Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Tertiary to Hexagonal Phases

Removed trivia

In fact in The Tertiary Phase the scenes from a cricket match sound very similar to the surviving audio of a similar event in the eighth episode of the Doctor Who serial The Daleks' Master Plan.

Removed above quote because [1] it is trivial; [2] it is original research.

Internal ("Wiki") Links

I'd like to standardize the page on only having internal links of once per section, instead of links for every, or every other radio episode. I realize that anyone who clicks onto a single episode listing may not get the links of every actor he or she might want to read more about, but if we link each person the first time they're mentioned in the Tertiary Phase section and then the Quandary and Quintessential Phase section, that shouldn't require too much scrolling back. That's the way I approached the links with the Primary and Secondary phases (now on their own page), and I think it has a bit of a neater look to it. --JohnDBuell 18:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Move

I've moved this page because the use of "through" in this way is an Americanism and thus inappropriate for this article. Morwen - Talk 15:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skip that, I would have just said "It's shorter and easier to type" ;) --JohnDBuell 16:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cast lists for final two episodes

From here (for next weeks) and (for todays). These links will decay soon.

Of note is

• No more Zarniwoop.
• Zaphod does return
• AS DOES MARVIN
• Thor, Quordlepleen are in the last episode. But not Zarquon.

I am wondering if the ending involves them being reset back in time to the point where all the various versions of the story diverge - which is of course at milliways ;) Morwen - Talk 12:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just reading last night that there are ALTERNATE ENDINGS to the final episode - we may have some sudden revising to do when the CDs and/or script book come out! --JohnDBuell | Talk 15:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? Morwen - Talk 16:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In summary-writing news, I am going to the pub this evening. I will be able to hear the radio version and take notes on it in order to write the summary, but am not going to be able to write a summary until probably around midnight BST. I am going to try to get hold of the Quintessial Phase CD release on the 20th, the day it's released (and the day before Radio 4 broadcast it). Morwen - Talk 16:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To answer the above question: it was in the revised for 2005 edition of Pocket Companion: Hitchhiker's Guide. And my copy of the CDs is being prepared for dispatch by amazon.co.uk. And the new script book is still due out on 1 July. And don't forget, you can always click 'listen again' on the Radio 4 website as soon as you get home (I'm waiting to get away from work myself!) --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not going to be able to do this before tomorrow evening. However, interesting episode! Morwen - Talk 22:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Codenames?

Is anybody but us serious geeks going to care that the online .asx files had code names? Fit the 23rd was enterprise.asx, Fit the 24th was falcon.asx and Fit the 25th is perkins.asx. :)

--JohnDBuell | Talk 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Last episode

Have this now. Is excellent. Should I wait until the radio broadcast to summarise it? Morwen - Talk 11:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please. Considering the USPS didn't pull off a miracle and deliver mine on Saturday. I'm hoping to get mine on Monday. Also, since I know you have a summary ready to go, should we consider a new split of this article, or force a limit of 42KB? ;) --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Split seems appropriate. One article for each of the five series, are you thinking of? Morwen - Talk 14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. I'd still like to leave a general information article for all of the radio series, then one for each of the five phases. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Morwen - Talk 15:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Got my CDs Monday. Feel free to add your summary of Fit the Twenty-Sixth whenever you're ready, then we can start working on article splits. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the split is fine as it is -- one article for the classic episodes another for the new ones. That's pretty much how I think of the series anyway, in two halves like this. I can't think what we'd gain by splitting it further. More annoying clicking to get from one to another. Harder to print out copies of everything. And the navigation box would just get bigger and uglier! No thanks. — P Ingerson (talk) 18:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well on the one hand, the page should now be stable at about 45KB, with summaries of all fourteen episodes posted. And the Primary/Secondary Phases page still needs summaries of the final five episodes, so it may work out alright. It may be time that we start to propose a "WikiProject" to organize all of the H2G2/Douglas Adams material together (after all, Doctor Who has one).... For instance, I had no idea anyone had created a page for the "Guide Entries" iTunes Music Store tracks until a few days ago, and I JUST discovered there was a FOURTH track. If we had a central place to discuss our articles/edits, we could build a better consensus, IMO. --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Script book vol. 2

I just got my copy of this and added some credits where they were due. There's another complete list of everyone involved in the WHOLE thing at the end of the book (just as vol. 1 has a long list of everyone involved at the beginning, but not broken up on a per-episode basis - not even the BBC CDs do this, so it's something unique to us!) - I'm wondering if I should enter them all in on a talk page or sandbox page and see if there are any other credits we've missed? --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Where to find the CD versions (or other versions)

Would it be appropriate to give links to obtain CD or tape copies of these? I just found out about them (the Teriary+ phases) and need to find copies, but i was disapointed to not see links offered here! --Quasar 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the public library branches in my home town has a copy of the Tertiary Phase, but not the others. The BBC sells them directly, or try Amazon. --JohnDBuell 01:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Kevin Jon Davies, Dirk Maggs, James Thrift and Jim Lynn have all posted messages in the forums at the Douglas Adams Continuum. When they talk about things to do with Douglas Adams that they are directly involved in then they are a primary sources (as long as you believe it is them posting the messages). Biographies, such as the ones by Nick Webb and MJ Simpson are secondary source material. The biographers generally have access to better primary source material than most people, and sometime reproduce parts, like the original synopsis for the radio series in Gaiman's book.

Uh yes, any researcher who has read these should know this. What's the point? --JohnDBuell 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It was stated in an edit comment "If it were anyone but Kevin Davies that had reported it, I would NOT consider the DAC a primary source". This showed a misunderstanding of primary sources that should be corrected.

Yep and that was me. Davies's message is on the DAC forum, which makes IT the source to be referenced, not him directly. Or him as author and DAC as "publisher." It gets a little hazy.... --JohnDBuell 23:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Split?

A split proposal was made about a month ago. There's been NO discussion here on the talk page. The page might be a little long (it currently says 50kb), but the content is stable, and has been since the end of the fifth series (except for noting the recordings as they've been released, such as the DVD-A that became a DVD). If there are no objections, I'd like to remove the split notice, and leave this article as-is. --JohnDBuell 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion on this in the last week, I'm removing the tag. --JohnDBuell 02:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How could Douglas Adams have voiced Agrajag if he was three-years dead by the time the series aired?

This means that the Tertiary Phase was recorded around three years before it actually aired. Which, according to the main radio series page, is not the case; production started in September of 2001--four months after Adams died. Anyone care to explain this bizarre phenomenon to me? Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

they took the recording from an audiobook he did before his death--Chnt (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Between what?

…the original broadcast was on Tuesday, with a Thursday repeat …. After the initial Tuesday broadcast, audio streams of the episode were available until the following Tuesday (which is a slight change from the Tertiary phase, where streaming audio was only available between Thursday evening repeats). (from Radio series four and five)

What does “between Thursday evening repeats” mean? Was it available between the initial broadcast and the repeat, or between the repeat and the next broadcast, or from the repeat, through the next broadcast, until the next repeat (in which case the “only” doesn’t make sense)? And why does the section on the Tertiary Phase say nothing about it? —Frungi (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I’ve removed the parenthetical statement, as it was unsourced and confusing. If anyone knows what was meant by it or can source it, please don’t hesitate to restore a clearer phrasing. —Frungi (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OR on Quandary and Quintessential names?

The most recent edit by an anon adds unsourced discussion of the proper names for the fourth and fifth parts. Is this acceptable, or could it be considered original research without an actual source discussing it? —Frungi (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor is using what are essentially dictionary definitions, which is hardly original research. I've changed "nominal" to "ordinal," which I Wikified.PacificBoy 04:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC) PacificBoy 03:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean, it “corrects” the names without citing a single source that says anything was “wrong”, and that kind of editorializing in Wikipedia articles can concern me. But if everyone else thinks it’s a case of “the sky is WP:BLUE”, then never mind, carry on. —Frungi (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)