Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)

message: I had a note here about whether or not one actor returned. According to the "Above the Title" site, he did. --JohnDBuell 03:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Would anyone like to add plot outlines for each of the individual episodes? Or details about the cassette/CD releases? --JohnDBuell 02:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simpson states 1988 multiple times, and as he's described fallacies in other documentaries and sources, I consider it likely he got it right the first time. The 1996 individual sets of the Primary and Secondary Phases on CD only state that they had been released previously as a box set (likely the 1993 first re-release, which first gave the names of "Primary and Secondary Phases"). --JohnDBuell 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have the original BBC release on CD (which I believe was the first ever CD release of a BBC Radio production).  It is six discs, in individual jewel cases labelled as "Fit the First and Second", etc., in a black sleeve with "DON'T PANIC" - in large, friendly letters, of course - on the front and back.  The catalogue number is BBC CD 6001, and the (c) and (p) dates on all the  packaging confirm the release date as 1988. Jpfowler27 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: An anonymous user added a blurb about having to use studio musicians to re-record "Journey of the Sorcerer" for the Quandary and Quintessential phase titles. I have not been able to verify this after having looked on several websites. And it sounds like the original recording to me from the first three episodes of the Quandary Phase. Can anyone else verify this claim? I'm going to leave it for a day or two, until or unless someone can prove or disprove it. If proof is found, please add a source. --JohnDBuell 04:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, "the ears have it." They aren't using the original "Journey of the Sorcerer" on the CDs anymore. Just got my Quandary Phase copy. --JohnDBuell 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: For the original BBC radio recording the use of the original music recordings would not have been a problem, as the BBC would have had the necessary rights due to possessing the Phonographic Performance Limited licences as a broadcaster, the tracks already being played on BBC stations such as Radio One and Radio Two, however, for commercial sales, especially elsewhere outside the UK, this would have been inadequate, hence the need to re-record some tracks with session musicians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: * Fails WP:LEAD, should be 2-3 paragraphs
* No fair use rationales
* Wild link, a [1] link, non formatted
* No ISBN/ISSN/ASIN codes
The prose looks good, just fix the above. Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 12:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, done, done and done. Resubmitting. --JohnDBuell 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add here that I added ISBN numbers for everything that had them. BBC Video releases have catalogue numbers and UPC codes, but no ISBNs, unlike some counterpart US releases. --JohnDBuell 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: This isn't strictly related to the article, but I need some help figuring out the different versions of the radio show. I am, of course, familiar with the common versions (the ones that seem the most widespread), but I've also heard a different version of the radio show (perhaps a newer version) with different music and more comedic segments and asides (such as the "black vehicle" stolen in one of the episodes being the ship of a rock band known for playing incredibly loud). Can somebody help me out here?203.131.167.26 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "black ship" being Disaster Area's rather than the Haggunenon Captain's is used in the version on the LP records and cassettes. This version makes several changes compared to the original radio series making it similar to the books and the TV series. In my own opinion, it is probably the most coherent version of the story.Gusty42 10:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they still sell the LP version, preferably new? I tried researching around for it but I only see a couple of different products on Amazon. It just seems like that version was funnier. The "Share and Enjoy" song, the caveman only knowing "ugh" instead of "grunt", the cops being funnier and more sterotypical, the mice actually trying to go for Arthur's brain and the 30-odd seconds of space battle sound effects before the two fleets are swallowed by a small dog - that'll all be in there?203.131.167.26 12:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately not. The LP and Cassettes have been out of production for many years. All the versions on Amazon will be the original radio series in one form or another. Best bet is E-Bay or, though I hate to say it, the torrents.Gusty42 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I've got absolutely no idea why they aren't selling that version instead, I'll just go with the torrents for now. As long as it's out of print. . . Thanks!203.131.167.26 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I still have one more question. How many LPs were released? If I get the two complete vinyls each (with two sides each) is that the "complete" version of the LP and then everything that I download subsequent is just canon? I noticed that the seventh episode onward of the mp3s I had downloaded before sounded like the LP version. Although Beeblebrox's doctor did mention the Hagamemnon (as opposed to Disaster Area) so maybe there are more LPs?202.175.214.50 11:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends where you are. In the United States, Simon & Schuster released two cassettes in the mid-1980s, one being 90 minutes long (which was, I think, most of the original double LP) and the second was 60 minutes long. There were three records released in total, a double LP in 1979 and a single LP in 1980. --JohnDBuell 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - I got them all and I'm in heaven now. I've been looking for those for five years and had no idea where they were. Pretty awesome. The sixth episode onwards pretty clearly has the production values of the LP so it all sounds great. Thanks!203.131.167.26 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops. It's not the end yet. This is closer to the version that I remember hearing from a long time ago, but it's not quite the same one yet. The one that I remember in particular has about thirty seconds of random sci-fi sounds while the two alien races are fighting as a result of Arthur's offhand remark, as well as a conversation between the characters at Milliways with an animal that has been bred to want to be eaten. Does anybody know where that version is or is it all just a false memory?203.131.167.26 12:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you didn't listen to an audio recording of the TV series? Those BOTH sound like effects from the series - Arthur, Zaphod, Trillian and Ford have a chat with the "Dish of the Day" in TV episode 5 (played by Peter Davison). --JohnDBuell 13:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - I've never considered that and it seems that it may be the case. That explains a lot so never mind.203.131.167.26 10:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help With the Different Versions 

message: I recorded HHGTTG from a radio broadcast on BFBS in about 1986 or 87ish. It was played audibly from LP (crackles), and it contained the Marvin/Pink Floyd joke including the "Rock&Roll music" bit. Can anyone deduce which LP version they played?
Last year I bought the CD box from the BBC. Would this be the original radio series or the LP re-recordings?
Thanks Anorak2 (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another versions question 

message: :Image:DNA Guide to H2G2 front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DNA Guide to H2G2 front.jpg

message: :Image:H2G2 Radio Collectors Edition booklet front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:H2G2 Radio Collectors Edition booklet front.jpg

message: Is there a valid justification for the link to Global Radio at the top of this page?
:I'm removing it, I can't think what it is. EAi (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding the first item on this page

message: The disco scene in Fit the Eighth uses an audio reversed version of Stayin' Alive by the Bee Gees. Don't know of any reliable source to cite this. 59.167.54.253 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember it's mentioned in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The Original Radio Scripts, as well as notes on all other works of music used. Anorak2 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music used in the series 

message: I was just reading this and realised that it's never been on the main page as a Today's Featured Article, which is somewhat surprising - is it perhaps waiting for the 10 year anniversary of Douglas Adams' passing? Anyway, I wonder whether it might be wise to remove the two lower images, as I don't really see what they bring to the article - perhaps replacing them with a picture of Douglas Adams might make sense. I seem to recall that too many non-free images was one of the noted problems with the main Hitch-hiker's page. Bob talk 21:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How important is the thing about shoes? Of all of the extra-production information available, this seems the most trivial coincidence I can imagine. Should it be removed? Bob talk 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA/Images 

message: Alas, another article turned up a higher points score for the 11th May, which is rather unfortunate, but I'll park this blurb here (hidden) and hopefully it can appear at some point around 11 May instead. Bob talk 23:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the FA for 25 May, 2011. Derekbd (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's for "Towel Day", which has been going 10 years, if anybody was wondering what the date significance is. Bob talk 21:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: TFA again

message: Last sentence in first paragraph reads: -
"Dent and later find themselves at The Restaurant at the End of the Universe..." 
Dent and who later find themselves...? 
Tiddy (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been fixed, but, having earlier corrected "Dent and Ford" to read "Arthur and Ford", I now find there's more instances of Arthur Dent referred to just as "Dent", scattered throughout. Either it needs to be consistently "Arthur" and consistently "Ford" throughout when only one name is used, or else consistently "Dent" and consistently "Prefect" throughout. Likewise with Zaphod, and I guess even Trillian (her full name is given in the books, I think.) Personally I don't see much need to name fictional characters in the same way as we insist upon for biographical subjects. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First and second radio series - Plot 

message: The article as it stands opens with the claim that this is "the first radio comedy programme to be produced in stereo." The Burkiss Way, which ran from 1976–1980 was originally produced in mono, but was produced in stereo from "Lesson 28" onwards. "Lesson 28: Ignore These Programme Titles The Burkiss Way" aired on January 10, 1978. The first episode of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy aired on March 8, 1978. -Gohst (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But the claim is for priority of production, pilot episode June 77, not transmission. MidlandLinda (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Episodes 1-5 (1976) of the Burkis Way was also in Stereo. 2.27.168.103 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The first radio comedy programme to be produced in stereo" 

message: Kudos on the use of the subjunctive mood, but in contemporary English we do tend to use a construction with would in cases such as this one. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2145:42D3:306D:40E4 (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the joke being that the audience initially assume 

message: As part of the ongoing FA sweeps, I've taken another look at this article to see if it continues to meet featured article criteria. While overall I think it's still in okay shape, I had some thoughts on the article as it currently stands:
*The lead spends a lot of time talking about the adaptations of the radio program, but that's really a subject for the franchise article, and the article body itself doesn't spend that much time on it compared to a whole paragraph. I think it should probably focus on mentioning the progression and broadcast of the radio series themselves (the subject of the next paragraph.) I think it's also a bit odd that it doesn't really spend time talking about the impact of the show (which could probably tie in better to the other media mentions.) 
* Since I'm not a Brit, this bit doesn't really tell me much. I assume what's meant by "bedsit comedy" is some group-of-friends living in an apartment-type deal, but I think that's probably better spelled out rather than just left to less clear quotes.
*—Why are we doubting Adams here? If he's not really reliable, then that casts a ton of the article content in question. If it's based on a later comment and thus can't be taken as contemporaneous fact, that would be a better way of introducing it rather than suggesting through Wikipedia's voice there's some doubt.
*—before, Ends of the Earth was italicized. I imagine it should be here too since the other programs are stylized that way?
* I don't know what this is telling us. If there's more to the story than just "oh we needed to convince them to make it stereo and not record it live" it seems like it should be explicitly told.
*I performed a light copyedit, trying to tighten up some stuff that I felt was uncontroversial, but people with better access to the sources should probably check and make sure I didn't go beyond the sources.
*The bits about the casting feel a little hard to follow if you've never actually heard the series or at least read the plot summary that follows it; this was a major place where I considered reorganizing the article to have the plot first (as in film articles) might be a better idea (especially since the article kind of ping-pongs from plot to development to plot again, with a second series being mentioned first in the plot section, not the development that comes before it, etc.) 
*The caption for :File:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy recording session.jpg drops the name of an episode (unquoted) without any explanation; the name for the episode isn't explained until subsections later.
*It seems weird to me the production section doesn't explain when or how a second series was commissioned, it just treats it as a thing that appears without warning in the text.
* Another weird bit of editorializing with the "allegedly" (we're already saying Person X said Person Y said Z, so allegedly for someone's opinions seems wrong.) 
* You just told us the first series was rebroadcast twice in 1978, so it seems weird to repeat it a line later.
*The reception section feels like it could use some beefing up with contemporary reviews. It's also got a first lone orphan line where quotes are unattributed.
*Given that the later production and reception section mention the Fits stuff and specific episodes, it seems weird to me there's not actually an episode list. 
*—is this still true?
*It seems odd the article ping-pongs between calling the seasons "series" and "phases". Given that the former is a generic and more universal word, that really should be what is always used rather than a fannish nomenclature.
*The major missing bit of coverage is definitely with the 3rd series and on; the sixth radio series basically has next to no information compared to the previous. I don't think with those gaps it exhaustively covers the topic as required by FA comprehensiveness standards. There's also no real critical reception on the later series.
*By the time you get to the "Special Editions" section you've got weird use of present tense for past facts. Presumably this ties in with the other issues of this content being added more recently after the main body of text was originally written and passed FAC.
Pinging User:Bob Castle, User:EurekaLott and User:VolatileChemical as the main still-active contributors by edits and/or authorship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] notes