h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The first footnote is misleading.
This term was never applied to Australia.
"Terra Australis Incognita" was a term given to an unknown Southern landmass which was presumed to exist somewhere in the yet unexplored Southern Hemisphere. Scholars had presumed its existence, as it would be required to "balance" the large landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere. It was a controversial theory, even in its time.
James Cook proved that it did not exist. There was no Great Southern Land down there in the South Pacific Ocean.
Australia had been discovered long before. Cook and his contemporaries knew where Australia was, and knew that Australia wasn't the southern land they were seeking.
Tasman had sighted the Western slopes of the Southern Alps of New Zealand from the Tasman Sea in 1642. He noted in his journal "a large land uplifted high". Yet he did not sail completely around New Zealand, so the possibility existed that these huge mountains were the edge of a great Southen continent yet undiscovered.
This was the possibility that Cook was exploring, with the view to either proving or disproving it.

Ok, I'll try and get it sorted out.

So, the new footnote should read:

"This was the name given to a suspected great landmass in the southern hemisphere. Scholars expected one to exist to balance out the landmasses in the northern hemisphere."

Right?

Cheers, mate. I don't want to sound too anally retentive about it, but it's a common misconception.

Frequently, any complaints about an official entry will be based around a single sentance or phrase. It's good to have them sorted out, especially on something as important as this.

Ok, I'll get back to the PTB about this over the weekend, ok? Cheers mate

What about Antarctica?

Search me if I know anything about Cook and Antartica.

What I mean is, doesn't Antarctica qualify as a Great Southern Continent?
Maybe those explorers just weren't looking far enough to the South.