Jump to content

Talk:Terry Pratchett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTerry Pratchett was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 7, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
March 14, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Society of Authors

[edit]

Sir Terry has been for a long time involved with the Society of Authors, including being Chair. The article should mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.189.150 (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"frequently comical"?

[edit]

"Known for his frequently comical work in the fantasy genre"? Quite a misleading understatement. This suggests that at least some of his work in the fantasy genre is deadly serious. That's not true. All of his output is consistently comical, with jokes coming reliably at least once in five sentences, although he is, of course, trying to combine this with suspense, drama, message, and conworld merits.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that many of his works aren't comical; some of the Tiffany Aching books, as well as many Watch (or Ankh-Morpork in general) books play the tropes as straight as possible(and in the case of one Tiffany Aching book, veer strongly toward gothic horror). Also, Pratchett writes satire, which isn't always 'comical' in the standard sense (witness Gulliver's Travels, which Swift wrote as a satirical indictment of English high society). 2001:569:BD76:EA00:D24:C194:918F:8CA7 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Monstrous Regiment, and The Truth have strong elements other than comedy. He was serious about some things. Midgley (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

list of books

[edit]

A list of published books should be added to this article. The same type of list can be found in articles for other authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccon012 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Bibliography is detailed enough.  rdunnalbatross  12:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not its not, for example the Book "Shaking Hands with Death" by TP is not mentioned at all. 2A01:599:618:5DA1:C84D:DB9C:DDD0:1D9F (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
plus the fact that #Bibliography is not working at f* all... 2A01:599:618:5DA1:C84D:DB9C:DDD0:1D9F (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literary trainspotting.

[edit]

It is so ironic that an article about a successful literary professional is itself so ploddingly and tediously written, and so bogged down by dreary minutiae, that one suspects some kind of earnest, literary trainspotter was behind its laboured construction.

It is so leaden, and there is too much of it, so one cannot contemplate any attempt to breathe some style into the great, lardy thing, therefore, this remains Pratchett's uninspired Wikipedia legacy. --174.16.20.36 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? There's too much of it. It would require a time-consuming, wholesale rewrite. It would also be tedious; I couldn't be arsed, frankly. --174.16.20.36 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then chances are it will never get done, but thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film

[edit]

there have been 2 feater films made now color of magic and the hog father if someone could update would be good thing Lurch42024 (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC) i know i cant spell but i thought i would say something about the lack of menchen of the 2 movies that have been made and released Lurch42024 (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - they aren't "feature films" since they weren't shown at the cinema, they were television adaptations, and as such they ARE mentioned in that capacity under "Adaptations". Stephenb (Talk) 18:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arms Currently Displayed

[edit]

I see, several months ago, someone replaced my copyright-free svg image of Terry's arms with a non-free image. That's cool if that's what the page wants, but Terry owns the right to the image that is there now. (I don't see anything that indicates he released it into the public domain.) My rendering of the arms only showed the shield because I don't have the skill to show any of the other elements, but when depicting arms, the shield is the only part that must be shown. There are many examples of this throughout wikipedia. Sorry for the long delay in commenting on this. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient vs Modern stuff

[edit]

"Discworld novels often include a modern innovation and its introduction to the world's medieval setting, such as a public police force (Guards! Guards!), gun (Men at Arms), submarine (Jingo), cinema (Moving Pictures), investigative journalism (The Truth), the postal service (Going Postal, although the narrative describes a previous service that collapsed), or modern banking (Making Money). The resulting social upheaval serves as the setting for the main story and often inspires the title."

There are several errors here. While polices are depicted as rather modern in his works, it is far from a modern phenomena. Investigating journalism was around in the Roman empire, and possibly before that. The most efficient postal service documented is the one implemented by the Aztecs using stationed runners, that could deliver messages from border to border within a day. Modern banking is often considered invented by the Knights Templar, but there are evidence of baning dating back much further. In fact the earliest known laws (the Code of Hammurabi) incorporate regulations of banking. Of course Terry is known to give these services a modern look and feel, but they are far from modern innovations. Also there was guns around at the medieval period, but in Europe they was considered blasphemous and anyone using them would have been subject to a witch hunt. However after the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan spread into Europe using firearms, Europe realized that without firearmes there was no way to resist invading armies from outside the Christian world and even the popes personal guard was armed with the weapon. And on a side-note there was awesome hand-held flamethrowers utilizing "greek fire". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.38.78 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of 'modern' is accurate both scientifically and linguistically; in a historical context, 'modern' refers to events that occurred following the end of the Middle Ages (with the accepted start date being sometime in the 16th century). The most-accepted 'end date' for what we consider 'ancient history' is the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE. The first firearms were invented in China in the 13th century, which places them firmly in the modern era, with Europe seeing them in the early 14th century (and they weren't blasphemous, they were dangerous -- a misfire could remove limbs if it didn't kill the user outright). The Mongols and Aztecs were again 13th and 14th-century societies. The first 'bank' that wasn't simply a money-changer or a kingdom treasury was established in 1157 in Venice and the first civil investigative forces were employed in Ancient China (c. 1200-c. 1600 BCE) (both of which are pre-Modern Era, so I won't quibble on those points :)) 2001:569:BD76:EA00:D24:C194:918F:8CA7 (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that many of the things mentioned here like banking, guns, and post were possibly/probably in existance during the medieval period, or before, however i think it is accurate to say that modern connotations were given to his work. also the use of these things were not widespread. i think it should remain as it is. 52.212.145.55 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where he lives?

[edit]

If you look at the article for Broad Chalke, nr Salisbury, it's stated that Terry Pratchett lives there, and it's west-south-west of Salisbury. This article says he lives in a village north-west of Salisbury - which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.100.56 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

[edit]

I've added Sir Terry's personal coat of arms. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error of Arms

[edit]

I'm no expert on heraldry, but the image of Pterry's arms looks *nothing* like the blazon (there's a joke in there somewhere, I know). Is there anyone qualified in the heraldic art that can verify that the image is correct? 207.216.8.30 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction in References

[edit]

Hi I can't edit this myself I don't know why. Reference 115 ^ "Saurio interviews Terry Pratchett". laideafija.com.ar. no date. Retrieved 15 March 2008. has an old link. The new one is http://www.laideafija.com.ar/especiales/pratchett/PRATCHETT_interview.html

Also, the date of the interview is January 2002, in La Idea Fija #4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatzniemand (talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatzniemand (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the reference. You can edit a reference by editing the text it first appears in (the publishing history section). Jarkeld (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movies based on Discworld books

[edit]

It says in the wikipaedia article on Terry Pratchett that he has shied away from "feature films". Perhaps that means that they have not been released in theaters, but I have seen four movies based on Diskworld novels, that I borrowed from the Minneapolis, MN central library. Soul Music and Wyrd Sisters were animated. Colour of Magic and Hogfather were made with live actors. Perhaps these were made for TV or direct to DVD, and thus don't qualify as "feature films" but I don't understand why they are not mentioned in the article. They are all worth seeing if you like Pratchett's work. ```` 11/23/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.241.46 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late but: They are mentioned in the section "Television" and were mentioned also by the time you asked that question (cf. [1]). Regards SoWhy 13:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terry Pratchett Arms.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Terry Pratchett Arms.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Terry Pratchett Arms.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

{{Authority control}} in the article footer links library catalog data.

I have provided two formal references to the CILIP website (now refs #13, 14):

They are now underutilized for the mere fact that Pratchett won the 2001 Carnegie Medal. Three of the contemporary press releases feature Pratchett and The Educated Maurice .... One is the full transcript of his acceptance speech, for which this biography elsewhere cites a secondary source.

--P64 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing career

[edit]
second of two sections posted at once

Writing career (now sec. 3) comprises two subsections without any general preface. The first is Awards, essentially a prose list. The second is Fandom. The heading "Writing career" is both misleading and odd when considered beside the next section heading "Writing".

Considering the contents I wonder whether "Writing" (now section 4) belongs in advance of both Interests (2) and "Writing career" (3).

--P64 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a bibliography?

[edit]

Honestly, though I found a lot of fascinating tangential information, all I really came to this article for was a simple bibliography - a list of everything Pratchett has written. Isn't this standard Wikipedia procedure? -Jatopian (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I'll just go and get the full list off Wikip ... ahh ... errr hmmm ... Roly (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if there's sarcasm here, but the section "Works" in this article lists all the non-Discworld novels, and the Discworld article has the, um, Discworld ones. Stephenb (Talk) 13:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in
—which includes about three dozen "shortfiction" and twice that many "essays".
ISFDB does have completeness within-genre (speculative fiction) as a goal and it does list some non-genre works. I suppose it is directed by the time and interest of volunteer editors, same as Wikipedia. But bibliography its purpose so it achieves something much closer to completeness.
Complete lists of works are not common in Wikipedia biographies nor are standalone author bibliographies common. A complete list of books is common within biographies, but so are lists of books that are incomplete in different ways and organized on different principles. (Eg, Piers Anthony bibliography is almost nothing but a title/date list of books organized by series name.)
There is a project WikiProject Bibliographies concerned with our coverage.
It's possible that Pratchett does merit some standalone bibliography.
--P64 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff

[edit]

'His latest Discworld book, Snuff, is the third-fastest-selling novel since records began in the United Kingdom, selling 55,000 copies in the first three days.'

The record is now redundant and should be changed to past tense (The Casual Vacancy sold 125,000 in three days), although I find the original claim itself dubious, since the later Harry Potter books sold millions in their first 24 hours, let alone three days.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be reliably sourced (see [2]) but your point is correct in that the wording is misleading - the source for it says third-fast selling "hardback adult-audience novel" (which obviously excludes Harry Potter since those are children-targeted books even if adults read them). I'll change it but you need to provide a source for that The Casual Vacancy claim since the current source in that article does not back that. Regards SoWhy 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. There we go. The Casual Vacancy sold 124,603 copies in three days, to be exact. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed it :-) Regards SoWhy 09:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arms of Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE.jpg

[edit]

File:Arms of Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Roly (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_March_4#File:Arms_of_Sir_Terry_Pratchett.2C_OBE.jpg, but it seems to have been recreated as own work at File:Terry Pratchett COA.svg, which seems fine, as COAs design is, I think, not copyrightable, only the particular rendering is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

[edit]
The infobox includes |signature = Terrys-signature.jpg --now hidden-- which previously generated redlink File:Terrys-signature.jpg. Perhaps it's another file that has been deleted. If not then perhaps corrupted by a vandal. --P64 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the signature, it's deemed copyrightable according to US law - even if you own a book with a signature, you don't own the right to reproduce it, and so on, not unless Terry has signed an appropriate waver for you... see Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Terrys-signature.jpg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influences/influenced

[edit]

{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. Its template documentation now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

Here are the current parameter values (cut and paste except bullet points):

See Talk: Ray Bradbury#Influences/influenced for some more explanation with cross-references.

--P64 (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations

[edit]

Could some fan look into the adaptations here and in Discworld, especially radio plays, and decide what belongs where, sort it, and provide references? Based on what i found at radiolistings.co.uk, the BBC plays could even be expanded into separate articles so that their titles no longer refer to the books... (Not sure if a stand alone articles are worth it, though). Thanks WikiHannibal (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some (all?) of the BBC radio adaptations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03mz1wb/episodes/guide —80.192.180.160 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why the adaptations section makes no mention of the several Boardgames? (dont have an account and have never posted before so unsure how to sign??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.173.242 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave an edit unsigned then a robot will usually do it for you, but you can always sign yourself by typing four tildes (~ 4 times) or by clicking on the signature and timestamp button at the top of the edit window. Both methods, I believe, work even if you have no account; they use your IP address. As for your question, I'm not sure if boardgames count as adaptations; I suppose they do but I don't know anything about them. --Roly (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger is for children?

[edit]

I just finished reading Dodger and was a bit surprised to find it listed under "Children's novels". I don't know Terry's intention of the target audience, but without underestimating children's capabilities, I would think that many points within the story won't just be understood by children. Geziefer (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly intended as a "Young Adult" novel and is stocked in bookshops in the Children's section Stephenb (Talk) 10:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't routinely distinguish "young adults" in the sense of teens or adolescents from children. It's done in some articles, not in others, and this article is one of the nots. Where we do distinguish in biographies, I know from experience that we often rely on the author's own presentation online.
By default "children's novels" include all that might be submitted for the Carnegie Medal (literary award), whose judges have recommended many finalists for ages 14+ on the one hand or for ages 8+ on the other. ... The 2007 winner Just in Case by Meg Rosoff was recommended for ages 14+. ... She won the annual young-adult book award from U.S. librarians (Printz Award, distinguished from the children's Newbery Medal in 2000) for How I Live Now. Pratchett has been a Printz finalist for both Nation and Dodger and he has won the corresponding lifetime Edwards award ...
Now for a grain of salt, or three. For that YA lifetime award the US librarians cited Amazing Maurice, Nation, and The Colour of Magic among others. The first two were recommended for ages 10+ and 11+ by UK Carnegie Medal juries and the latter is generally or universally considered adult fantasy. --P64 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Book articles should be more informative, perhaps even in the lead; our Nation (novel) and Dodger (novel) should be revised. Here those two might be called young-adult literature, within the children's section, relying on those American honors for support.
We call the 1989–1990 Nome trilogy "for young readers", which implies young primary schoolchildren to me, a la the 6–8 years Smarties Prize.
--P64 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spider named for Pratchett

[edit]

I am not sure if it is worth mentioning, but there is a species of spider named for Terry Pratchett, Anelosimus pratchetti. (Full disclosure, I just wrote that article). I am not sure if it warrants mention in this article, but thought it might be worth consideration. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long Mars or Long childhood?

[edit]

I saw that Amazon use two different names for the The Long Earth #3. Both "The long childhood" and "The long Mars" are used. Is there anyone who knows which one is official, or is there a US/UK difference in the naming? Haaninjo (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no link with the country, they just changed the title, if I remember well. It was first The Long Childhood, now it is The Long Mars[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.59.204 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/terry+pratchett/stephen+baxter/long+mars/10071612/

Announcement of Terry Pratchett's Death

[edit]

Section "Life", subsection "Alzheimer's disease and death", Please change "Pratchett died on 12 March 2015 from final complications with Alzheimers, according to his publisher. Tweets from his account just after his death included one saying "Terry took Death’s arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night."" to: "Pratchett died on 12 March 2015 from final complications with Alzheimers, according to his publisher. Through his tweeter account, it was announced with three tweets: AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER. Terry took Death’s arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night. The End. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitris.m.stathis (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 March 2015‎

 Done by someone else - this page has had over 80 edits in the last 3.5 hours - Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


As he pointed out in a talk or essay published in A Slip of the Keyboard, he advocated control of the circumstances of one's death, and noted at one point that in Oregon State, something like half of the people who purchased medications related to "assisted suicide" never used them - he inferred from this that it was the sense of control, of power, that mattered, the realization that they were there to be used if they were needed- they were not always purchased by people with a morbid insistence on dying immediately, far from. (I mention this I hope unnecessarily, detecting some implication of irony read from the fact that this advocate of "assisted suicide" died of natural causes. It's clear from how he understood what he was advocating, that there was no contradiction/irony/whathave involved at all. Might not need to be said, of course :) ) Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # 161. (atm)

[edit]

to the mp3 with [John Mullan] tells as Date the 18 December 2009, but the Guardian Website there says: 18 June 2010, the url seems to proof the 18 Dec 2009-Date but... I have learned, that this sometime is wrong -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 20:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This video from the same event has a publication date of 19 December 2009. --Nick RTalk 22:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your fast response and for the Link to the Video -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 23:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final tweets

[edit]

Currently the Wiki page has it that Pratchett's daughter posted the tweets announcing her father's passing. According to this page, they were actually posted by his assistant, Rob Wilkins (the article mentions a statement from Pratchett's literary agent): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-31859675 --62.49.5.196 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tweets appear on both Rhianna and Terry(and Rob)'s Twitters, it's likely that both are true. Rob posted on @terryandrob, and Rhianna posted on @rhipratchett (with shaking hands and tearful eyes, as she later mentions). I believe the tweets were posted on Terry's twitter before they were on Rhiannas, if that's considered worth mentioning. The difference seems to be about 4 hours, but I'm not sure how to precisely date/time tweets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.181.181 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #53.

[edit]

Reference #53 appears cited as a source for a quote from Pratchett, but the cite is only a link to the Wikipedia page of the "Front Row" radio program. Please cite a verifiable source!
Cpt. Samuel Vimes (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pratchett, the BBC and a Choosing to Die

[edit]

Sorry but, instead of a fair and balanced view, this article appears to read more like the Terry Pratchett fan club. For there is little mention of his involvement in the BBC documentary Choosing to Die - nor the complaints that followed:

"This is pro-assisted suicide propaganda loosely dressed up as a documentary. The evidence is that the more you portray this, the more suicides you will have." Alistair Thompson, a spokesman for the Care Not Killing Alliance pressure group

"I think an opportunity had been bypassed of having a balanced programme – the thousands of people who use the hospice movement and who have a good and peaceful death, there was very little about them.” Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester

“As for the BBC, I wonder what the moral status is of exploiting a writer with a degenerative brain disease to nudge us towards a creepy change in the law – at our expense, of course.” Damian Thompson, Editor of Telegraph Blogs

Could not this article make more of this BBC 'documentary' and related issues? Might not this article address the issue of whether or not Terry Pratchett's brain disease had a negative impact on his views about death and dying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.134.111 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're the one with the agenda, not the article. "Pro-killing agenda"? A bit sensationalist, wouldn't you say?
The article describes Pratchett's involvement in the the documentary and links to the Wikipedia article about it, Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die, which goes into lots of detail about the documentary's reception. This article isn't the place for that information.
There is no evidence that Pratchett's disease impaired his judgement on these issues, which are consistent with what we know about Pratchett's general worldview before the illness. Popcornduff (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the section heading. BLP still applies to TP, and to this talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pratchett observed that several thousand complaints were received before the broadcast ('preactions' not reactions, as he described them); he felt that social media traffic after the broadcast largely welcomed the programme. BBC Radio4 'Front Row' 20 Oct 2011 Hackneymartian (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Terry Pratchett

[edit]

A movement has started to honor him via reference. An initial Reddit thread spawned a wide variety of ways to add the header after one redditor mourned the loss, quoting Going Postal. The BBC wrote a short article about the phenomenon. Indrora (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could do with coverage of the effect of Pratchett's death, the people who wrote and spoke about him, memorials, fan reaction, the "bring back Terry Pratchett" petition and so on. Popcornduff (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I second this idea. Also a website gnuterrypratchett.com has been set up with instructions on how to set this up for a variety of server platforms. The movement has also started to be picked up by various news outlets The Guardian, The Telegraph. Leeraven172 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would love for someone who knows the code to do this. Google search results already has a "GNU Terry Pratchett" in their overhead when you look up his name! Here are the GNU Instructions, to any soul who might find them...I wish I could do it myself but it's all Klatchian to me. --GymLeaderRebecca (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Lost in Magic?

[edit]

As with people that attempt to avoid real world upsetting their private lives, Terry Pratchett appears to display a certain dis-like of realism - or seeing the world as it is. Might not a section on any such lack-of-realism add depth and insight into Terry Pratchett's view of the world? Might it even highlight his Death Fixation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.109.90 (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m guessing you did not read Pratchett? Rgds ✦ hugarheimur 22:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obviously, and of course unsourced. The IP seems here only to attack TP without sources. Well sourced criticism is of course fine. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

[edit]

Please change After his death, Pratchett's daughter Rhianna wrote in three tweets from her father's Twitter account: to After his death, Rob Wilkins wrote in their joint Twitter account @terryandrob:

Colin Smythe Personal knowledge as Sir Terry Pratchett's agent.

92.30.19.66 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source (BBC): [3] —Midgrid(talk) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion seems to have arisen because Rhianna posted the same three tweets on her own account.—Midgrid(talk) 11:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source. Done. Popcornduff (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many power stations

[edit]

"Press Officer for the Central Electricity Generating Board in an area which covered three nuclear power stations."

The source cited for this paragraph says 4 stations not 3. As did TP on BBC Desert Island Disks at 23:15. As does the author's bio in (UK) editions of the first dozen or so Discworld novels. Hackneymartian (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edit, thanks. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'Pratchett' instead of 'Sir Terry' throughout?

[edit]

Is using surnames only a US affectation? Sir Terry was English, and that is the more usual way to refer to him in non-US English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisboote (talk • contribs) 10:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the Wikipedia "Manual of style", specifically the section MOS:LASTNAME. This encourages consistency across the encyclopedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Britain

Apart from the die-hard Royal supporters, most modern Brits in 2015 find the idea of calling anyone 'Sir' a totally out-dated affectation. It is mainly the reactionaries that tend to believe titles impress the 'lower orders'. Since the title 'Sir' is out-of-step with the modern world, is not Wikipedia wise to avoid using it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.178.238 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's a knight he's a "Sir". Please do not presume to speak for about fifty million people. We do tend not to use the "Sir" repeatedly as after the first time the point has been made. Britmax (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. I am certainly a diehard Royalist and even I would find use of "Sir Terry" instead of "Pratchett" throughout the article to be overly obsequious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Escaping to Fantasy Island

[edit]

“Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see…” Bohemian Rhapsody, Queen

Since Pratchett said he focused on fantasy because, "It is easier to bend the universe around the story", might it not be useful to highlight the ways people use fantasy to bend others to there views on the universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.255.60 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea but I don't see how. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia article about this one person, not a repository for literary theory or criticism, or a comparative piece on other writers. If you could find a reliable source which addresses this issue and specifically with regard to Pratchett then maybe, yes, but I think your proposal above possibly too broad and unlikley to be reference-able - sorry to be so negative! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting a quote obviously written in the character of Death

[edit]

The article contains a quote from Twitter:

AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.

Terry took Death's arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night.

The End.

Since the first part of that quote is clearly intended to be Discworld's Death "speaking" to Pratchett, I argue that it should be rendered in the typographic style used for Death's words in the Discworld books. As such, the first line should be:

AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.

or perhaps:

AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.

MOS:QUOTE states that "a quotation is not a facsimile" and that formatting should be changed without comment when doing so does not obscure the meaning of the text. In this case, special formatting is, in a sense, part of the meaning of the text--in the Discworld stories, Death "speaks" in unquoted small-caps. That limitations of Twitter prevent the original from having that formatting should not prevent us on Wikipedia, where we can do such formatting, from using it. Pathore (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well argued. I'm persuaded, go ahead. Popcornduff (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which leaves one question: which variant is more appropriate for the encyclopedia, all small-caps or some letters fully capitalized? (I hadn't thought of this at first.) Pathore (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably whichever the books use? Popcornduff (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, that's a good question. My knowledge of Discworld is second-hand--I have yet to actually read any of the books. I'll use the all small-caps version, if someone else thinks the more complex markup is appropriate, it can be copied from here easily enough. Pathore (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look at a couple of novels, I see that it looks like it's all small caps, not caps-and-small-caps. Having said that, my personal view - not that I am going to edit war over it - is that it is wrong, in an encyclopaedia article which is quoting Twitter, to attempt to reproduce the typeset style of a book. I don't think Wikipedia is under any obligation at all to have its typography dictated to it by an external publication, let alone to try too hard to reproduce what we think would have been done if Twitter's technical limitations permitted it. It seems a bit - uh, I hate to say this, and please excuse the apparent disrespect - it seems a bit fanboyish (sorry) of us to try to make the article look like the book - I'm just not clear why, exactly, an encyclopaedia would want to do this. I honestly think it would be wiser to just quote what Twitter said. And - I really should shut up in a minute! - on a completely separate tack I don't think it looks good in small caps. It looks - well, small, in a way that Death actually doesn't seem to in the books, so I think it's missing its target a bit anyway. Should we have a note to non-Pratchett-expert readers to explain the apparently strange typography? Erkkkk, I think not. They can read about it at Death (Discworld) if they are that riveted; I think the principle of least astonishment, or confusion, or something, means stick to all caps. But, as I say, no fisticuffs from me over this, and I am shutting up right now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your original rationale was my first position, too. Now I'm torn. (Which is unlike me.) Popcornduff (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm - sounds almost like a cue for a song?? :) DBaK (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly only a good edit war can resolve this. Who's in? Popcornduff (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not have a lame edit war like the one at Leonard Nimoy over capitalizing a quoted Instagram message. Pathore (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Death's unusual voice (and the oddball typography that expresses it in the Discworld books) is notable enough to be the first thing we mention about the character itself. We also use unquoted caps-and-small-caps in that article when quoting Death. Further, the tweet is in all-caps--the closest to the typeset style possible on Twitter. Since the intended meaning is obvious, I argue that we should carry the style the rest of the way, because we can. You are right, however, that we shouldn't make an excessive effort to follow Pratchett's style--if caps-and-small-caps is more appropriate for the encyclopedia, then we should use that, regardless of the exact typography used in the books.
As for fanboyism and the note to readers, we already use Pratchett's style for the quotes in Death's article and we already had notes in both places where the tweets are quoted: The use of block capitals is a reference to how the character of Death speaks in Pratchett's works. Now that I look at it, that article also quotes these tweets--I'll make the same change there after we build consensus on whether all-small-caps, caps-and-small-caps or all-caps is most appropriate for the encyclopedia. Pathore (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely small caps are used for the Death of Rats? Britmax (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the article section you linked: The Death of Rats, like Death, speaks in small caps, but has a vocabulary consisting of words such as Squeak, Eek, Ik and Snh. Both use small-caps in the books (or so people say here), but Death uses actual words while the Death of Rats has speech that is only understood by the other character's responses. Consensus seems to be that, regardless of the exact typography used in the books, mixed caps-and-small-caps is most appropriate for quoting Discworld's Death in the encyclopedia. Pathore (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry's contributions to Oblivion mod "Companion Vilja", et al

[edit]

Hi, I found a mod for a game called Oblivion, whose info page states that Terry Pratchett contributed very much to it (http://www.nexusmods.com/oblivion/mods/28977/?). The info page was written by the mod author, and unfortunately it thus counts as a primary source. I was wondering if a podcast of the mod author mentioning Sir Terry's work on the mod, such as in the Morrowind Modding Interview series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhUNP1i3k44), would be a valid reference?

Thanks for any input!

Solistide (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't described in independent reliable sources, it isn't of encyclopaedic significance. This article isn't an exhaustive list of everything Pratchett ever did... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fictional influences?

[edit]

Need a few more of his reference influences here, such as Brewers, Straight Dope, Phrase and Fable and Charles Panati. There are influences such as T H White and Lovecraft etc. not mentioned. Slightnostalgia (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Terry Pratchett. 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 to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship

[edit]

Pratchett left a $100,000 scholarship to the University of South Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/sir-terry-pratchett-scholarship-uni-sa/6809714. It's probably worth mentioning in the article. Perhaps a new "Legacy" section? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality improvement project - Lie-to-children

[edit]

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)[reply]

Nickname obvious from title of article

[edit]

Unfortunately, the practice of adding an article subject's nickname in quotes within the first mention of his/her full name has become common enough that many editors believe it is proper WP procedure. It is not, and it's a trend that is in need of reversal. If you look at WP:MOSBIO (and more specifically, MOS:FULLNAME) you will notice that that construction is never used, in any of the numerous examples. It is acceptable to add a professional name separately, after the dates, when that name is completely different from the birth name (example: Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), better known by his pen name George Orwell). It is even acceptable to add a nickname after the dates in the same manner if the origin of the nickname is not obvious (example: William Alexander Abbott (October 2, 1895 – April 24, 1974), known professionally as Bud Abbott); but it's rarely necessary if that version of the name already appears as the article title. Readers are not idiots, and should not be treated as such; in this case, we don't need to explain to them that "Terry" is short for "Terence".DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a helpful feature and do not think that it needs reversal or that it treats people as stupid. Let's see what others think. Britmax (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you think of as helpful or not helpful is not the point really. Many of our articles use this convention (e. g. Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Terry Gilliam, Jack London etc.) for years now and afaik no reader ever complained about how that made them think we treat them as stupid. Quite the contrary, it allows them to understand that the first name used is really just an abbreviation and has no other reason. I understand that you believe it's wrong but if you disagree, then get consensus to change / amend WP:MOSBIO accordingly, not make changes that have no basis in consensus. PS: You are experienced enough to know reinstating an edit after multiple people disagreed and told you to discuss it first, constitutes edit-warring and if you do it again, I won't hesitate taking you to WP:ANEW, no matter if you break 3RR or not. Regards SoWhy 16:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether you think my opinion is that the "Name" should be left in the article. I feel it should be. Britmax (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong indent. I wanted to reply to DoctorJoeE. Fixed now. Regards SoWhy 17:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pardon me, SoWhy, but there is no change to effect in MOSBIO. As mentioned above, there is nothing there to suggest that the inclusion of a nickname in the first mention of a full name is proper WP procedure. Quite the opposite, actually -- here is a direct quote from WP:NCP:

Page names are hardly suitable to clarify, explain or in any other way elaborate on the composition of a name. Notable distinctions can be explained in the article, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s), in quotes between first and last name. For example: Bill Clinton, not William "Bill" Clinton.

(The emphasis is mine.) They could have cited a better example, frankly, since "Bill Clinton" is one of the notable exceptions, where the man's nickname is in far more common usage than his full, given name -- but the point is the same: Nicknames are not supposed to be added within full names at first mention. That is why I changed it back before coming here to discuss it. Regards. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is where you are wrong, I'm afraid. WP:NCP is a guideline that governs the title of a page, not its content, so it does not apply to the content of the lede. In many examples, Pratchett included, the nickname is more prominent than the real name and we almost always use the GivenName "Nickname" LastName format in the lede; I mentioned a few above and there are countless others (e. g. Jack Nicholson, Jack Straw, Terry Callier, Terry Fox, Hank Aaron, Hank Greenberg etc.). In fact, the examples in the WP:NICKNAME section of the guideline you cite explicitly use this format, such as Dizzy Gillespie, Scotty Bowman and H. G. Wells. So no, there is no reason to assume that your interpretation is correct. Feel free to suggest a change of the guideline to explicitly state that nicknames are not necessary in the lede but until then, there is no reason to change the way we handle this from the way we do in many many many other articles.
As for the edit-warring, the whole point of that policy is that you don't reinstate your preferred version before discussion takes place and you should know that. Once your edit has been undone because of a disagreement, you should never redo it again but start discussing the proposed change. Making the same edit twice despite knowing that your edit is controversial constitutes edit-warring, no matter how good you think your reasons are. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, to put this back on track, using WP:NCP is indeed wrong for the matter here but DoctorJoeE originally used, and I quote "WP:MOSBIO (and more specifically, MOS:FULLNAME)", which specifically mentions the example of Bill Clinton: "(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946) ..." - as you all can see, it is used without the short form "Bill". It can be inferred that the short form that appears now in the article Bill Clinton: "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946)" (and many others), is in coflict with the aforementioned MOS:FULLNAME. (Personally, I do not have an opionon on this matter.) Cheers, --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that argument does not really work. We can use WikiBlame to determine that this example was added on 6 August 2005. The nickname was added to Bill Clinton on 23 April 2007, so of course the example in MOSBIO does not include a change that was made later and thus it cannot be argued that the example means we should omit nicknames. On the contrary, per WP:SILENCE we can assume that a change that has not been reverted for ten years on one of the probably most-read articles - just like the fact that nicknames are added to almost any such biography, see above - reflects consensus and thus its reversal needs to be discussed first. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the subject is overwhelmingly known by a nickname (as is the case here), I prefer to give the nickname first, and then the full name in parentheses. It may not be "standard", but it is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I've given some version of this stock response so often I'm going to save this as a personal template or an essay. [Done: WP:NICKUSE.] And Talk:Terry Pratchett is not a good venue for a continuing discussion of how to handle nicknames on Wikipedia anyway.) Let's just cite WP:COMMONSENSE on this, and say a) do what our other articles do, and b) when in doubt, do what the majority of general-audience reliable sources do, while c) opting for clarity for those unfamiliar with the subject. There is no need to try to "explain" conventional nicknames like Bill and Liz with quotation marks ('William "Bill" Clinton'), or to insert them parenthetically into the name ('William (Bill) Clinton'), or to add a note about it. There are multiple obvious approaches to leads when editors feel some kind of annotation is warranted, e.g.: 'Xenia Youill Zounds, best known as Xen Zounds', and 'Xen Zounds (born Xenia Youill Zounds)'. Reserve quotation marks for actual nicknames in the strict sense, not diminutives: 'Xen Zounds, nicknamed "The Amsterdam Slugger", is a professional kickboxer". Do not insert them into the name ('Xen "Slugger" Zounds') unless the WP:COMMONNAME is that exact form, with the nickname added mid-name, which is quite rare (I've only encountered on example here that I can recall). Otherwise, use something like 'Xenia Youill Zounds, known professionally as Slugger Zounds', or whatever the context dictates. The parenthetical insertion approach can be done in running prose (passing mention, not the subject's own lead) when a diminution is unusual ('Albert Berman (Abie) Carson'), and one could probably get away with the quoted style for a nickname (again, not in the subject's own lead): 'Albert Berman "Ferret" Carson', as we might use at an article on mobsters. Finally, do not add bogus nicknames that are actually just single journalist's (usually sports journalists) turns of phrase; if a Guardian writer's headline happens to refer to some Australian player with something like "Melbourne Menace Takes Title", that does not magically make the player's nickname "the Melbourne Menace". If a dozen sources call him that, then you have a case for inclusion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [Followups to Wikipedia talk:Using nicknames, please.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)][reply]
  • The nickname should appear in the lead. My preference would be to follow the Encyclopedia Britannica practice: "Jimmy Carter, in full James Earl Carter, Jr." ... "Babe Ruth, byname of George Herman Ruth, Jr., also called the Bambino and the Sultan of Swat ..." Cbl62 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you,  SMcCandlish, for taking the time to post an essay on this subject. I agree, quotation marks should be reserved for actual nicknames in the strict sense, not diminutives or abbreviations. As you said, there is no need to "explain" short names that are common and conventional (to English speakers), like Bill and Liz -- and in this case, Terry. As an aside, SoWhy, I argued the other side -- your side -- of this discussion with another editor some time ago. I thought I was right, too -- until I couldn't find a single example in MOSBIO, or anywhere else, to support my position. (If you have any such examples, suggesting that diminutives or abbreviations should be added within full names at first mention, please share them.) But I have come around to the view that the primary goal is clarity -- and as SMcCandlish put it, "browbeating readers as if they are idiots is not a tactic for achieving it." If we go back to this specific example: When the article title is "Terry Pratchett", do we really need to explain that Terry is short for Terrence? Does Britannica, or any other classic encyclopedia that you know of, do so? No, and no. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish also says that per WP:COMMONSENSE we should do what our other articles do and as I have pointed out, almost all articles where the subject's better known first name is a diminutive use this way. As I noted above as well, consensus can exist without being codified in MOSBIO or anywhere else in the MOS; on the contrary, if a huge majority of editors see no problem with this way of handling diminutives, this itself demonstrates consensus per WP:SILENCE. I personally am opposed to such removals as I don't share the "it treats readers as morons" POV since not everyone might be familiar with the various diminutives, especially if English is the reader's second language (like it is mine); those arguing this point seem to forget that en-wiki is used by many non-native speakers because it's the largest edition and thus has articles on many subjects that other languages might not have. But if this is supposed to be the "correct" way to handle such cases, then the guideline should explicitly say so. But this is, as SMcCandlish notes, not the right place to argue such a change and until such a change has been made, I see not much support here for your removal. Regards SoWhy 17:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we will have to agree to disagree; I've been here long enough to know that when 2 or 3 editors think they agree on something, nothing -- even facts -- will change their minds, at least publicly. I don't expect you to change your mind, but I do hope that your mind is not completely closed to other viewpoints. I'll point out again that that construction is used nowhere in MOSBIO -- which means, if I understand WP:SILENCE correctly, that there's already consensus that diminutive nicknames should not be included within full names -- hence, there is no need to change anything. Furthermore, you have provided no evidence that a "huge majority" of editors see no problem with it, and it's certainly not true that "almost all" articles have that construction, nor even that the mere fact that something is being done necessarily means it's reasonable, or correct. I'll ask once again: do we really need to explain that Terry is short for Terrence? Really? I hope you'll think about that, but I've spent too much time on this small point, and I'm moving on. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't just explain the obvious, it tells us that this variation of name is used in the case of this person. In one word. As I said to the person arguing against this in the other article, find something useful to do. There's plenty about. Britmax (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the title already tells us that, as does the infobox beginning "Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE" followed immediately with "Born: Terence David John Pratchett". It's redundant and reader-unhelpful to have the lead begin with an ugly and harder-to-parse "Sir Terence David John (Terry) Pratchett, OBE". (Even worse, it was originally 'Sir Terence David John "Terry" Pratchett, OBE', using "scare quotes" around Terry as if it's a weird nickname like "Scarface" or "The Buckinghamshire Strangler".)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly -- thank you. The title already tells us that. My precise point, from the beginning. dDoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trying, again, to put some sense into this. What about using WP:ALTNAME: "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper. Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable." ? WikiHannibal (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. There's no problem with including hypocorisms (good word!) after the individual's dates -- but it's rarely necessary if that version of the name appears as the article title. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is not part of the body of the article. If a person is commonly known by a nickname, diminutive, or hypocorism, then that common name should be stated in some fashion in the lead of the person's article. It really does seem to me that the Britannica format, referenced above, is best: "Jimmy Carter, in full James Earl Carter, Jr." Cbl62 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The title is, however, the first thing that any reader looks at -- so readers already know the most commonly-associated name before they get to the article itself. Reference once again to WP:ALTNAME, which is pretty unambiguous. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll have clicked on a Wiki or Google link to get to the article, so won't necessarily be looking at the title first. It's patently ridiculous to expect the reader to have to look at an infobox for the first mention of Terry's name being Terry, rather than having the name Terry used every day be right there in the lead sentence. ALTNAME and MOS:NICKNAME need some common sense applied! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today's punctuation edit

[edit]

While I agree with the movement of the punctuation today - and it appears to be correct for the Engvar in which this article is written - the previous punctuation inside quotation marks was correct for American English lol. Newimpartial (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the Manual of Style. See MOS:LQ. Nitpicking polish (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl. I didn't know there was a house style on that point, much less one I agree with. Colour me enlightened. ;). Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about MOS:LQ either. A good find... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death announcement on Twitter

[edit]

SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.

Terry took Death's arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night.

The End.[1]

The use of small capitals is a reference to how the character of Death speaks in Pratchett's works.[1]

The tweet in question does not use small capitals, it uses normal capitals. Small capitals may well have been used in the books, but they were not used in the twitter announcement. This is incorrect.

References

  1. ^ a b "How did Terry Pratchett tweet after his death?". BBC News. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 15 March 2015.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Terry Pratchett. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Day release?

[edit]

the wiktionary entry linked to defines this term as a temporary release from imprisonment. really? imprisonment for what? when? if this isn't facetiousness or vandalism, the lack of detail is a significant omission.Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toyokuni3: I'd say it was carelessness. I've clarified it. It was the 2nd definition, day release from work, which is this case was a strict apprenticeship. Thanks for spotting it. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Terry Pratchett. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Terry Pratchett. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parody in Terry Pratchett - a source

[edit]

"Seriously Relevant: Parody, Pastiche and Satire in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld Novels" a chapter in a 2018 Springer book Critical Approaches to Children's Literature. Note that it doesn't say that his early novels were parody, but " that the development of the Discworld novels is marked by a movement away from straightforward pastiche towards parody and travesty. Over time, the emphasis has shifted from the source text to the new text, and pastiche has been replaced by increasingly sophisticated parody and satire, which Pratchett uses to create a fantasy world with a very real and relevant edge to it."

Some but not all of the text is here. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. For those interested, most of the book can be accessed on GBooks by appending the page number you need, e.g. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_t9LDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA145 will display page 145, PA146 will display 146 etc. Do that to read all pages. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Gender Criticial' controversy

[edit]

Recently, Pratchett has become embroiled, posthumously, in a controversy where 'gender critical' activists have attempted to co-opt Pratchett as an assumed supporter of their cause; close associates and even his daughter have rebuked this claim. It's reached the media mainstream and op-eds and such have arisen. How, if at all, should this be included in the article? It's worth reminding of recency bias and our implicit drive to avoid it. DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not convinced this is in any way relevant to this particular article (as opposed to, perhaps, our Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobia article). Cheers ⌘ 22:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Aching : children - Young adult

[edit]

I was surprised by the absence of the early Tiffany Aching books in the Children section. 173.178.67.88 (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Terry Pratchett

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: It has been pointed out that the sourcing and some aspects of the writing in this article are below GA standards, and with multiple citation needed tags and "more citations needed" banners in several sections, this is a clear Delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since a GAR nom. I have some problems with this article.

  • The works section has been tagged for additional citations needed for verification.
  • there's two citation needed tags in styles and themes section.
  • He has UK sales of more than 2.5 million copies a year.[34][better source needed]
  • I also have a problem with broadness. For some reason, the section of his career is two paragraphs smaller than the paragraph on his alzheimer's disease. I feel as if there's undue weight there.

That's it. Would take some work to hopefully bring this back to status. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved one tag and will try to help if anyone else is willing to take the lead on this. (I'm reluctant to delve too deep, as reading the sources is giving me spoilers for the Pratchett novels I haven't read yet :) Update: No responses, so I'll take this on and (sigh) face spoilers if need be. I don't think it's too bad. I've added a "Works cited" section that should have enough to resolve all the tags; will add inline cites. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As I look into this I'm finding more issues than just the ones identified above. There are fan sites – lspace, alt.fan.pratchett – self-published interview websites that look unreliable, a lot of primary sources and too many quotes from Pratchett. I'd started citing things to higher quality sources, but this requires a lot more attention than I'm finding the time for atm. And no one else has stepped in so far. No objections to delisting. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reorganisation

[edit]

I've just reorganised the article, with minor edits to certain paragraphs to avoid repetition. Main thing is moving his interests under the "Personal life" section (save for the award he sponsored in his final years, moved to "Career," and the posthumous one which is now under "Death and legacy") and the "Works" section which is now entirely under "Career." I notice there's several discussions going back many years that echo issues I have w/the article as it currently stands, and a couple no-one's mentioned yet, such as the introduction leaving a lot of key things out (Good Omens isn't mentioned at all in the article until the "desparately needs editing" list of collaborations.) Lot more work to be done, but this is a start, I feel. FreeBard42 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VirusTotal on www.terrypratchettbooks.com

[edit]

Excuse me for bad english, I am not native speaker.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that two antiviruses from the web service VirusTotal recognize the official site of Terry Pratchett as malicious, and one antivirus recognizes this site as a phishing one[4]. Please keep this in mind and do something if necessary. Jet Jerry (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia; I'd recommend contacting Penguin Books, who run the the site mentioned. There's nothing we can do about it. (VirusTotal frequently has false positives, by the way). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that you could just remove the URL from the section Terry Pratchett#External links, if you think it might make it safer for people to click on it. Jet Jerry (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Pratchett&oldid=1252199148"