Disputatio:Explicatio Vitae, Mundi Universi, Omniumque
Suadeo ut pagina moveatur ad Vitae, mundi universi, omniumque rerum explicatio.--Ceylon 15:51, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- In libro nonnumquam litteris maiusculis scribitur. De casu incertus sum. Nescio cur vis mundum universum valere ac universus... res non videtur mihi necesse... --Ioscius (disp) 23:01, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Nec minusculae nec 'rerum' mihi magnopere intersunt, genetivus autem necessarius esse videtur. Quod ad universum attinet, nempe scis hanc vocem saepius every, all significare quam universe; ideo mundo addito clarius esset quid sibi velit titulus, praesertim cum pagina eis qui librum illum ignorent haud multa affert ut illuminentur.--Ceylon 12:09, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- Ok... Disputabamus et ego et Rafael, et suadens dixit mundum universum clarius legi posse, quia, sicut mos hic nosterm, Newtonum ususque eius solemus sequi, appellationibus physicis.--Ioscius (disp) 06:30, 7 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Numerus[fontem recensere]
Scripsi XLII; Ioscius (alibi) dixit numerum Romanum erroneum esse. Quomodo id scit, nescio! Sed praeceptis magistri obtempero. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:17, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Ex dispitatione mea, cum {{non stipula}} addidi[fontem recensere]
Forgive me for reverting you concerning the answer to life, the universe and everything. I know what you mean: it looks a bit short. But if that is the answer, what more could there be to add to the article?! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:17, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- what about a full sentence at least? XLII est explicatio Vitae, Universo, Omnibusque nobis narratur a libro Peregrinatoris Enchiridion Galaxiae --Xaverius 15:33, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- See what Ioscius says. It was his page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:51, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh... I thought this was a clever enough joke to slip it through the radar. I'm for just plain 42 as the contents (the roman numeral is of course erroneous), but if it must be lengthened, I really won't complain too much.--Ioscius (disp) 22:59, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- I'm for making this our shortest article. Josh, sometime you must explain to me how you know the Roman numeral is erroneous. I learnt my philosophy from the radio series, in which Deep Thought speaks the relevant number, and I don't see why it wouldn't have printed out XLII if invited to do so. But maybe other sources disprove this. I've changed it back to Arabic, anyway! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:21, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, only because of Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani, not because of anything Duglassius wrote.--Ioscius (disp) 12:37, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- I still think, if this article can say it all in two digits plus a cross-reference, it has no need to be any longer. It's perfect. Therefore I removed the Delenda Iacobus put there, and reverted the recent anonymous edits. But maybe others see it differently! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:49, 6 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with this "article" is that it should look like this: en:42 (number). All you need to know about Duglassius's 42 is in a paragraph under "In pop culture." IacobusAmor 12:54, 6 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
- I still think, if this article can say it all in two digits plus a cross-reference, it has no need to be any longer. It's perfect. Therefore I removed the Delenda Iacobus put there, and reverted the recent anonymous edits. But maybe others see it differently! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:49, 6 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, only because of Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani, not because of anything Duglassius wrote.--Ioscius (disp) 12:37, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- I'm for making this our shortest article. Josh, sometime you must explain to me how you know the Roman numeral is erroneous. I learnt my philosophy from the radio series, in which Deep Thought speaks the relevant number, and I don't see why it wouldn't have printed out XLII if invited to do so. But maybe other sources disprove this. I've changed it back to Arabic, anyway! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:21, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh... I thought this was a clever enough joke to slip it through the radar. I'm for just plain 42 as the contents (the roman numeral is of course erroneous), but if it must be lengthened, I really won't complain too much.--Ioscius (disp) 22:59, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Denuo disputanda?[fontem recensere]
What do people think about this now? Normally it should be merged into Peregrinatoris Enchiridion Galaxiae or 42 (numerus), or does anyone still want to keep it as a joke article? Lesgles (disputatio) 22:21, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)