Talk:Encyclopedia Galactica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EG Start[edit]

Is Wikipedia the start of an actual Encyclopedia Galactica? What we are creating (here, at Wikipedia) could completely overwhelm the rest of the non-comercial internet and make all paper-based reference works obsolete. I imagine it is already close to making Encarta obsolete.

Isn't this fun? Anyway, since there's an external link to the Encyclopedia Galactica, a description of what that site is all about would be appropriate. -- Kizor 08:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dream on, joyboy. Wikipedia is just the dabbling of part-time hobbyists. We have made nothing obsolete.Dogface 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that Wikipedia was the start of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, since it is cheaper than an Encyclopedia, it's edited by people from all around, and it's the sort of place you could find a stub that calls an entire planet "Mostly Harmless" --Wingsandsword 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wingsandword. I think Douglas Adams' books make it quite clear that the Guide is heavily coloquial while the Galactica is starchingly formal. The Guide is to the Galactica as the Wikipedia is to the Britanica. matturn 11:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that the encyclopaedia in question is actually called `Encyclopaedia Galactica' (note British spelling). I don't have Foundation at the moment but if I visit the library in the near future I will check. For now I have made `Encyclopaedia Galactica' redirect to this article.--holizz 23:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Update: I located a copy of Foundation in my local library. I was wrong, it seems---the encyclopaedia in question is indeed spelt Encyclopedia Galactica. --holizz 18:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But Episode 12 of Cosmos is indeed spelled "Encyclopaedia Galactica". Billions of people have got that wrong. (Yes, I know, there was no way I could resist.) Lee M 01:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Galactica is definitely spelt that way in HHGTG... see the screenshot from the TV series I attached. Question is, whether that's the SAME fictional work as the Encyclopedia Galactica in Asimov's book... Stoive 20:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what the spelling is, I really believe that Asimov had predicted the appearance of such vast encyclopedia. I believe that we are actually creating the real Encyclopaedia Galactica in this very moment! So no matter what happens with our planet we can leave great mark to all who are there in the future (humans, aliens or robots). George 11:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey George, don't forget the other Earth-bound life forms that could evolve up once we get out of the way. Regarding spelling remember that Douglas Adams was British and Issac Asimov was American. Thus they used different spellings for the same work. Nutster (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Both are authored by legions of dedicated scholars."[edit]

Wikipedia is authored by legions of people, sure, but not primarly scholars, surely.

It was added by in 2004: [1]. Possibly hinting that the "scholars" working on Encyclopedia Galactica are fictional too :) Pavel Vozenilek 21:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair use of illustration?[edit]

Can anyone provide more information on the 'Superman' illustration and hopefully then, edit the article. The original uploaded by Evmore has been given a licence plate by Tawker, but this indicates that it is a breakfast cereal box cover. If it is so (or part of one), it is not being used to "illustrate the cereal in question", as the "fair use notice" says. It would be useful for someone who knows something about this to link the illustration in with a relevant part of the article. The "Adventures of Superman #617" is mentioned in the "Other instances" section, but I think some information should be included in the text. Or do I just have not enough to think about?! (Tithon 14:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have removed the link to the image. Its use here does not meet any of the acceptable criteria.Dogface 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts[edit]

Does anyone think i should put in more excerpts?Perseus101


Excerpts[edit]

I believe that there should be excerpts out of it on this article as it adds to the quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perseus101 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Spoiler text[edit]

Paragraph 3 with respect to the Foundation trilogy is spoiler text, and doesn't add much imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.8.110 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 August 2007

Different stories same book?[edit]

hmmm, I think treating these fictional representations from different books as all being refering to the same Encyclopedia Galactica is rather dodgy. These are several different fictional encyclopedias with the same name, not a single fictional encyclopedia.

Also, what's with the excerpts, they're all from Asimov's foundation series, yet we have a picture from HHGTTG. I think the article needs to address the EG in Foundation and the EG in HHGTTG separately, then the mentions in other stories can all be mopped up together as they are only brief mentions.

What does everyone think? These excerpts ought to be labeled as from the Foundation series, as anyone unfamiliar with foundation or HHGTTG wouldn't necessarily know. I've named the section 'Excerpts (as depicted in Foundation)' to make it clear for now, but I dunno if it should be done in a better way, maybe with those as a quote in a section for Foundations version, and another section for HHGTTG's version with maybe an excerpt, (Marketing department of the Sirius robot company is the only excerpt I can think of though) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.237.42 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling fixed by Nutster (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov's Encyclopedia inspired by the Oxford English Dictionary?[edit]

Asimov's description of slow laborious creation of the Encyclopedia with volumes coming out years apart has always sounded to me as though it's based on the history of the OED. There are other dictionary projects even larger in scope and longer in duration, but having read the Foundation Trilogy and later reading about the OED, the similarities were rather striking to me. I've googled about and not found anyone else making this comparison, so I'm just throwing it in to the discussion. -- G.

Britannica Learning documentaries[edit]

Encyclopedia Galactica is also the name of a five-part series of astronomy documentaries produced in 1993 by Britannica Learning. Should a separate article be created for these, or should a line be put in this article mentioning them? Tom walker (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My snap opinion is 'no' to articles in this case under WP:N, however, 'yes' to mentions of the term in other contexts in this article. I fear a whole section is needed in this article to list these.
(Note: My snap opinion above may well be incorrect, the series you refer to may be notable enough to justify an article, I just don't know.)
One standard that has been used in cases like to show what belongs in this article is a source (any source) showing the linking of the usage of the term to the subject of the article. Example: Not every time a singer sings "I feel like a stranger in a strange land" is that singer singing about Stranger in a Strange Land, the novel known technically as ISBN 039910772X published in 1961. In at least one case, a singer does sing about that, the specific novel that is the subject of the article.
The standard for addition to that article is for the editor to give us a source showing the link from the song to the novel, and not to the common English usage of the phrase meaning simply "I feel alienated". A similar standard might be imposed here to avoid "listcruft".
Another, related issue: How can we know as readers whether the Britannica Learning reference is to the Adam's book or the Asimov book? I fear it would be poor editing to leave this ambiguous in the instance. See also List of fictional guidebooks.
What does one call such a section? References in other media might work OK. Not really sure. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistorians[edit]

In Foundation, psychohistorians are the only field of study NOT represented in the initial foundation, for reasons which I will not list for fear of spoilers. 208.65.73.101 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Removed inactive link. All Geocities links are dead as Yahoo has stopped the service.[edit]

I am unable to find a backup of what was likely on this site. Unless someone can give a useful link to replace it, keeping a link to a page that just says We have stopped this service. Sorry. does not add any useful information and would just frustrate readers who want to follow a link for more information. I am re-removing the dead external link. Nutster (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrival[edit]

Incidentally, this was also mentioned by the Charlie Sheen character in the film The Arrival. If I remember the context correctly, Sheen had recorded a message from outer space and told someone that it could be their Encyclopedia Galactica. I don't have the film on DVD, but wonder if someone could find a WP:RS for this instance of the terms usage.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Encyclopedia Galactica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5[edit]

Babylon 5 used the Interstellar Encyclopedia. Kenixkil (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Galactica&oldid=1211654408"