Talk:Babel fish

Fishbait

I have just removed the link to "fishbait" because I fail to see why it is relevant and because the article doesn't exist anyway. Feel free to put it back if your opinion is different.

Mike Rosoft -- 213.220.234.222 20:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Long quote

This quote is awful long. Looks like copyvio to me. I'm adding an attention tag in the hopes that it gets rewritten with less quote dependence. --Laura Scudder | Talk 06:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to the version before the addition of the entire quote. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Quintessential Phase Episode 4

Just listened to the last episode of the H2G2 radio play and its strange, sappy ending... is it worth mentioning that the Babel Fish in Arthur's ear saves everybody's life at the end?

Bugger! I haven't got to buying it yet and now I know the ending. Belgium! Totnesmartin 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not put original h2g2 quote there?

I would LOVE that article to be the very exact h2g2 article, starting with "The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved..." etc. Perhaps afterwards some sort of explanation should be given. But in the first place, this indirect speech stuff on the babelfish entry just sucks, it doesnt catch the idea at all.

--PhilipP 14:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babel fish: quote marks

Why do we have such an unholy, not to say illogical, mix of double and single quote marks here? Someone seems to have fallen into the trap of thinking that, if you're quoting the odd word or phrase, you can use singles, while using doubles for something longer, which is silly. You stick to your adopted style, or the style of the publication you're writing for, and that's it, full stop (or period, if you prefer). If you need to put a quotation within a quotation, you use the other style. So you get singles within doubles or vice versa. Nothing could be simpler, yet we see this crazy mixing time and time again. And "sneer quotes" make no difference: it's still a quote, even if it's an "as it were" type of quote the "sneer quotes" suggest.

Please fix it! (By the way, despite "near" and "smear," the word "sneer" has two e's. Go figure!)- DavidWBrooks 19:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it, sorry. Indeed, last time I tried to fix a punctuation prob, someone barred me and said I was a vandal, so I must have done something wrong. But thanks for correcting my spelling. Typing in a hurry.

I took out the "sneer quotes" (lovely phrase, that). - DavidWBrooks 10:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

alta vista

Wouldn't it be appropriate to include a reference to Altavista'a web translation at the bottom, rather than merely the disambiguation link at the top? Informing the reader explicitly of the influence of this character/plot device seems to be a good idea.--droptone 13:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder if there's any official statement from Alta Vista about that? (And FYI - I have grabbed your comment and moved it to the bottom of the page. It was placed in the middle of another conversation which made it very hard to understand.) - DavidWBrooks 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

DOES IT CONTAIN A PICTURE OF A FISH? THAT WOULD LOOK GOOD IN THE ARTIDLE SOMEONE SHOULD INCLUDE ITRHector-mo- 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There's already a picture of the Guide entry from the TV show in the article, but maybe it would be a good idea for somebody who has access to the DVD to get a screenshot of the Babel fish being put into Arthur's ear in the movie. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

not in the movie?

  :"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
  :"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
  :"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
  :"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. 
   
  In the feature film The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that scene was omitted and used as a bonus feature on its DVD release.
  

Was this really left out of the movie? I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it on the big screen, but I might be mistaken. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 07:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was left out of the film. Might be considered offensive to Christians or somehting.

Offensive to Christians?! Are you kidding me? The movie had no holds barred on taking shots at religion. (There was the whole sequence with Humma Kuvula or whatever John Malkovich's cult leader character was called.) And the babelfish stuff isn't even anti-religious per se; it's just satirizing certain theological arguments. (I know plenty of religious people who enjoy this passage immensely.) The reason it was cut was probably more due to time constraints, or it being less effective on screen than on paper. marbeh raglaim 14:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Long quote

The long quote was put back in by user:Janx in 2006. It was his only edit. I'll revert it if no-one objects. It's far too long and will probably get a copyvio tag some day. Totnesmartin 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why does babel fish automatically redirect here instead of to a disambiguation page or to the article on the translation service? It seems to me that an article on a widely used service is more important than one about something fictional. Brennsto 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A topic of much debate throughout wikipedia: with topics of the same name, which gets the article? I'd say this one is a real tossup, as to whether this character or the software gets the article, or whether we should do the always clumsy but often necessary disambiguation-page route. - DavidWBrooks 21:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Adams had it first. The software is named after the fictional fish. TRiG 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain that quote is wrong.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Celluphid from making a trilogy about it and the nonexistence of God.

From memory, it's more like

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of foetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Celluphid from making a fortune when he made it the central thesis of his bestselling blockbuster, Well, that just about wraps it up for God.

Celluphid (if that spelling's right, which I doubt) did also write a theological trilogy, mentioned earlier in the radio series/novel. The titles were Where God went wrong, Some more of God's greatest mistakes, and Who is this God person anyway?.

If someone could check the book and correct this. (I've lent my copy to someone; also my tapes of the radio series.)

TRiG 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference.

(Sorry: in a rush. Someone else can edit this, please.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRiG (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine for listening, but what about talkin?

This particular thing always bothered me about the films. It never discussed how OTHERS understood YOUR speech. Or is it that EVERYONE uses the Babel Fish (is there a reference to this?). Or maybe it changes your speech also? (I have the audiobooks, it will take forever to find a reference).--218.40.162.146 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of the term

This previously read:

"The fish's name refers to the Tower of Babel, a Biblical story in the Old Testament. According to the story, people at the time all spoke the same language and built a tower to show their strength and independence. This angered God, who confused the people and spread them across the Earth, speaking different tongues, so no such union could exist."

That's a totally ridiculous summary of the story that can only be intended to make it look foolish. I'm not sure that it's necessary to summarize the story here, but that certainly won't do. If somebody wants to replace the detail without the anti-Christian bias, that'd be fine. deranged bulbasaur 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous though it may sound, it's not a completely unfair summary of the story. The Tower of Babel article says much the same. A recent revision, however, erred in the opposite direction:

"The fish's name refers to the story of the Tower of Babel from the Book of Genesis - a tower that united humanity, with all people speaking a single language."

That also is misleading, as the Tower of Babel article or a cursory review of the source material makes it clear that the tower did not unite humanity, since (as the story goes) the building of the tower was interrupted by the confusion of tongues. Still, I agree that it's probably not necessary to summarize the story here. Pulled the inaccurate bit out and left the links; folks can go read the ToB article and decide for themselves. --Herichon (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed reference to "the Bible" to "the Old Testament" in order to be more specific, and also added "According to the story..." to be more accurate. 76.184.190.167 (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Barbel (fish)

Saw this on David Attenborough. Should it be included? phocks (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I will add it to a "See also" section. HairyWombat 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)