Talk:Discworld

Gaspode

... is a very important supporting character, but was himself never the focus of any Discworld novel. His name does not belong in the "Groups" column in the list of novels. This one's pretty obvious but as a relative newbie I'd like to get some consensus before I clean it up. (or you guys could take out the Gaspodes yourselves) Gr8moldy (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd start removing the inuniverse minutae if I were you...

...and outting it on a private wiki. Before a mod firebombs the articles like has happened to Warhammer 40,000, Starcraft, Warcraft (and much more I do not know about.)

But for the love of Pete, please link the main article to whatever wiki you use?

Mopeyennui (talk)

Motifs

The motifs column in the novels table is getting silly, and is now starting to include every external reference to anything in the books! Since each book has its own article, I propose deleting this column and adding a paragraph somewhere outlining common motifs within the Discworld series. That is, not only does it no longer list just motifs, but it's largely irrelevant to this article what the motifs of each individual book are. Stephenb (Talk) 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though it is actually really useful to have that information presented in one place. If people feel this section is getting unwieldy, perhaps it could go to Discworld (List of Works)? Tubusy 10:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of works is a great idea as it will keep the info but remove the huge table from the article. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Tubusy - it's not that useful, since the list no longer contains true motifs, and "that information" isn't really pertinent to this article. If there were a list of common motifs for Discworld, a paragraph should suffice and be useful to the article; non-common motifs ought to be in the individual book's articles, they're no use in this one. Don't like removing the table altogether, either, even to a separate article, though I know some people detest lists in articles. Stephenb (Talk) 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the paragraph I would propose to add. I think it sums up most of the column in relation to Discworld, and would mean that the column could be removed in favour of adding the specific "motifs" and references to the articles for the individual books: Stephenb (Talk) 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Themes and motifs

The Discworld novels contain common themes and motifs that run through the series. Fantasy clichés are parodied in many novels, as are various sub-genres of fantasy, such as fairy tales, witch and vampire stories and so on. Analogies of real-world issues, such as religion, business and politics, are recurring themes, as are music genres such as opera or rock music. Parodies of non-Discworld stories also occur frequently, including Shakespeare, Beatrix Potter and several movies.

Totally in favour. Daibhid C (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, there should be (as I proposed further down) a separate page explaining distinct references to (or parodies of) "real-world" events or works of fiction in particular novels, like the "Misérables" (novel and musical) parallels in "Night Watch". But I don't think e.g. every single mention of "the strange things that happened to the fish shop in Dagon Street" requires a cross-reference to the Cthulhu Mythos, since this is more of a running gag throughout the series. -- megA (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a new article such as List of parodies and references in Discworld novels? Stephenb (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It should still be by-novel, but with the connections explained. I think many (like me) think when reading: Oh, was that a reference to...? -- megA (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So may we remove the whole Motifs column now? I agree that it is getting rather silly, even the Themes section is getting out of hand Gr8moldy (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this! Yes, I still have no objections, the paragraph above still reads pretty well (though probably needs examples) Stephenb (Talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - took a while (you seem to have taken a break too!) but I think it looks better now. Stephenb (Talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GURPS Discworld

...has been nominated for deletion (or possibly merging) Stephenb (Talk) 13:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vetinari

There's a suggestion in the article that there is a consensus in fandom that Vetinari represents Machiavelli. Does such a consensus really exist? I don't know much about fan consensus, and I've never attended any meeting of fans, but a comparison with Lorenzo de' Medici seems more credible. Increasingly so in light of the recent Moist von Lipwig stories. Anyway, I'm putting in a marker, as I don't know about the existence of a consensus.Cmsg 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that he's "Machiavellian", which isn't the same thing. As far as I'm aware the consensus on afp at least is that he's a version of Medici (as in the Veterinary -> Medic pun). Off the subject slightly, but there's an interesting theory just cropped up on afp that Cosmo Lavish (who wants to be Vetinari and fails) is the exact opposite of Cosmo de' Medici, with his sister as a similarly negative counterpoint to Cosmo's advisor Puccio Pucci. 81.145.240.97 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Links

I'm having a bit of a link blitz... should all novel titles included in this article be linked to their page, or only the first time they're mentioned? Sabrage 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the only place that the novels need to be linked from are in the List of novels, and then it's not needed to link from any others on the rest of the page.  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable addition

A user has added It's a Wonderful Life to the list of motives in Reaper Man; since I don't remeber having watched the movie, I can't comment on its inclusion, but it probably needs a better justification than: "Windle Poons" spelled backwards is "George Bailey" (huh?). - Mike Rosoft 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"A user" being me, allow me to elucidate: the protagonist of It's a Wonderful Life is one George Bailey, a man who at a critical juncture in his life attempts suicide by jumping off of a bridge, but is rescued by an angel. In Reaper Man, Windle Poons similarly at a very critical juncture in his life attempts to die by jumping off a bridge (but since the body of "water" being bridged is the Ankh river, does not need rescuing so much as extraction).

Bailey's unique opportunity after his suicide attempt is a chance to view what the world would have been like without his being born when he was; Poons gets to experience what the world is like now that he has not died when he should have. Both story lines end with the character back at the same bridge with a new perspective on their life/death, and each gets to have a nice sum-up with an angel—although Poons' correspondent is a very special angel—and subsequently move forward, happier and wiser, with his life, or afterlife, as the case may be.

Or more succinctly: "Windle Poons" spelled backwards is "George Bailey".--NapoliRoma 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. - Mike Rosoft 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien references in "Thud"?

Um, in what way are "Lord of the Rings" and "Silmarillion" included as motifs in "Thud"? Besides the usual parody elements present in every Discworld novel? -- megA (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the motifs section is completely out of control, and now includes every vague reference anyone thinks they've seen to anything. Wipe the whole thing, that's my advice. Daibhid C (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur it needs trimming down because is full of original research.--Svetovid (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a separate page for the references/parodies (not the motifs, since "the achievements of revolution (or the non-achievements)" or "fatherhood" seem rather trivial in books about revolutions or fathers) where every reference must be explained. As I remember it, in, eg, "Night Watch", all references seem valid, except the "Battle of Cable Street", which seems to me like "yet another street massacre connected with a protest march". -- megA (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at it and removed general and trivial references.--Svetovid (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the prune may have been to hard, e.g. Lawrence of Arabia, & the Kennedy assassination were both in Jingo reasonably prominently (especially the latter) and the references in Thief of time are far more to martial arts films pop culture than the actual arts. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the references should be kept unless it is a prelude to removing the whole column. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia was just referenced by the ending I think. Motif is an idea used more often.--Svetovid (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need both: a "motifs" column and a separate page (as I suggested above) with the pop culture references by novel named and explained. -- megA (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If anywhere, that belongs to the pages of the novels.--Svetovid (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you distinguish between a reference and a motif? --megA (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

<-With difficulty. Carrot as Lawrence is the more tenuous of the two but the multiple shooters thing is a whole plot line. To be honest the reason I was worried about the references going is that they are the best way to distinguish or it's all original thought. Draw the line there, if a source mentions it a motif it's in, if not then leave it to the article on the book. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For example: Night Watch: Cop Novels, Les Misérables,[12] time travel, revolutions This is really tough. I'd say "cop novels" come with every Vimes book, so this is not significant to this particular novel, Les Miserables is clearly a reference and not a motif, and if you include it you should also include the Peterloo Street massacre, time travel is more a plot device than a motif (The novel that actually deals with time travel is Thief of time), whereas, paradoxically, the "grandfather paradox" is a vital problem in Night Watch, and revolutions, well I think you might call it a motif. Or maybe not. This is very complicated. And philosophical. And many of the novel pages don't actually deal systematically with references. -- megA (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cop novels is redundant in my opinon, as it is a 'cop novel' in it's own right, just set on the disk. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Happly Hogswatch

COWER BRIEF MORTALS... erm, I mean... HO HO HO! May the Hogfather bring you what you want for Hogswatch, and may the sun rise in the morning! Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

I've put down a call to arms on Terry's Talk page to make the Terry Pratchett article a Featured Article. This will be have to improved too, as it's a sub article - it should consequently become more likely to be seen as potentially FA too, if it gets good enough. Please post ideas for improvement. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've put a list of sub articles on TP's talk page. There are currently about 40, 11 of them Discworld novels. All will need to be up to a reasonable standard - any help is appreciated. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading Order?

What happened to the Reading Order page? I used this often and rather miss it.Adverge (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah me too! What happened to the reading order page? User:redsilkroute|redsilkroute]] (talk) 7 May 2008 (UTC)

--61.17.70.18 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discworld reading order. It was deleted per the reasons there Stephenb (Talk) 06:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see why it was deleted, but for those of us unfamiliar with the books it would be helpful in the "storylines" section to have a list of the book titles for each storyline - maybe in publication order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astabeth (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Prepossed: leave this link here : Pratchett’s Discworld « ZapfBlog as it serves to provide help to anyone like me who has taken the time to look and because the link in the article to http://discworldfanatics.co.uk/ is not working--Sativarg (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strata?

I've never had anything to add to a Wikipedia page, but this seems like a big gap.

Shouldn't there be a mention of Pratchett's book, _Strata_? It was (kind of?) a Discworld parody of Larry Niven's _Ringworld_.

Here's a link on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Strata-Terry-Pratchett/dp/0552133256

---Norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.216.11 (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but Strata is not a Discworld novel - the Strata world is not Discworld. Stephenb (Talk) 08:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed it isn't Discworld, but I would agree that it deserves a mention here as it does give a description of a disc like world and allows insight into the development of TP's thinking about Discworld. --Robin den hertog (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

auditors == bureaucrat?

Sure, at some locations you can find words from TP, saying that. But after reading about the discworld-science … they arte the counterpart to our magic: we’re thinking of magic things, we’re superstitious … sometimes. We like such things, such thoughts. We need ’em. Not allways, not everybody — but: ask Terry! We just think of it while our world is a matter of physics. Discworld is based on magic and the auditors are the dreams there. Dreams of a world without magic. So I think, somebody should have an eye on this. (Me? Sorry, that’s no good idea. I’ve to fight with this words as I’m not english.) -- 87.163.122.30 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading Thief of Time I always thought of the Auditors as the personification of entropy - it explains their hatred of "life", and their predisposition to think of everything in terms of averages (isn't entropy the ultimate average?) and unbending absolute rules. -- 76.199.0.102 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I think of them as the opposite of entropy. They want everything perfectly ordered, and life is disorderly. Without entropy, there is no life.--RLent (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the whole point of Thief of Time to place the universe into stasis so they could organize things? Hewinsj (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Table color-coding

I noticed a recent edit added row color-coding to the novel table for the various character "groups". The greys are a bit difficult to distinguish from one another, and overall it makes the table a bit messy-looking to my eyes. Additionally, some novels cover multiple groups to varying degrees. Considering the problems, I feel it's better to remove the colors for now, until some consensus can be reached, as (for one) leaving it harms readability in my opinion. Any ideas? --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section on 'Society'

I removed the section on society since as it stood it only contained a bunch of references to pratchetian in-jokes, without any explanation of the point behind them. This was completely out of character with the rest of the 'themes' section and would have been confusing to anyone unless they'd already read the books. I may at some point recreate the section with more fitting content. NetHawk (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

In the Rincewind section, I changed "the novel, The Last Hero" to "The Discworld fable" as this is how the books describe themselves. I also added information on The Folklore of The Discworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "fable" is really appropriate for the article. Regardless of how the books describe themselves, they're novels, and using a different (and non-standard) term will only confuse readers. I've changed it back to "novel". --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy of History-Monks-Likeness

Here the article says "Taoism-like", in the article that is behind the Lu-Tze-link, it says "Buddhism-like". Which now is it. Being an expert in none of the two religions, I'd still say Buddhism-like since Lu-Tze is pictured in orange ropes on the cover of Nightwatch.

It could be both. The saffron-colored robes are a nod to Buddhism, but Lu-Tze is an obvious reference to Lao Tse, upon whose teachings Taoism is based.
Heck you could even throw in Confucianism in there and just state that it is inspired by Oriental Religions. Gr8moldy (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Confucianism is based upon Taoism. I believe the intention in the books is for it to be Taoism based as that is rather more similar to it than Buddhism. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesnd (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Leave The Motifs/Allusions Section!

The section of the table that says what each book parodies can be very useful. Please don't delete it again, whoever did it! Mollymoon 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Each book has their own page, the list here doesn't need to contain their themes/motifs, and in any case the list was getting unwieldy, contained some dubious items that couldn't really be described as "themes" or "motifs" but just general elements in the particular boo, and definitely had no citations. A simple paragraph is sufficient. Please don't simply revert to a previous version ignoring all the *other* edits made to the page, too. Stephenb (Talk) 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. :) So long as the individual articles say their themes/motifs, it's fine. :) Mollymoon 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

about the arc of the novel

perhaps when we write what arc a novel belongs to, we should say if it the first or second for example if the novel is with the witches we could put first of the witches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The way DEATH speaks

The section on Death currently contains this claim "His dialogue is always depicted in small caps, a trait that other characters often remark upon.". I cannot recall other characters remarking upon this trait. Can anyone supply a reference before I remove the claim? Mooncow (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

From Moving Pictures, page 127: "I KNOW WHEN EVERYONE'S HAD ENOUGH. There was something very odd about that voice. The barman wasn't quite sure that he was hearing it with his ears." Pratchett, Terry. Moving Pictures. Corgi. ISBN 0-552-13463-5. remaai (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the way Pestilence speaks (Italics with " marks) need to be said, or is it not important enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.247.84 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

APF

The annotated Pratchett file is linked to from each novel page but hasn't been updated in years. Would it be appropriate to put annotations directly in each novel? Wiki is supposed to be comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.93.229 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Films

I've added a CN tag to the bit which says Pratchett plays the "toyshopowner" in Hogfather. I was under the impression that Tony Robinson played the part of the toy-shop owner, and Pratchett was a toymaker. The reference (27) isn't relevant, as far as I could tell, to what it's supposed to be supporting. Brammers (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

the ref supports that little bit about David Jason in Hogfather. I have added a ref to support the Toymaker sentance.  rdunnalbatross  12:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wee Free Men: The Beginning

There's a new paperback that's coming out this year titled "The Wee Free Men: The Beginning". I haven't been able to find any information about whether it is different from the original The Wee Free Men, or just a new edition. We should add references to it once the information becomes available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshja (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Reading Order box at the bottom of the nover pages.

This is confusing. The "Reading Order" and "Publication Order" can be very different thanks to the many different storylines. The reading order itself can be very different. While many find it good to start at Colour of Magic, others may often want to start with either the most recent film adaptation or the first book of it's series. These can be split up as well - following the announcement of "Raising Taxes", I have had a long-running argument with a friend as to whether this would be part of a "Mosit von Lipwig" series (Going Postal, Making Money, Raising Taxes) or a continuation of the "Ankh-Morpork" series (effectively starting with "The Truth"). This little box should be renamed to "Publication order" to take the ambiguity out of it (with maybe a second box titled "Series order" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ankh-Morpork Humans

Why is there no page or section for humans in Ankh-Morpork? We've got every last undead or dwarf mentioned in the novels explained, but there's no page for secondary humans such as Sacharissa Crisplock, Rufus Drumknott, William De Worde or Adora Bella Dearheart. 216.41.16.82 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We are waiting for you to create it, of course! Welcome to Wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Film

Heyday Films (the Creators of Harry Potter) plan a Theatrical-release two-part 3D film series distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group and Walt Disney Pictures set to be Start on Christmas, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.217.128 (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order: "Small Gods" not the only exception...

"...all the main storylines take place around the same period of time (end of the Century of the Fruitbat, beginning of the Century of the Anchovy); the only exception is Small Gods, which is set roughly one hundred years before any of the other stories." —
"Pyramids" would be the other one, n'est-ce pas? -- megA (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Moist von Lipwig

This section should be renamed "Ankh-Morpork" and include "The Truth" as this, along with the two extant Lipwig books are largely about the development and modernisation of the city. The fact that Going Postal, Making Money and the expected third Lipwig book centre around one character is more of a plot device than a central storyline.Angry Mustelid (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Long Earth

This novel by Pratchett and Stephen Baxter is not going to be a Discworld novel, hence I've removed it from the list. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jun/16/terry-pratchett-science-fiction-book etc.

JiMternet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Death

At the end of the Death Section, it reads, "Death also appears in Good Omens written by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman." However, I believe this is a different Death. They have the same way of talking, but I think there is a different death in each universe. The other four horsemen of the Apocalypse (or Apocralypse in Discworld) in Good Omens are not the same horsemen who appear in the Discworld novel Sourcery. The Discworld War is male, and Pestilence has not been replaced by Pollution. So, do I take out the sentence altogether, or modify it? Or did I not make enough of an argument for two different Deaths? remaai (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Auditors of Reality for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Auditors of Reality is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auditors of Reality until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..--User:Salix alba (talk): 06:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading order, and The Truth

The reading order section suggests that The Truth could be a standalone story. It does nonetheless incorporate lore from earlier (chronologically) novels such as Vimes becoming Commander of the Watch and it creates a core feature of later (chronological) novels in that the newspapers become a staple part of Ankh Morporkian life - as exploited by Von Lipwig in Going Postal, Making Money and Raising Steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.1.229 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Wikipedia and Wikidata

This article describes Discworld book series, but is associated with Q253295 wikidata, which describes Discworld fictional universe, it should be associated with Q3257270, which represent Discworld book series.

The similar problem is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_%28world%29 page, which is associated with Q1248783 (Discworld planet) instead of Q253295 (Discworld fictional universe).

I fixed that for en and cs language variants in Wikidata, unfortunately seems that more than 2/3 of language variants have the same or similar problem. 89.102.22.7 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Scouting for Trolls

How about re-adding the info about the unfinished “Scouting for Trolls”? I know it's not (going to be) published, but still, a footnote would be in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.148.178 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Word count

How many words in total in all the discworld books taken together? Wodorabe (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Novel Grouping

(No pun actually intended, but "novel"/"novel", I now realise.) Having checked for prior comments along this line (and failing to find them, whether or not they exist), I was wondering whether it was worth adding (or changing from 'Miscellaneous', in at least two cases) at least one additional "Groups" keyword to reflect a theme of "Technical/Cultural Advancement" of the Discworld, or something of a similar indication?

Candidates could be Moving Pictures (cinema, albeit short-lived), Men At Arms (firearms, ditto), Soul Music (popular music), Feet of Clay (emancipation), The Truth (printing), Going Postal (stamps), Making Money (fiat currency), Unseen Academicals ((soccer) football), Snuff (emancipation, again), Raising Steam (railways). But that's not a definitive list (there are some technical advancements without cultural ones, or vice-versa, for example), and could probably be added to/removed from by discerning reviewers with time on their hands to discuss such points.

e.g. whether "diplomatic" advancements also qualify J, T5E, T and MR, among possible others, to the changing nature of the Disc or the likes of G!G!'s police-force revisions count. But that's starting to sound too all-encompassing, and probably applicable to every book (e.g. Sourcery's beginning-of-the-end to the 'old regime' of dead-man's-pointy-shoes at UU) in some way or another. 31.83.148.126 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality improvement project - Lie-to-children

• Lie-to-children

I've embarked on a Quality improvement project for Lie-to-children, first introduced as a phrase in The Science of Discworld.

If you've got recommendations for additional secondary sources that could be utilized to further improve the quality of the article, please suggest them at Talk:Lie-to-children.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe removing content

Lately User:JesseRafe started removing info from the article on the grounds it is not notable. I asked him to discuss it here first, because I did not understand the specific reasons for the removal ("Per MOS they are not notable"). Because he did not explain it and kept removing the content, providing what seems to me only vague reasons ("There is nothing subjective here, it is cut and dry per WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people), these mentions are non-notable and their inclusion harms the public trust in Wikipedia."), I start the discussion myself and ask to keep the status quo of the article for the time being. Thanks for understanding. My perosnal opinion is that we do not have to use WP:Notability (people) for every name used in any article - it is used to determine whether a person is notable enough to be the topic of an article. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I should have been more particular, but I thought you would find it on the page. The consensus is that only someone notable enough to have their own page is notable enough to be mentioned on another article. Think of it as a "notable alumni" section, just because someone is a so-and-so and made the local paper, they're not WP-notable. A non-notable theatre group is a non-notable theatre group, and thus is not mentionable. The refs just prove the thing exists, not that the thing is notable. Please see WP:LISTBIO, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:SINGLEEVENT for more specific subsections and essays of the policy you felt didn't apply in these instances. JesseRafe (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the links, now I think I understand your concern better but is seems to me the links deal with something else, and are impractical in this case. WP:SINGLEEVENT deals only with stand-alone articles about the person in quastion ("it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both"), and WP:LISTCRITERIA deals with articles that are lists - Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. So both of them refer to something else than our section in question.

The first one, WP:LISTBIO, is a valid guideline but again it speaks about lists in articles. Do you consider this section an embedded list (MOS:EMBED) similar to the lists of notable alumni in articles about schools? (It may be argued that the section is in fact a list of some sort bcs of the way information is presented in it but where would that lead us, where would "being a list" end? Those "early life" sections of bio-articles might be considered lists as well, listing relatives, schools the person attended, locations where he lived...) Even if we treat the section as an embedded list, the criterion is subjective: list of headmasters ("a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable.) X notable alumni (btw non-notable alumni could be excluded bcs of the headline). My opinion is that the section resembles, if anything, the headmasters and not the 20+ usually poorly sourced alumni lists.

Finally, please link to where I can read sometning on "The consensus is that only someone notable enough to have their own page is notable enough to be mentioned on another article." This would mean, for example, that you cannot mantion the parents of the majority of people who have their own article, non-notable illustrators of books (an article about a book would not mention the illustrator even though the information is sourced), directors of institutions (as well as companies and institutions themselves, following the logic of yours "non-notable theatre group, and thus is not mentionable"), etc. And someone would have to check each proper noun (not only personal names) without a link to an article... I do not think that the removal will make the article better. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear what your understanding is, then. These are three different guidelines that all touch on this theme and have to be synthesized for their use as there is no directly applicable guideline for notability of stage adaptations of a book series. To claim that some nobody put a theatrical version of a famous book on a stage is on the same level as the immediate family of a notable person is intellectually dishonest. Someone's mother or son is obviously prima facie pertinent information in somebody's biography. Some play that has nothing to do with Terry Pratchett or his work (note I did not say derived from his work, but the work he did doing the work) is an exact example of "notability is not inherited". For what it's worth, I have never seen a list of headmasters that I would not delete as per WP:NOT, WP:LIST, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Also, please note all the fallacies in your argument, the illustrator of a book of course gets mention even if they are not notable, they actually illustrated the book! What did this person do? Nothing. They're not notable, removing it again as you are either only looking to argue non-productively or must have a conflict of interest about including this non-event. JesseRafe (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: I put back the mention of the Lords and Ladies play adaptation. This is really the main adaptation of Lords and Ladies for the stage, and it has been widely performed, according to a quick google search. It certainly appears to be a significant enough adaptation to warrant inclusion in this article (it's even advertised on www.terrypratchettbooks.com, and I included that link). Since the adaptation should be included, it is sensible to also include the name of the person who did it, Irana Brown. There appears to have been some confusion over the Wikipedia jargon word "notability". It is not the case at all that to be mentioned in an article one needs to be notable enough for one's own article. Such a rule doesn't exist; it would be unnecessarily restrictive. Satisfying WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOR, is really all you need (also, of course, WP:BLP). In this case, all those are clearly satisfied. All the best, Mark MacD (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Discworld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211231608/http://www.paulkidby.net/index.php/blog/previous/221-february-6th-2015-so-far-so-good to http://www.paulkidby.net/index.php/blog/previous/221-february-6th-2015-so-far-so-good
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509144402/http://www.paulkidby.com/news/jan2006.html to http://www.paulkidby.com/news/jan2006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119165029/http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page to http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wiki.dyskowe.info/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030191607/http://www.nadwcon.org:80/ to http://www.nadwcon.org

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pratchett's name

I believe that the first reference to the late, lamented Terry Pratchett in this article should use that name, the one he wrote under, not the Sir title draped over him near the end - just as The Beatles doesn't talk about Sir Paul McCartney. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sigh

@WikiHannibal: OK, here we go. Can you elaborate on your edit summary please?

Sorry but that is not very relevant for a description of the characters

It's not a 'characters' section, it's a 'storylines' section.

and confusing for those who do not know the subsequent development of the Watch

What's confusing? I've read the books and that's how the Watch starts out - obsolete due to the Thieves Guild. Then, as the paragraph at the end already states, Vetinari lets them "create a proper police force" at the end of Guards! Guards!. What else are you suggesting you need to know to understand this? --86.53.18.62 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted your edit, but I agree more or less with the reversion. The section might be "storylines", but the paragraph you inserted that text into is a summary of the characters, and so the bit about the Thieves' Guild completely breaks the flow. It also doesn't fit with the rest of the section, which is a more general summary, whereas your addition explains a particular plot point that might be confusing without further explanation to those unfamiliar with the series. It would have been better in the first paragraph of the section (about the evolution of the watch), but even then it seems like too much detail to me. It's also debatable - if the watch is obsolete at the beginning of the series due to legal thieving, why are they not obsolete by the end of the arc (the Thieves' Guild operation never changed, as I recall)? Better to just leave it out. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly as explained above. (Thanks.) WikiHannibal (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Discworld Reading Order Guide 3.0...

Hi, I am the author of the Discworld Reading Order Guide 3.0 featured on this page. I was surprised to see the Guide here again - before it was removed for being "original research" (which it is - it's one fan's interpretation of the order). If you find it helpful and it doesn't break rules, I'm glad it's here - I would appreciate it though if someone could reupload the uncropped version to Wikimedia and delete the crop? This is due to the fact that the cropped Wikimedia file is then indexed and appears in Google images high up, and a lot of people share it without knowing that a full, uncropped version exists. I hope this is not a problem. If you need further information from me, my email address is on the Guide itself (KK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.97.217 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Comic fantasy - citation needed

Seriously? 198.48.173.209 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Edited. It seems a little ridiculous to doubt the comic fantasy classification when the sentence ends with "a flat world carried by four elephants balanced on the back of a giant turtle." 23.233.10.152 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thansk for your interest in the topic but if you want to make more useful contributions to Wikipedia in the future, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove "planned adaptations"

I say we remove the entire "Planned Adaptations" section, which is just a poorly-maintained rumor site - "Wee Free Men" talks about things being in development four years ago, "The Watch" is two years old, the "multiple novels" item is vague. Deals are often announced that never happen and Wikipedia isn't a video-industry blog. I say the article shouldn't list something until there's an actual release date, particularly because the article is already loaded with adaptations. Any comments? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think so. If it's real (Maurice/Watch) it can go in the adaptation bit.Halbared (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Things for which we have evidence of them being in production (that is, actually filming) are fine (I don't mind what section they're in). That represents a major commitment of people and money, and projects that reach that stage are real and are going to release.That seems to be The Watch and Maurice, based on refs on their respective articles. But "optioned", "x is writing a script", "in development", "x is attached", while not rumours, are low-importance industry inside baseball - things can stay in that development hell for decades, and pass through many hands in the process. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I still think we shouldn't bother listing adaptations until they're actual release dates exist because, as COVID has shown, filming can begin and yet nothing ever gets seen by the public. But that's debatable, so I'll just remove the vaguer and outdated stuff. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I changed the title from "planned adaptations" to "adaptations in production" to make things clearer. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to keep the 2020 Narrativia bit bcs it is recent. Spoils your title, though. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In the special language of filmmaking, production specifically means "filming". The Watch has been confirmed for broadcast in January 2021 (by a Radio Times ref this month). So it is surely done with filming, and is deep into post-production (ADR, effects, editing, grading, etc.). So perhaps "adaptations underway" instead? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cover

Since forever, the cover of The Colour of Magic had a wrong caption. Do you all want to use the present cover by Alan Smith, which is also used at The Colour of Magic, or a cover by Kirby to represent the Discworld in the infbox? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Publication order

It seems strange that there's no section here which shows the publication order. Here's one website which has one: https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/discworld/ UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hindu ripoff?

Not one mention that the elephant/turtle thing is from Hindu creation myth??

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/reptiles/weight-world 2605:A600:1E38:286A:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Subseries misfits

Specifially for Unseen Academicals, though perhaps a review is needed for Pyramids, Small Gods, and Monstrous regiment too.

I don't feel like Unseen Academicals fits well with the other "Rincewind" stories. Rincewind stories up to and including The Last continent (and to a slightly lesser extent The Last Hero) have a quite consistent structure that stands out from the other subseries. Rincewind himself flees from problem to problem and the books where he is the lead follow more of a point to point plot format, in the tradition of Colour of Magic / Light Fantastic which clearly draw from D&D style madcap fantast adventure tropes.

Unseen Academicals feels a lot more like the Moist or Industrial Revolution novels. Rincewind, with his minor appearances, doesn't control the story. In terms of cast and structure, Unseen Academicals has most in common with Soul Music with some one-off characters backed up by Ridcully and his staff.

I think the simplest solution is to reclass Unseen Academicals as Industrial Revolution, but some other reshuffle of subseries might serve the other odd ones out better. Perhaps the Subseries column could be replaced with Lead Characters to allow better flexibility? Webbed Hands (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)