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
recensereScripsi 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
recensereForgive 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?
recensereWhat 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)