be included that his official biography's title "Wish You Were Here" might be another reference to Pink Floyd's album/song under this same name. --Kamikazi 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That IS mentioned in the "Pink Floyd" section. How more explicit do you want it? --JohnDBuell 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have over-looked it. --Kamikazi 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

HHGG vs. HHGTTG
I'm sure this was argued about for ages in a typically internet way, but wouldn't HHGTTG be more in keeping with Adams's sense of humor. The first time I'd ever seen the more sensible, thus less funny and less appropriate, HHGG abbreviation was upon reading this very page today. --Jbaber 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The series has been abbreviated in multiple ways at least a few years before the Web came into being. 'H2G2', for example, is mentioned in the original edition of Don't Panic by Neil Gaiman, from 1987.

(sorry, forgot to sign this. It's been an interesting last few hours fighting vandals --JohnDBuell)


 * How is HHGG "more sensible" than "HHGTTG"? That's just nonsense. HHGG is far sillier. --Bonalaw 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares whether we think HHGG or HHGTTG is "better" or "sillier". H2G2 is the one that was used, so its the one with a basis in fact rather than opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.160.33 (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

name & nature of santa barbara gym
Pilotguy said: "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism" - I respond:  "no it is not!"

quote: "When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism"

I made my edit clear

I was at this gym as I was told it was a gay hangout (I forget the name). I am simply using wiki to publish this flag for further info on the name (and nature) of the gym. Maybe my gym info was / is wrong. At least the gym NAME would be more info to this wiki entry no?

But I look at the internet once every few months so I'll leave you editors to re-revert....


 * No where in any of the documentaries or published biographies of Adams is this mentioned. It's not appropriate to post claims like that and leave it to others to do your research work for you. It can not be backed up, and so out it goes from this article. --JohnDBuell 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cult
Is it just me, or does calling Douglas Adams a "cult figure" sound a bit POV? The use of "cult figure" is by nature rather vague and disputabe, and Adams, who probably has more readers than Michael Crighton (and is definitely not cult) is certaily very close to the edge of "cultism".  freshgavin TALK   04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that the Hitchhiker's series were a big part on the former BBC Cult site (for cult TV, and in the case of Hitchhiker's, radio), I'd say it should stay. --JohnDBuell 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't argue that HHGG was cultish, I would that it isn't anymore, especially after the movie release.  freshgavin TALK    04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that in my personal experience, it was mainly the cult of existing fans that went to the movie and got the DVD, and that it really did NOT do overly excitingly well, and there isn't going to be a sequel, I'd say that would be an argument for it remaining a 'cult' sci-fi work. --JohnDBuell 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe you're right. I think I'm just over-aware of the surge of fans in the last while because I always thought of HHGG as cultish and liked it that way : ).   freshgavin TALK    06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are cult aspects to some of Adams's fanbase, but that doesn't make him a "cult author." His inclusion on a BBC website doesn't make it so. His books were international bestsellers; a major studio picture was made out of one of them. Calling him a "cult author" is unnecessarily reductive, and nothing is really added by it. A separate section on his "cult status" would be more appropriate.

Harvey Mudd College
Mr. Adams was scheduled to give the commencement speech at Harvey Mudd College a few days after the date of his death, and on campus at the time (as a Pomona College student), there was a wide rumor at the time that the stress of preparing for this event contributed to this heart attack. It was always heresay to me, but I was told that several Southern California papers had mentioned this. Would anyone know if this is the case, and if so, if this factoid should be included on the section relating to his death? Smoove K 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that if you can find anything in newspaper archives from May 2001 that say that, you could mention it. "Several newspapers at the time claimed blah blah blah" as long as references are cited. --JohnDBuell 06:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

s apostrophe s
Because there seems to be a minor edit war going on over apostrophes, I'm going to state here what I keep stating in the edit summaries, and other editors that have left "s's" I'm sure will back me. Adams's book - this is correct, current US and UK usage. A simple google search will verify this, but you have to be careful. There are many examples online of s' stated as being correct, but if you look at the works cited on those pages, they are from older style and usage guides. Several sites that agree with the current usage include:
 * http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwheret.html
 * http://www.colorado.edu/Publications/styleguide/punctuation.html
 * http://faculty.mccfl.edu/Jonesj/Tools/errors.html
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_(punctuation)

And The Little, Brown Handbook, ninth edition, copyright 2004, also gives "s's" as correct usage. --JohnDBuell 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly be willing to confirm that this is the correct form. Though it may look a little odd, s's is standard and less ambiguous than just s'. The only time s' should be used is if there are a plural number of the person/place/thing in possession, and I think we can certainly agree that there is only one Douglas Adams (that this article is referring to, of note, etc.). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I inadvertantly learnt something new through this discussion - damn wikipedia! 8) Garglebutt / (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For proper nouns, the owner gets a say. Sometime in 1997 Douglas explained that his preference was Adams', and that a special exception would be made for the novelisation of Starship Titanic, to make it absolutely clear that he wasn't the author. Hence Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic by Terry Jones. I'll see if I can find the email he sent round TDV. SDS 04:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there also an exception to historical usage, e.g. Jesus' disciples, Socrates' ideas? Not relevant here I guess... Ojcit 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On s apostrophe s and logical punctuation
I'd be grateful if someone could find a moment to explain to me why 1) "Adams's" (which, as JohnDBuell and EWS23 pointed out in 2006, is correct usage - along with "Douglas's grandmother" and "Douglas's hayfever") is not used in this starred article, and why 2) logical punctuation (recommended in Wiki Guidelines on Style) isn't used either. This is not criticism of the Adams article as it stands. I'm asking because one would have thought that recommended usage and recommended punctuation would be a standard in starred articles throughout Wikipedia - and that's not the case. The Albert Speer article, to provide just one example, uses logical punctuation while the Douglas Adams article ignores it. I, for one, find that confusing.

User SDS pointed out the following: "For proper nouns, the owner gets a say. Sometime in 1997 Douglas explained that his preference was Adams', and that a special exception would be made for the novelisation of Starship Titanic, to make it absolutely clear that he wasn't the author. Hence Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic by Terry Jones." Fair enough but since 2006, no source or follow up have been provided for confirmation. --Jumbolino (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC) --Jumbolino (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's "Films"
Since this article was posted as the Featured Article of the Day earlier this week, several editors have (mistakenly) corrected the text to indicate that there were two Hitchhiker's films. This is not the case. I think what's happening is that some people are confusing the TV series, which ran for six half-hour episodes, but has also been shown on television (primarily by PBS stations in the USA, but not exclusively) in "longer" versions, which are generally episodes 1-3 and 4-6 or 1-6 all run together with the credits taken out at the start and end of individual episodes – this GIVES the appearance of at least a made-for-tv movie, but it was not and is not. I can not stress this any more, there was, as of February 2006, only ONE Hollywood-produced, feature-length movie, released into theatres. Its article is at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film). --JohnDBuell 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT true ... the BBC released the complete series as a film ... you can get it as a complete dvd/vhs/etc ... --Dahveed323 10:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it IS true. VHS editions may have had opening and closing credits trimmed to make it look like a mini-movie or two, but even if you do a "View all" on the DVD, you still get opening and closing credits on each of the six episodes. It's a six episode TV series, and NOT a movie. --JohnDBuell 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Recording
While it's not all that important, if this ever gets re-recorded (or if you just fancy editing the original file--various software, including audacity can be used to cut sections and add new bits) it's pronounced "Rees-Jones", not "Rice-Jones". Also, when Palin says his own name the 'a' is like in 'ace' not like in 'had', but I'll forgive that. And I think you misread the names of the fourth and fifth radio series (I expect they can be downloaded somewhere if you need assistance with that). Joe D (t) 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Addenda: the f in Knopfler is silent (I think). It's posthumously, not posthumourously ;).
 * Noted! I was planning on doing a new recording after the the article hit the main page and got tons of edits, and I'll be sure to remember these so I get it right next time.  Thanks! -- light  darkness (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Addenda: the f in Knopfler is silent (I think)". Actually, the 'p' is silent (or in fact, almost, it's a glottal stop of sorts). 82.176.194.151 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?
From the part about the Starship Titanic: Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic (1997, written by Terry Jones (who insists he wrote the whole thing while in the nude)

Is this vandalism or does he really insist that?


 * I don't know if he still insists it, but it is/was a running joke about the authorship of the book. It's mentioned in the hardcover edition foreword, at least. --JohnDBuell 08:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's photographic "evidence" on the back cover - with a carefully placed laptop. It should certainly get a mention in the article. --Tango 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The foreword and the photo appeared in the paperback edition too. --Bonalaw 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Environmentalist Activism vs. Animal Rights
Do we really need those two categories as separate entities or can we merge Animal Rights into the "Last Chance to See" paragraph of "Environmentalist Activism"? map 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think it'll read better (and it probably will), feel free to make the changes. --JohnDBuell 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Puplic response to DNA's death
I believe that the vast amount of messages left on a message board managed/owned by Douglas Adams should be taken note of. --FrostyBytes 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Analogy vs Allegory
An allegory is a story meant to have some other meaning, it isn't normally used in an arguement, it stands on its own. The story DNA gave was used a point in an arguement, comparing the thing being discussed (religion) to something easier to understand (a puddle) - that's an analogy. --Tango 14:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. Quoting the online Merriam Webster Dictionary, an allegory can be:


 * 1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
 * 2 : a symbolic representation


 * Also, have you read the text in question? --JohnDBuell 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read it. I think what determines if it's an alegory or an analogy is how it is used. An alegory isn't generally used as part of a greater arguement, an analogy is.  The puddle story wasn't published as a separate story, it was published as part of an essay.  The comparisons were also explained along with it, the comparisons an alegory makes are usually left to the read to work out for themselves. --Tango 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely correct, the puddle story was reused elsewhere, not just in the one speech quoted in Salmon of Doubt. And it was devised as a narrative device, comparable to a parable (which might apply) or a fable (which would not generally apply, as fables are generally meant to use anthropomorphized animals). --JohnDBuell 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me where else it was used? I've only seen it in SoD.  That use of it is clearly an analogy - I've gone and found it, so I don't have to use my memory. DNA says "This is rather as if you imagine a puddle...", which I think shows that he's using it as an analogy, not an alegory. --Tango 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick search with the following terms in A9: 'Puddle story "Douglas Adams"' One hit brings up the "Lament for Douglas Adams" by Richard Dawkins, it's also quoted by the Sierra Club and the "Panda's Thumb" website. If you then use '"This is a very interesting world I find myself in." "Douglas Adams"' as a search term on Google, you find more precise examples of Adams's use and reuse of the allegory. --JohnDBuell 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the google hits (first page, at least) appear to be DNA using it anywhere else. Plenty of people have refered to his use of it in the speech (a transcript of which is in SoD), but it doesn't look like he's used it anywhere else.  Can you give me a specific place he's used it? --Tango 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There was the talk at UC Santa Barbara (which is linked in the article). Give me a few minutes, I have to load RealPlayer on this PC. Also it's interesting that the article about the "Science of the Hitchhiker's Guide" book called it a metaphor, and Dawkins didn't really "give it a name" at all (an "illustration" at best), so nobody else seems to agree on the kind of tale it might be either. --JohnDBuell 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An alegory is a type of metaphor, so that's kind of in support of your view. I can't find a transcript of the Santa Barbara speech, and I'm not going to try and find the reference in a 87 minute audio file, but I would imagine it's used in a similar way to how it's used in the speech in SoD. Do you think we should ask for a 3rd opinion? --Tango 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a video clip actually, and a fairly good one. The only other possibility would be to check all of the A9/Google references and tally up who uses what term (and in most cases, it's simply "quote" or "quotation", though one did describe it as a one-paragraph parable0. --JohnDBuell 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Argumentum ad populum. What most people do isn't necessarily the best thing to do. --Tango 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I absolutely agree with that. I should have been more clear. Perhaps figure out how many people say "metaphor" and how many say "parable" etc. and disregard all of those that just say "quote" or "quotation." --JohnDBuell 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But's that's still deciding based on what other people do, rather than any logical reasoning. --Tango 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you're right, the only thing to do is see if anyone else chimes in here (though that doesn't necessarily make it right either...). --JohnDBuell 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully a third opinion here will give a reason, rather than just being a vote. I'll go and ask at Third Opinion - I'm not sure how active that page is, but it's worth a try. --Tango 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
Personally, I'd use analogy, but there's not much in it, and that's mainly personal preference. As stated above, allegories tend to be more stand-alone, wheras this is more of a throwaway remark. On the other hand, the two words are very nearly synonymous, and I think most people will know what you mean either way. --Scott Wilson 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll go and change it. --Tango 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So after this long discussion of not necessarily using what other people say this gets settled with just one additional vote? I'm not sure I like that. I'm leaving it alone, but I have a feeling this may not be the end.... --JohnDBuell 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how third opinions work. Better to use someone that we know has thought about the options than random people off google. If you can find a better way to decide - a quote of DNA calling the story something specific, for example, this will have to do. --Tango 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The idea behind a third opinion is to settle small disputes quickly, with the minimum of fuss - insta-consensus, if you like. If you feel hard done by, though, you could make a request for comment in the hope of achieving a broader consensus. --Scott Wilson 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A second third opinion (as DNA might have put it). English is renowned for having the option of 100 words all meaning the same thing. That's why it's called a rich language and why no one can understand Shakespeare without a dictionary. However, an analogy is usually when one thing is compared with another for the purpose of making the argument clearer. An allegory does not contain comparison, because it works by two things becoming the same. In this way an analogy compares the difficulties of facing doubt with the difficulties of a someone climbing a mountain, because the process of the latter makes it easier to understand the processes of the former, but they are kept distinct. In an allegory our someone would be climbing a mountain which it would be made obvious was a metatphor for doubt, possibly because that would be the name of the mountain. An analogy keeps us as the outside observer of two situations; an allegory makes us subjectively experience one situation which is a synthesis of the two. Analogies are also shorter, and allegories are longer. If you want to know how much shorter or longer, a piece of string would probably be helpful here. So I agree with Scott Wilson. DNA's own decision on this would probably be fish. Tyrenius 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

PS just to confuse the clarification, if you wanted an adverb, then I think probably to say he used it allegorically would be more common than to say he used it analogously, perhaps because it's much easier to pronounce the former than the latter. Tyrenius 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add a couple of things. One - I really do respect everyone's opinions and the time they've taken to think about this. This is without a doubt the most civil discussion on a debate over wording that I've seen on Wikipedia in nearly a year and a half of editing. Two - I don't want anyone to think that my earlier statement about this not being the end to be any sort of threat, such was not meant. I just had a feeling that other people might chime in here, or make some more changes to the text in the article, or one of us might be able to find some better references. Three - It did/does seem a bit silly to me to get a "insta-consensus" with just three individual opinions, but I hardly think that RfC would be appropriate; that always strikes me as a near last resort for something TRULY controversial, and I have a feeling we might get laughed off of the page! :) I'm sorry that I didn't have the time to review much material to hand today - about all I could have done was watch the RealVideo clip again, and I only had time to get through about the first ten minutes. I also seem to recall Dawkins remembering having asked Adams to tell the same story elsewhere, possibly in one of the memorial documentaries, but I don't remember which. If I get a chance to review some of these in the coming days, I'll add the appropriate notes here. Again, my thanks to everyone for taking this seriously, thinking the matter through, and taking time to post their opinions. --JohnDBuell 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this comment which upholds the highest wiki standards and shows great maturity and respect. Tyrenius 09:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Adams's ashes
Boy there's a morbid subject line - I checked through the biographies by Gaiman (third edition), Simpson (US Edition) and Webb (also US Edition) the last time there were some changes made back and forth regarding the final resting place of Adams's ashes. Simpson's was the only book with such a statement. Right or wrong, it IS the only source that can be verified. If anyone has more accurate information, PROOF IS REQUIRED, simple as that. --JohnDBuell 03:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does h2g2's official (edited) entry on Douglas count? (Last sentence of 'So Long' section - In May 2002 Douglas' ashes were interred in a private ceremony at Highgate Cemetery). SDS 01:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably not. h2g2 has very little connection to Adams these days. In the past, most of the staff were personal friends of his, but they've pretty much all left now, and those that haven't don't work directly on h2g2. Unless they cite a reliable source, they aren't much good. --Tango 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is some doubt about the date then why not edit the entry to not include a date? Then again on this issue I am more likely to believe SDS than MJ Simpson.


 * Same reason. If we say that the ashes were buried or scattered or whatever, we need a verifiable source to back up the claim. --JohnDBuell 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any real reason not to believe MJ Simpson? He's a widely accepted expert on all things Douglas Adams. What source do we have that is disagreeing? --Tango 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I let this sit for a while to see if anyone else would answer the first question. There's been some grumbling in fan circles about Simpson, and his own grumbling with Adams's estate, and his utter dislike of the film adaptation, which resulted in quite a fan backlash. See his page: http://www.planetmagrathea.com/index2.html As to the latter, it appears that the conflict is only between the two sources mentioned, h2g2 and Simpson. So we'd need a third source to verify which version is correct. --JohnDBuell 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can have it both ways, you know. Something like, "According to Adams biographer MJ Simpson, the ashes were....  This claim is disputed by some writers at h2g2, however...."  With appropriate citations, of course.  This preserves WP:NPOV by reporting on what the available secondary sources have to say, without taking sides, and allowing the reader to check those sources and make their on decision regarding whom to believe. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was just a mistake on H2G2's part.I think that the chances of the ashes taking a whole year to be buried is quite absurd. I think we should trust Simpson on this one.Darkn00b 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's absurd about people choosing to wait a year before burying ashes. Its not uncommon to wait longer than that. I can think of times almost as long just amongst people I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.160.33 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
there are some vandalism-ish entries, i dont know about reverting, could someone do that please?

last "correct" entry seems to be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Adams&oldid=64297805 (15:30, 17 July 2006 by JohnDBuell)

134.106.11.83 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
I think there should be a quotes section. He had a good one about writing. Something along the lines of writing is the act of arranging words skillfully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benbenbenben (talk • contribs) 12:58, August 10, 2006 (UTC)


 * Quotations generally go at Wikiquote. Adams has a page there, Douglas Adams, which is linked at the bottom of this article.  I don't see the specific quote you mention, but if you have a citation for it you can add it to that page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you go to www.quotationspage.com and search for Douglas Adams you'll find tons of quotes.Darkn00b 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The first picture
Wasn't there a nice headshot at the beginning of the article previously, where did it go? The ApacheCon picture is definitely not the best one I've seen in terms of conveying what DNA looked like. 82.181.61.48 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I never liked that photo myself, as he wasn't smiling. As I noted in the article's edit history, there has been some concern lately about publicity photos being reused within articles, and the very high likelihood of copyright violations that such publicity photos bring. I therefore changed the photograph to one that was available on Wikimedia Commons, and licensed for free reuse. --JohnDBuell 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that on other languages' Wikipedias, where fair use is NOT permitted, that photo is the ONLY one of Adams that appears. --JohnDBuell 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he isn't exactly smiling in that one either :-) I appreciate the fair use issue; perhaps this, then, means that there is a serious demand for a non-copyright-encumbered headshot of DNA, preferably smiling (I agree, he did look a bit gloomy in the earlier one)? -- 82.181.61.48 23:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The current photo sucks, as its from the side and there's too much background around Douglas Adams. The previous photo used was *much* better and more professional. — Wackymacs 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it was more professional, although the look on his face was awful. But I'm going to side with those individuals that say too many promotional photos are being claimed as fair use. In fact there are probably too many fair use images (book covers, screenshots) in this article as it is. Under CC-BY-2.0 don't we have the right to recrop it and repost it as long as original credit is given? Or find another head shot that someone is willing to release under a CC license or GFDL. --JohnDBuell 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CC-BY-2.0 or however, there really ought to be a decent mug shot we can snag somewhere. Gobonobo 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the older picture with the towel(in the article) could be used? anything is better than the current one, at least the towel would reflect his work more.. :) John.n-irl 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the best choice either, as it's a screenshot, and not under a CC license or GFDL. Of all the photos on this article or the Hitchhiker's article, both of which are included in the v0.5 downloadable disc, only that CC licensed photo of Adams at Apachecon is included. None of the others are redistributable. --JohnDBuell 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Memorial Service
Why in the world did a "radical atheist" have a memorial service in a church? TysK 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just in case?
 * So that his friends could grieve publicly?Billvoltage 11:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it our job to wonder? I thought we just needed to get the information down...Billvoltage 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably for the sake of those in his family who were Christians. Being an atheist he would have made it well known if he didn't want a church service, so it's very likely he would have been happy with the idea. Funerals and memorials are, after all, purely for the benefit of those who are still alive! --JamesTheNumberless 11:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that regardless of whether or not he's CHristian he still deserves the proper respect of a memorial and where he wants it. If it might insult others in his family or friends to not have it in a church than it's a good a idea to have one in a church anyway. I'm an atheist myself and I still would like a proper memorial in a church.Darkn00b 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This isnt so much memorial as it is his honor- but in the final section of the article I added a bit about what MIT students did to honor him but because I dont have an account I kept getting an error when I tried citing it in the notes section but here is the link(http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2001/douglas_adams/) if some one could add a 43rd note citing that part it would be thoroughly apppreciated. Thank you in advance 12.218.180.101 19:41, 18, January 2007 UTC
 * "I'm an atheist myself and I still would like a proper memorial in a church." - You do realize how much irony is dripping from that comment, yeah? Like how the memorial thing only means anything if there's an afterlife?KrytenKoro 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A memorial service is about the people left alive remembering those that have died. It has nothing to do with any afterlife. Why an atheist would want a memorial in a church, though, I don't know... I wouldn't. I would still want a memorial service, though. --Tango 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He might have been joking. That's what he was famous for, after all...--andreasegde (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Had he been there he might, but he had already departed. Funerals and memorials are for the living. 67.130.129.135 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we know what Adams wanted? It's not unusual for atheists to get religious funerals because that's what their family wants. Anyway, I think you're confusing different things. Adams' funeral (a cremation) was on 16 May 2001 in California. Cremations are usually non-religious, but I've found no details of this, although the order of service on the web appears secular. The memorial service was in London on 17 September 2001, and was obviously designed to allow a broader range of people to attend (not unusual for famous people: you get a privatish funeral and a more public memorial service). Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins gave a eulogy at the memorial service, of course.  --Dannyno (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Memorial service, not funeral Ged UK (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Physical Description
Shouldn't there be a physical description of Adams somwhere in the article? I can't find one anywhere.-Darkn00b 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What'd be the point? Describing a person is pretty POV for one. Wiki-newbie 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The point would be that people would know what Adams looked like. The only pics of him that I can find are of his face. I know that he has balck hair, but other than that... I don't even know what POV means. Perhaps if you could enlighten me...and at the same time being polite would help.Darkn00b 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The one thing that all of his biographers have pointed out was how tall Adams was, even as a youth. I do believe this is in the article. I would recommend finding a copy of any of the published biographies for their photographs, as they cannot be reproduced here. --JohnDBuell 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article section "Education and early works" describes Adams' height. Other physical attributes can be determined from the various photos in the article. Also, the acronym "POV" generally refers to "point of view." salamurai 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Various photos? YOu've gotta be kidding me. Oh and thanks for the acronym explanation.Darkn00b 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are FIVE photographs of Adams in this article alone (although one's of him in costume....) and a sixth in the Steve Meretzky article. --JohnDBuell 03:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what he said. :) salamurai 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Science humour
I just wrote the page Science humour. The final section is "Humour in science fiction". I mentioned Adams, the Babel Fish, and used the quote from the Babel Fish page. Could you please head over, and help develop the article? Cheers, samwaltz 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Check this: Do audiobooks go out of print?
Quote:
 * Adams himself recorded an abridged audiobook adaptation of the first novel in this series in the 1980s. The sequel was performed by Simon Jones, also in an abridged adaptation. Both were released by Simon and Schuster Audioworks in the United States, and are out of print.

TRiG 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well sure. If the publisher ceases publication of the audiobook, and stock is sold out, it's technically "out of print" regardless of the medium. The same term is applied to video, DVD and so on (thedigitalbits.com makes note on one of its pages that its count of DVD titles does not include out of print ones). --JohnDBuell 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Tributes etc
Firstly I tried to reference "Towel Day", being suspicious that people may be subconsciously attempting to popularise a nascent tradition rather than document an existing one. The only one I found (that is "independent") is at BBC h2g2. I don't think h2g2, which is maintained by "the public", qualifies as a "reliable" source for the reason that Wikipedia itself doesn't qualify. +"Towel Day" only googles 200,000.

Secondly, I tried to reference the naming of IBM's "Deep Thought". That it was named for HHGG Deep Thought is not unquestionable (although fans would possibly say, "it's obvious"). I googled +"Deep Thought" +IBM +Adams, and didn't see any. I bring it up because Deep Thought (chess computer) cites no references (and says that "Deep" refers to its multiple processors), and IBM doesn't mention it. Are we accepting hearsay? May we have a reliable reference that says it was actually named for the HHGG Deep Thought? --RobertG ♬ talk 08:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fit the
The article says "see explanation below" when mentioning the "Fit the x" terminology - but I can't for the life of me see it. Am I missing something, has the explanation been deleted, was it never there? Thanks. Carre 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Narrowing of the coronary arteries
He suffered a narrowing of the coronary arteries which led to a myocardial infarction and a fatal cardiac arrhythmia.

Is there actually a reference to support this claim about the cause of his heart attack? I can find none on a quick Google search, and it is not the only possible explanation for the attack. --Susurrus (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Trilogy of five books?
How can you have a trilogy of five books? It says so on the top of the article in the first paragraph. (Desk3375 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider it to be a manifestation of Douglas Adams style humor. --RenniePet (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More seriously - Adams actually referred to them as a "trilogy", even when the series had four and five books. We're quoting him rather than making a joke in his style. --McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's some speculation for you: Could it be that Adams's "trilogy of five books" joke derives from a Monty Python reference? The three-vs-five confusion appears in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, most notably in the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch usage instructions, which state emphatically that one must count to three after pulling the pin, yet King Arthur still manages to slip and say, "one, two, five". (I believe there is another three-vs-five slip elsewhere in this film, though I can't recall where at the moment). Given Adams's connections with and admiration of MP, his trilogy of five books joke could be a nod to this troupe. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My vague recollection is that the series was called a "trilogy" even before Mostly Harmless came out - has anyone got one of the late 80s/early 90s editions to check? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Adams intend to write five books from the start? I doubt it.  His publisher had to lock him away to finish just one!  I don't remember the three books being called a trilogy, but I do remember the fourth book being trailed as "the fourth book in the HHGG trilogy".  Then Mostly Harmless was trailed as "the fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named HHGG trilogy", which is just another bit of humour building on the previous joke.  I don't think there's anything of "tribute" about it.  (And I wonder whether anyone involved thinks of "one, two, five" as one of the most outstanding Pythonesque moments?)  --RobertG &#9836; talk 14:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

DNA
In the opening paragraph, I have enhanced the reference to his initials from "He was known to some fans as Bop Ad (after his illegible signature), or by his initials "DNA".[3]"

By adding: "His three initials were coincidentally to become world famous for the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953; appropriately the major scientific discovery mainly made in his own home town of Cambridge, England was said to be 'the secret of life' by the scientist Francis Crick on 28th February 1953." He must have been amused (if not actually inspired) by the coincidence - even if he arrived the year before the actual elucidation of the structure of D.N.A. by Crick and Watson in Cambridge!

One of the three scientists who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize Prize for Physiology or Medicine for the DNA Discovery:Maurice Wilkins studied at the same Cambridge college as Douglas Adams.

The sheer coincidence alone is well worthy of his subsequent comedic science fiction writing.

nitramrekcap 91.110.217.162 (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sheer coincidence" is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, but Adams was documented as being amused by this. There's definitely a speech of his out there that opens with him wanting to mention, before anything else, the parallel of his initials being DNA, and that he was born in Cambridge in 1953. If someone can dig this out and source it, I think that'd be worth a brief mention in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Try page 25 of Nick Webb's biography of Douglas Adams: (quote) "Later one of his stock jokes was that he [initials D.N.A.] arrived in Cambridge nine months before J.D. Watson and Francis Crick worked out the double helix structure of deoxyribonucleic acid." from Wish You Were Here...also "Douglas, given his passion for evolutionary biology, thought his initials were funny..."

MDP (my middle name? Douglas!) 91.110.131.241 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, got it. Is there an Artificial God?: "I just want to mention one thing, which is completely meaningless, but I am terribly proud of - I was born in Cambridge in 1952 and my initials are D N A!" --McGeddon (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That DNA happens also to be Adams' initials is probably worth mentioning in the article, but surely not in the lead? This surely gives it undue weight? The lead should summarise the article, and nowhere is the "DNA" link mentioned in the body of the text, which is a better place for it. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should leave it in, as tribute to a great author and great man, whose very views on literature and humor would surely be well-commemorated by a single fact in the pages of Wikipedia which has no genuine connection to the topic at hand, but has an indirect connection upon first glance? seems quite connected to his overall world-views, from that respect. thanks very much for your participation in this article on a truly great author and commentator. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that as it was stated it was untrue and gushing, hardly an appropriate "tribute to a great author"? Document the coincidence, yes, preferably in brilliant prose, but let's not overegg it!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let D.N.A. himself have the last word! See: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/ for the following quote: "I just want to mention one thing, which is completely meaningless, but I am terribly proud of - I was born in Cambridge in 1952 and my initials are D N A!" Enough said?

91.110.213.227 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra Space
There's extra space below the last template. Please fix it please and thank you because I can't/don't know how. Thanks again.68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which template? Ged UK (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Music notations
Ive noticed that citations from Radiohead's album "OK Computer" are not mentioned. Several songs from this album are clearly tributes to DNA. Someone mind adding those? Im still learning proper editing, otherwise i would add it myself. Sono hito (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if 'clearly tributes' is unsourced opinion. If someone from the band has said it somewhere, or DNA said he thought it was, then fine. Otherwise it's just POV. Ged UK (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See - Paranoid Android Sono hito (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Referring to an unsourced Wikipedia article is hardly a reliable 3rd party source. Ged UK (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsourced? Can you elaborate? The first 3 of 5 source referances are just about how the song was titled over Marvin from hitchikers. Sono hito (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple, the references have only just appeared! The version I looked at (this one) was unsourced. Now there's a source, so it seems reasonable to put it in here, but I would use the sources in the Marvin article rather than refering to it, just in case they get removed from there. Ged UK (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry. Didnt notice that at the time. Sono hito (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Person
Should we note that Douglas Adams only ever wrote in third person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgotten Element (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's particularly notable. If you can find a reliable third party source that thinks that it is notable, then fine, otherwise it's just POV. Ged UK (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not true. See the many short pieces in Salmon of Doubt, or Last Chance to See. --Belg4mit (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Who novelisations
The episodes authored by Adams are some of the few that have not been novelised as Adams would not allow anyone else to write them, and asked for a higher price than the publishers were willing to pay.

Making such an assertion about demanding higher fees is dodgy IMHO. This is referenced to a 1991 FAQ and I don't think that's a terribly good source to rely on. Doctor Who is particularly notable for many myths about production and the like circulating, because a rabid fandom and market for reference books developed years before it was possible to research the accuracy of many statements and so rumour, hearsay and speculation often got written up as "fact". Even today there are many websites repeating myths that were debunked years ago.

I've seen many different explanations - that Adams wanted to novelise the books but when Hitchhiker's took off he didn't have the time (and wasn't the fastest of authors), that he was holding out for a higher fee, that he wanted to do something more ambitious than the "convert camera script into prose" prevalent when most of the season 16 & 17 novelisations came out amongst others. But I'm not aware of any traceable interview by either Adams or the Target editors and it seems hearsay still reigns. For what it's worth the three story articles merely say that no agreement could be reached, without going into details. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Better Picture?
Isn't there a better picture available for the lead picture? I don't think the picture from ApacheCon in 2000 is all that great. His face can hardly be seen at all; it just doesn't seem like a very flattering picture. Aren't there any better pictures that can be used here on Wikipedia? --Bando26 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Did he ever comment on Wikipedia?
Seeing as people compare it to the HGTTG sometimes, ("people off the street writing it), I'd like to know if he ever discussed it. occono (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was created in 2001, the year Adams died. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew that, but I thought it was around before he died....he caught onto new big things pretty quickly. Probably not though. occono (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia had only been up for a couple of months when Adams died. As it was, he had h2g2 going. I think it's unlikely that Adams knew about Wikipedia, and even if he did hear of it, in its earliest days Wikipedia paled in significance to h2g2, making it unlikely that Adams would feel compelled to comment on it. It is interesting to think about what he would make of it today, though. faithless   (speak)  22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Case
Re: 94.10.138.243's edit (stupid browser submitted before I had a chance to type an explanation). Reverted because 1) the source has no majestic majuscule 2) Adams was an atheist and the case distinction is important to many of this persuasion. --Belg4mit (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Towel Day
It's the tenth anniversary of Adams death this May. For the past 9 years, fans have been carrying a towel on May 25th to commemorate his passing. There is an article for Towel Day, but there isn't a mention of Towel Day is this article. I'm going to add it as a See also, but it probably should be a bigger point. Clerks. (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Significance of 42nd birthday?
"on the occasion of Adams's 42nd birthday (the number 42 having special significance, being the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything and also Adams's age when his daughter Polly was born), he was invited to make a guest appearance at Pink Floyd's 28 October 1994 concert at Earls Court in London"

How could his 42nd birthday be significant as the age when his daughter Polly was born, when at the time of his birthday, clearly she wasn't born yet! Unless these things all happened very quickly in succession, it wasn't significant for that reason at the time of the concert. ScottMorris1 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) ScottMorris1

Apple References
Is it really necessary to devote so much space to Adams' interest in Apple computers? To mention other 'Apple Masters'? It reads almost like an advertisement.


 * Technology, once Adams embraced it, became a major part of his life. His biographers (both in print and on video) agree on this point. And he was an outspoken advocate for the Apple platform. Apple themselves noted his passing in 2001. I don't think it's any less an advertisement than biographies of US radio stars in the 1930s and 1940s that mention who their specific sponsors were, as that was no less a big deal and no less important in their lives - shows didn't get on the radio without a sponsor. I think it would take something away from the biography to change his outspokenness and advocacy about Apple Macintoshes to a much more generic outspokenness about computers in general, because it really WAS the specific platform he believed in and advocated, and which was very much a part of his life from their introduction in 1984 until his death in 2001. --JohnDBuell 02:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first guy. It's worth a sentence at the most. Do we really need to know about other "Apple Masters"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.206.143 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

42?
In "Monty Piton's flying circus" Adams appeared in episode 42.Was this intentional or not?


 * Python predates Hitchhiker's. It's a meaningless coincidence. --JohnDBuell 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you read H2G2 and still believe in meaningless coincidences? Ojcit 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Note: The 'wildcard symbol' in many computer operating systems, usually used to denote something like 'everything' is an               asterisk, (usages include *.*). The asterisk, like all other charaters has an ANSI value. The decimal ANSI value for the asterisk ( *  ) or, 'everything' is  42.

On the Wikipedia page "List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes" this sketch, "Patient Abuse", is said to appear in episode 45. Likewise on the main "Monty Python entry. Pedantrician (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

grave marker
The article for Highgate Cemetery currently states of Adams "his grave is currently unmarked awaiting a decision about its proposed headstone in the shape of the number "42"" Funny, but I can't find any supporting site that isn't quoting Wikipedia. I figured someone here would know. - BT 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I'd just like to mention that May 11, 2001 was my 42nd birthday. Yumagah (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone attempted to insert that here, and I removed it for being unverifiable. If 3rd party proof can be found (through a London newspaper or something), then it could get re-added, with the appropriate reference. I'd suggest tagging that spot in the other article with a template. --JohnDBuell 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the response. - BT 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

More on influences
The article needs to go into more detail about his influences. I am reading Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan right now, and the resemblance to Adams's work is uncanny (compare the Infinite Improbability Drive to the Universal Will to Become). The writing styles and attitude of the narrator are almost identical. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-12-28 21:45Z
 * You need references that say that, or it will be considered original research methinks. BeShaMo (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The resemblance to Sirens of Titan is (a) coincidental, NOT due to influence and (b) explicitly stated as such in Gaiman's "Don't Panic". Adams agrees he can see the similarity, but only read the book AFTER he'd written H2G2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wife's Death
Douglas's wife Jane Belson passed away yesterday, Wednesday September 7th. There has been one attempt to add this fact to the article, since reverted. Is it relevant, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Very early version of email"

 * "Adams used e-mail extensively from the technology's infancy, adopting a very early version of e-mail to correspond with Steve Meretzky during the pair's collaboration on Infocom's version of ''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

Given that this game was released in 1984 and there were emails whizzing round the ARPANET from the early 1970s, with various forerunners on internal networks, I'm not sure it is accurate to talk about a "very early version of e-mail" here. Connectivity has improved, email clients have changed (whether for the better is highly questionable!) and email volumes have vastly increased (not least due to spam), but the main ideas have been pretty stable over the years. I constantly come across people who seem unaware that the internet existed before about the late 1990s, and I wonder if this widespread ignorance (I don't mean that pejoratively, I just think it's a shame) is reflected here. I don't want to go ahead and change this yet though in case some exotic proprietary messaging system that has since fallen by the wayside is being referred to, but if no one clarifies this I'll eventually edit that bit. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited. "Development began in late February 1984 ... after which the two kept in touch via phone and a very early version of e-mail." Simpson, M. J. 2003, Hitchhiker: a biography of Douglas Adams p. 212. Justin, Charles & Co. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not make any difference that there is a citation with those exact words, in fact it makes Beorhtwulf's point, illustrating Simpson's ignorance of the history of email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.240.41 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is that the reliable source is wrong. Whatever. (He's probably referring to the fact that 1984 was the first time a home user could access email (via FidoNet).) In any case, feel free to write around the phrase that offends you, but try to preserve the sense that Adams was an early user. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism/Religion
I feel that the section should be called Religion because:
 * Atheism is arguably a type of religion; i.e. a system of beliefs.
 * Even if it is not a religion, it is what took the place of religion in Adams' life. By putting religion in, we imply a 'or lack therof', which atheism would fall into if the above does not hold.
 * Finally, it makes more sense to use a generic term, rather than something highly specific. We wouldn't put a section titled 'Roman Catholicism' in the article on the Pope; we'd just call it 'religion'. --Scott Wilson 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. -Releeshan 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Atheism is not a "system of beliefs", it is simply a lack of one particular belief, and the section already falls under the higher heading "Personal beliefs", which is already a generic term, so another is not needed. Under this logic the other subsections, "Environmental activism" and "Technology", would also need more general titles. Or we could simply acknowledge that Adams was an atheist, and environmental activist, and an enthusiast of technology, and title the subsections accordingly. --Nicknack009 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Atheism is (at least in Adams' case) belief that there is no god, rather than a lack of belief - uncertainty if you will - that a god exists. Your other examples, in my opinion, only serve to strengthen my argument; technology is a generic title; the corresponding title to 'atheism' would be something like 'enthusiasm about technology'; the title shouldn't state his position; that's what the body's for. --Scott Wilson 00:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In DNA's own words (from memory, so not word for word), he didn't believe there isn't a god, he was convinced there isn't. He didn't think belief had anything to do with it. (It's in Salmon of Doubt somewhere - I don't have my copy with me.) --Tango 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, he said, in his American Atheist interview (cited on the page): "I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it." --Dannyno 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't care how the section is called. Either Atheism (because that what he was/became) or Religion (because that was what he rejected).


 * I do want to add that I disagree calling atheism a religion. A person who thinks that there is a probability that there may or may not be a God, but he just hasn't got the evidence to decide is not an atheist but an agnostic. Atheism is just the opposite of religion. At least that is how the terms are used in Dawkins book, which seems appropriate here. I think the term religion should be reserved for people who believe in supernatural phenomena. Calling any believe system a religion hollows out the term. Sander123 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what you are describing is "Weak atheism" rather than agnosticism. Being agnostic means you are undecided. Being a weak atheist means that you don't know for sure, but on the balance of evidence you don't think there is a god. Strong atheism is being absolutely sure there is a god. Strong atheism is somewhat religious, weak atheism isn't. --Tango 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The old "is atheism a religion" argument is always good pointless fun, but actually irrelevant here - the section talks as much about Adams' opinions on religion as it does about his atheism. --McGeddon 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't see a big problem here, you could add to the beginning that he had strong views on religion to avoid implying that radical atheism is a religion, but personally this doesn't bother me as I think the title is relevant to the full text of the section. Oh, and what a nice article you guys have here! I enjoyed reading it very much, thanks! --Merzul 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is true in this case that Adams had a positive belief that there are no gods, this does not make it a religion. Belief is not equal to religion. I believe that I exist because of evidence. That does not make it a religion to believe that one exists. Even if you re-define atheism to mean a positive belief that there are no deities this by itself would not be enough to make atheism a religion, any more than it is a religion to believe that the earth is not flat. /Benzocaine 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to emphasize that atheism is not a system of beliefs. I'm an atheist, what beliefs do I have? Can you tell from the mere fact that I'm an atheist? For example, do I believe in free will or not? I know several atheists who disagree on that. Is there an objective morality? You'll find literally hundreds of thousands of atheists who believe there is and hundreds of thousands who think not. There is no set of beliefs that are common to all atheists. The only thing we all have in common is the lack of belief in deities, and this is not a belief but an unbelief. Many atheists do not have a positive conviction that there are no gods so the active disbelief is not a common attribute to all atheists. If lack of faith is a set of beliefs and a religion, only then can atheism adequately be described as a religion, but it's not. /Benzocaine 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm an atheist, too, and I consider myself to be "not religious". To me, it sounds a little strange to place atheism under "religion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.250.183 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If atheism is a religion, not playing chess is a hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More like "If atheism is a religion, being really stupid is a level of intelligence." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Er... no. "Really stupid" is, indeed, a (low) level of intelligence, just as "really cold" is a level of heat or "one inch above sea level" is a measure of altitude above sea level. Possibly you've missed the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup
The following reference was removed: Douglas Adams, BBC, 21 April 2005, accessed 1 June 2009; H2G2 is a wiki-like site, and inappropriate as a reliable reference. Many other references were updated with cite templates. Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DNA
Douglas is often referred to as "DNA" but there is no mention of his middle name in the wiki article - how did he get the name DNA / what does the "N" stand for? I know it's trivial, but it's so common should it be mentioned (at least in passing) in the article? 180.92.211.33 (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (xQx)
 * A mystery for the ages... "Douglas Noel Adams (11 March 1952 – 11 May 2001) was..." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Noel. Adams himself notes the coincidence that he shares his initals with Deoxyribonucleic acid, as well as being born in the same year as the super-important discovery of DNA's role in heredity. Of course, as a staunch atheist, he stresses that it is just a curious coincidence. The exact quote is somewhere in The Salmon of Doubt, but I can't find it at the moment. MartianTurnips (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Music
Perhaps worthy of note that Radiohead have made several allusions to Adams' work, up to and including the title of their album 'OK Computer', (Zaphod to Eddie, 'OK, computer') and the song therein, 'Paranoid Android'. 109.154.193.239 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

He predicted the eBook?
Any truth to the rumour that he penned the text for the video Getting the Book Invented?

See here (at 2:02): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk4ERwnV-Yw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westley Turner (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Death and Towel
According to some sources I didn't find especially reliable, Douglas Adams was carrying a gym towel when he suffered his heart attack, which was particularly notable since the towel was a comically recurring item in his book series and an eventual symbol of his life's work. However they don't seem to have any better evidence than the indication that he was at the gym when he died. Should we include something about it? Can we find a better source? If not, can we label it apocryphal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.110.187 (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable source, we have nothing to include. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link?
Adam's .mac link doesn't link to anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.178.143 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which link are you referring to? —Theopolisme  (talk )  14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer, but I do know that Apple changed their (dot Mac) .Mac / MobileMe service; though I don't recall the details. Misty MH (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bablefish. should be included in the hitchhiker section of the article.
Should "babelfish" which are described elsewhere in wikepedia not get a mention in this article as the first idea of a universal translator. There was a web programme in the late 1990s called babelfish. 176.61.97.234 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC) 176.61.97.234 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Babelfish are in-universe (see also: Fictional universe) and as such don't typically merit a mention in the author's article. They are, however, already covered in detail here. —Theopolisme  (talk )  14:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

`76.126.195.34 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki links in an external links
External links section has wikipedia links - How to place the Wikiquote boxes and wiki commons boxes ? - Need help. for some reason couldnt move away from this page after seeing this :$

- Karthik Sripal (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Memorial Service on the BBC
Neil Gaiman's book (quoted in the article) reports that Adams' memorial service was the first church service broadcast live by the BBC. What about Royal Weddings and so forth? Don't they count?

Scaramouche (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Douglas Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120318001614/http://www.islington.gov.uk/Leisure/heritage/heritage_borough/bor_plaques/peoplesplaques.asp to http://www.islington.gov.uk/Leisure/heritage/heritage_borough/bor_plaques/peoplesplaques.asp

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Douglas Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63mNGrql2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radioacademy.org%2Fhall-of-fame%2F to http://www.radioacademy.org/hall-of-fame/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307080733/http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/05/15/douglas_adams/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/05/15/douglas_adams/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Douglas Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radioacademy.org/hall-of-fame/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901131941/http://www.douglasadams.eu/en_adams_bio.php to http://www.douglasadams.eu/en_adams_bio.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atheists.org/Interview%3A__Douglas_Adams
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-07-06/calendar/big-three/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://announcements.thetimes.co.uk/obituaries/timesonline-uk/obituary-preview.aspx?n=jane-elizabeth-belson&pid=153521790&referrer=2282
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.laweekly.com/2001-05-24/news/lots-of-screamingly-funny-sentences-no-fish/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dirkmaggs.dswilliams.co.uk/dirk%20maggs%20news%20%20new%20projects.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Article quality
There's a longstanding problem with people adding trivia and "tribute" information to this article. May I respectfully remind other editors that the best way to show respect to Adams would be to make this article as good as it can be. This is not achieved by adding whimsical material or repeated mentions of the number 42. John (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Towel day
I don't think this is sufficiently important to be mentioned in the article, or to have its own article. The Telegraph article is mostly based on Tweets and scarcely establishes its notability. What do others think? John (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait that's a thing? Lol. I didn't know that they'd make that out of all the things that are used (and more often) in the book a holiday. In seriousness though Twitter and other social media is against Wikipedia's policies but (as far as I know) if the paper is using it's own words then it's fine (Wikipedia's downside). I mean like since it exists maybe it's worth a mention but it's really nothing that's important to the book. B-Movie Fan (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Towel Day narrowly survived deletion in 2005. Its notability is weak. It's always worrying when the existence of a Wikipedia page significantly boosts the profile of the subject. Maybe "Towel Day" could be merged here. I think it's worth mentioning here, but the text is problematic: it "has been observed every year since then". How many people observed it in 2018? From the "Towel Day" article it seems that observance has been scattered.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

BA

 * Despite doing very little work—he recalled having completed three essays in three years—he graduated in 1974 with a B.A. in English literature.

I think it is impossible to graduate with a BA after only writing three essays. He must have been joking or exaggerating.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He got his BA in 1974 and his MA in 1978. But a Cambridge MA is a little bit different: Master of Arts (Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin). St John's archive has some of his essays and dissertation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.245.29 (talk • contribs) 13:02, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Trivia
This article is full of trivia (who he went to school with etc) presented in a chatty way. There are also too many meaningless tributes. This was raised some years ago, and I think it is time this was all removed from the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed a lot of the trivia. I don't see why we need all the details of his wordprocessors, but maybe someone can explain that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo
Is this guy really Douglas Adams? His photo looks like that of a man in his late 60's.Clash Jester (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He was in his late 60s. --Roly (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But he died aged 49???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. I miscalculated. --Roly (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Veganism project? Is this a miscategorisation?
I noticed in this edit by MaynardClark that this page was added to the WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism. I'm quite surprised, since the article makes no mention of Douglas Adams having a plant-based diet.

Was this miscategorised? Should the tag be removed from this talk page? — JKVeganAbroad (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Julian F.V. Vincent in Chapter 2 of Food_Materials_Science, The Composite Structure of Biological Tissue Used for Food, pp. 18-19, cites Adams as helping facilitate a conversation that may have taken a generation away from meat eating.
 * If we read about JFV Vincent, we read that:
 * "Julian Vincent, a biologist with a long-standing interest in engineering, is Honorary Professor of Biomimetics in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Bath University and Special Professor in the Faculty of the Built Environment at Nottingham University."
 * This area of biomimetics may lead us to a scientific revolution in materials that are used for food, clothing, 'fiber', and even objects of research (e.g. organ on a chip) as research by the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital Boston.
 * Douglas Adams referred more than a few times to meatless foods and he has been cited more than a few times in writings about the topic. cf. https://vegetalmatters.com/tag/douglas-adams/
 * "It is impossible to meet an animal and not care about how it is living. Distancing ourselves from the process and claiming ignorant bliss just perpetuates the persistence of unsustainable production practices and overconsumption."
 * Several Videos have discussed the topic of how Adams thought out the species' relationship with matter in the habits of eating.
 * In terms of animals, a self-described 'radical atheist' may only (mostly) have been interested in the higher apes, although his mother lived in an animal shelter run by her parents (see article). Surely Peter Singer didn't rush to embrace veganism (though now he has a consequentialist turn') on the topic and may not align with its standards at all times, (when he is offered something else at a meeting that claims to be honoring him)
 * However, IMO the categorization depends upon the scope of the project. Perhaps the article could be adjusted to reflect that conversation, or perhaps the tag could/should be removed.
 * "...making a meal of the issues (not the tissues) is exactly what we should be doing..." MaynardClark (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Douglas Adams was not a vegetarian or vegan in his personal life, nor was he an activist for plant-based diets or wrote about them in depth. The criteria for the WikiProject is that there needs to be reliable sources for biographies indicating that the person is associated with veganism or vegetarianism or has written about these topics, in this case with Douglas Adams the sourcing fails (Reddit and vegetalmatters are not reliable for Wikipedia). The references you cited are not reliable unfortunately. It seems he made some passing comments on the subject (a single conversation is not good evidence either way) so it isn't enough to justify the WikiProject inclusion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those clarifications. I think a few passing comments on the ethics of animals aren't really sufficient enough, since almost everybody seems to have an opinion on the subject. I'm going to remove the tag for now, since there's no strong association of vegetarianism or veganism with Adams — the link is weak at best. — JKVeganAbroad (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)