Talk:Terry Pratchett/Archive 2

Structure of the article

What has happened to this article? Last I looked at the Wikipedia entry on Terry Pratchett (6 months or so ago), it was very good; now it is appalling. What is the point of title after title, with one sentence beneath it that reveals nothing? This is not an encyclopedic article, nor a biography; it is a collection of bullet points waiting for content. Remove these pointless titles until there is content to merit there inclusion! Puff Of Hot Air (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of an allusion that it is actually a worse article! If you look at the ‘diffs’, the actual content (other than the new one-sentence headings) it is hugely better than it was mid Jan (this is what it was then) - as it's been largely rewritten, with lots of additions. Unfortunately no-one’s contributed to all the new headings I added (and I haven’t had the time to fill myself ,though I've compiled the refs to back them up). I tell you what - I'll remove most of them today - which will make the article look 'full', and you'll see how improved it is. Rather than inspiring anyone, the headings have just annoyed a few people, and no-one’s added anything! Without the empty headings you will see the improvements. I must say it was a ghost town in here when I did it, so I'm certainly not going to apologise! My plan was to push it towards FA - but I've had no-one to talk to about it :( --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PS why are we at the top here? - the section on this (New Structure) is at the bottom - where I've said I've less time, and people can do what they want.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I had not read down to the bottom of the page to see the section on the 'New Structure' (indeed, I had not realised this was the work of one person). I see that the majority of my complaints have been addressed. In the future, might I suggest that new headings with content be added as they are completed? It would seem to me that the main page should never be in a 'draft' format. Puff Of Hot Air (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The point about security guards at book signings (supported by annex 57) - this sentence doesn't make sense! Are there some words missing? Suggest deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.152.130 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Science humour

I just wrote the page Science humour. The final section is "Humour in science fiction". I mentioned Adams, Asimov, etc. Could you please head over, and help develop the article? Discworld's astronomy/speed of light, etc., would certainly seem to fit into the page. Cheers, samwaltz 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

libertarian

That category was added. Is there any supporting evidence?DGG 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially as "libertarianism" is primarily a US political term; see Libertarian Party. The closest in the UK is the Liberal Party. As such, if the claim were true, he would be a liberal. Please keep in mind that the twisting that has accompanied the term "liberal" in the United States only applies there. In the rest of the world, what is known as a libertarian in the US is recognised as liberal, and, as Wikipedia policy is to maintain appropriate dialect, one should not use American descriptors to characterise a Briton. samwaltz 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all that US libertarian=UK liberal. There are liberals and liberals. Isaiah Berlin and Popper and Shaw were all liberals, and not one of them was anything like the other ideologically. Hornplease 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on UK political stage but:

1. The UK has it's libertarian parties listed on list of libertarian political parties in United Kingdom

2. The problem with political naming is that it's changes meanings (as shown in Rothbard essay about how other people percived his viewpoint). Additionaly people usually splits the world into two categories (right/left, conservatism/liberalism, free-market/socialism) although it is more complicated then that. Anyway AFAIK the term liberal may mean anything from social democracy to anarcho-capitalism.

3. The only Liberal Party in UK I found merged into Liberal Democracy which ideology is Liberalism and Social Liberalism. Hence although the roots are the same the UK Liberals are not libertarians. Uzytkownik (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone should probably remove the category, as well as from Night Watch, which is classified as a Libertarian Novel, despite not having any real libertarian themes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.34.175 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it - all the stuff out there I can find is purely speculative on the matter, based mostly on quotes from his books, and some dry comments in interviews. He certainly has interesting politics and a distaste for politicians, but most of us in the UK do. If I can find any real evidence I'll replace it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/terry-pratchett.html

The above link contains some evidence of his libertarian leanings Rehill (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

He said explicitly in his acceptance speech that he is a libertarian..

Is there any confirmation about it? May be he could be asked directly? Uzytkownik (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I'm new to all this so I'm not sure how it all works, but three pars of the introduction are taken word for word from answers.com. Is this allowed? or did answers take it from wiki? Douglike 12:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com is a search engine, it's more likely it got them from here. In fact on a check it says so @ the top... --Nate 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I've tried finding the most relevant sources for some of the quotes included. The only thing I can't get hold of is the hardback sales figures. Hope that helps you all. Douglike 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The refs are great, this should probably be put in for GA review soon. --Nate 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree but those sales figures are a sticking point in my head.Douglike 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah "Wikipedia on Answers.com: Terry Pratchett" right below the "Terry Pratchett" headline sort of gives that away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.38.78 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced info

I removed an odd blockquote that was added by an anon IP with a webpage as a source. The webpage itself lists no sources so is not verifiable. here is what I removed:

When he took up his position with the Western Daily Press in 1970 he moved, with wife Lyn (whom he had married in 1968), to a cottage in Rowberrow in Somerset where their daughter Rhianna was born. When he found he could not enlarge the cottage further, the family moved in 1993 to what he has described as 'a Domesday manorette' south west of Salisbury, and alert fans will have seen pictures of this on the TV interview at the time Soul Music was published.

which had the following source: http://www.lspace.org/about-terry/biography.html --Chuck Sirloin 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapters in Thud!?

The following can be found in the Trademarks section:

Another notable feature of Pratchett's style of writing is that the majority of his books are not subdivided into chapters. Pratchett himself has stated that he does this because life does not occur in chapters, nor do most movies, and that Homer did not write in chapters. He claims chapters to be unnecessary in books written for adults (WikiQuote). However, there have been exceptions; the books Going Postal and Thud! were divided into chapters.

My copy of Thud! is not divided into chapters; are there any versions of the book where this is so? Adzz 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mine isn't either. I suspect this is simply an error in the article. The Discworld article says "However, the first Discworld novel, The Colour of Magic, was divided into "books", as is Pyramids. Going Postal does have chapters" which I think is correct. Stephenb (Talk) 08:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody want to make this featured?

I've made some significant changes to the article: reorganized it, removed unnecessary sections and information (or moved it into Discworld), added 16 21 plenty of new references and expanded the lead section. This still needs some work to be a good article and later featured, so I hope I'll spark some interest in other editors.--Svetovid 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just looked @ it & been thinking hmm is this a GA yet, peer review would be a good place to start to what needs doing. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone (you?) should go through new text and fix grammar, wording, composition and such.--Svetovid 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately copy editing is not a strong point of mine , but ill give it a try. Will have to wait till home Inet is up again as not kind of thing i can do in 5 mins @ work. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Influences - only children statement Tiffany Aching

The Page stated that

"He was an only child and his characters are often with no siblings because "In fiction, only children are the interesting ones."[35] Examples include Susan Sto Helit and tiffany Aching.[27]"

Removed Tifany Aching as she has a younger brother

Thanks, I wasn't sure about that.--Svetovid 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ref doesn't mention Susan so removedit. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tifany Aching also have several older sisters, most, if not all whom are married and moved out.

I have added JRR Tolkein to the list of writers that influenced him. Pratchett was clearly influenced by JRR Tolkein - and is on record expressing his admiration for Tolkein. He once stated that he read The Lord of The Rings in 17 hours without putting it down! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.152.130 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a citation (web or other reference) for that? Where you added it was within a sentence with a clear citation for the other influences (only), so I have had to remove your addition. Stephenb (Talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Douglas Adams be in there somewhere? I kinda remenber reading his name in an article (or something similar) Terry wrote. Also their styles are very alike.89.13.63.25 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

He's made many references to real people in his novels, you can't expect all of them to be referenced. Maybe if there was some sort of contraversy about a connection, yes. But I can't see any immediately. 92.20.185.185 (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nation?

The article says that Pratchett is writing a book for 2008 called Nation. Nation has no article, however, and Google doesn't provide any details. Can we have a confirmation on this? 69.19.14.19 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See this interview, for example.--Svetovid 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pratchett's novel Nation is now published. But it isn't showing up in the list of his books at the bottom of the page. I don't know how to fix this ommission. Robauz (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to edit the template at the bottom of the page. If you look at the box, on the top left are the letters v, d, and e. You can click on "e" to edit the template. Stormcloud (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added it.--Gaunt (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

...and I've removed it. Teh template is for Discworld novels, and Nation is not set on the Discworld. Sorry! Stephenb (Talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs

I have removed him (temporarily) from "English atheists" because although he is a Humanist that could still make him an agnostic, and the citation reference after it states he is a Humanist does not make it clear which he is. CO.82.7.40.198 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing large chunks of The Science of Discworld 2 & most of SotD 3 would probably cover showing Pratchett as an atheist. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Or just type "Terry Pratchett" and "atheism" or "atheist" into Google.--Svetovid 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe one of his more famous quotes (was it from "Small Gods") was that he was angry at God for not existing. He might qualify for "weak atheist". That is an agnostic that's picked a camp :) 12.44.178.253 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right: he's says he prefers to call himself a Humanist, although I once found this quote from him saying that he thinks that if there is a God, "he probably doesn't care much if you eat meat on Fridays" (see the interview with Mark Lawson from BBC4). I guess that makes Terry an agnostic, since he leaves himself the option...The Nouv (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't believe. I never have" seems fairly conclusive "[1]" 87.246.64.2 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No its not. He can still be agnostic. To not believe in god(s) is not the same thing as being convinced that there is no god(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.38.78 (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're talking as if *atheist* and *agnostic* are exclusive categories. I, as an agnostic atheist igtheist, dispute that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRiG (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out to the two above posters: 'agnostic' and 'athiest' are by definition mutually exclusive terms. Bing an 'agnostic athiest' means that you're undecided about the existence of a god in which you already do not believe exists. 173.180.227.248 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs a citation

Hi everybody. I'm reviewing this for GA at the moment. I've removed this sentence since it heeds a citation: Tim Vickers 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If Pratchett is attending, there is often an auction in which fans can bid money to have their name included in the next Discworld book, and all proceeds go to the Orangutan Foundation.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of August 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, although some lists can become rather repetitive.

2. Factually accurate?: Yes.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Article stability? Yes.

6. Images?: Good.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

I'm really surprised at the judgement. The article as of around 20th Jan 08, had bad links and quite a lot of poor prose and layout. It also missed a lot of relevant stuff (is that a criteria though?). Has that really all happened since last August? I do doubt it. I don't think being too lax when rating an article helps it at all - many people seem to withdraw when they are congratulated and told it's now 'Good'. It was clearly on the way (I can see a lot of work had been done), but simply wasn't there yet. Also, the sub articles need alot of work too - which should be taken into account with these reviews, as unfinished stuff can easily get moved to the side. It's pointless taking it to a review - improving it is the key. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also surprised that the article is judged to be a "good article". My concern lies with the first two criteria: well written & factually accurate. There are contradictory statements in the article, consider: "He is best known for his popular and long-running Discworld series of comic fantasy novels" and "Pratchett was the UK's best-selling author of the 1990s, and as of December 2007 has sold more than 55 million books worldwide" and "Four graphic novels of Pratchett's work have been released". I know little about the subject of this Wiki entry, but it would appear that the first statement that "He is best known ..." is probably the one that is inaccurate (at least if the other two are true). Also as regards the "factually accurate" criteria, there are so many missing citations that one wonders how much is speculation, POV or rumour. 89.240.228.222 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point; surely it is because Terry is "best known for his popular and long-running Discworld series" that he was able to become "the UK's best-selling author" (I accept this may no longer be true). Why is this inconsistent with having 4 graphic novels published? Could you please clarify this. StormCloud (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been (substantially) reworked since the GA assessment. Perhaps another assessment should be done?   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 11:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Short story about chicken

My edition of Knights of Madness starts with different Pratchett story - about group of chicken stranded on a motorway side, which are trying to cross a road using more and more complex technology. I can't find it mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.166.63 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This story is Hollywood Chickens and is the firs story in Once More (With Footnotes)

Are you sure you have the right book?

chrisboote (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

had a stroke

this should be in the article: [2]. Apparently he had a mini-stroke a few years ago and it was only recently diagnosed. --86.135.68.207 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wee Free Men release date

A couple of days ago, User:Joanharvest changed the year of release for The Wee Free Men film from 2008 to 2010. I asked her about this, and it seems that on IMDB it is indeed listed as 2010. Unfortunately, since it's still "In Development", you have to subscribe to IMDBPro to get access to all the gory details. Can anyone help us out here? Confusing Manifestation 08:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Terry and Alzheimer's

Terry has posted [3] that he has being diagnosed with a rare form of early-onset alzheimers. I've posted a brief summary of the news, as well as linking to the original post.

What's nice is that he's being optimistic about it - and a little cheeky too. :o) --Sqrnookle (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The link seems to point to a "recent news" page, and will go out of date eventually / really soon. Is there a reference with a more permanent URL available? 192.108.125.11 (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the format of the other archived news urls, it should eventually be availible at http://www.paulkidby.com/news/dec2007.html Jordb (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pratchett's reference to dementia research garnering only 3% of the money that cancer research is given is incorrect. The facts are that dementia research receives 3% of the total government sponsored research budget, with all cancer research receiving 25%. 350,000 people are dignosed with cancer every year; 39,400 are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. The budget allocations are commensurate with incidence. I added this (with references) to the relevant section and had the lot deleted within 10 minutes. Maybe his acolytes don't like 'his word' to be corrected?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.211.38 (talk • contribs)

Actually, whether or not he is correct was not the issue - this article is not about Alzheimer's disease but Terry Pratchett, and the quote is accurate. Your first edits were reverted with a suggestion to discuss your additions; your second (without discussion) were pure vandalism. Perhaps it is you that don't like their words corrected? Stephenb (Talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying the % would do no harm but the POV statements added with the second would probably be what caused some one to feel that it needed more discussion. As Stephenb says the last set were not constructive in the slightest. --Nate1481 09:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pterry

He's quite often referred to in fan circles as Pterry - where does this come from? The article doesn't say. The only source I could find was this post from a Wicca newsgroup, but there must be more and better sources, wider and deeper sources, longer and harder sources, more colourful sources, etc. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That newsgroups' explanation is how I remember the practice starting, too, especially "Ptraci"! It certainly dates from the publication of "Pyramids". -- Arwel (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From revision 126162473 of "Pterry", with improved internal linking:

This nickname for Mr Pratchett is a play on the several characters in his Discworld novel Pyramids who had names beginning "Pt-" (Prince Pteppic, full-name Pteppicymon, handmaiden Ptraci, philosopher Pthagonal). Fans writing on the Usenet newsgroup alt.fan.pratchett got into the habit of referring to Terry as Pterry. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Enormous Buggery

I was talking with my Prose Lecturer about Terry's illness, and he tells me Pratchett described it as an "Enormous buggery". I think this may have been on the radio, so I can't find any sources. I think this sort of statement is typocal of him and should definately go in the article, so if anyone can find a source that would be great Monkeymox (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Was he perhaps confusing the title of Terry's post, 'An Embuggerance'? Not to cast aspersions on anyone; it's just a plausible mishearing/mistranslation. --Sqrnookle (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3042608.ece Una Laguna^Talk 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The original post from Terry was in the article from the beginning of this.--Svetovid (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets make this a Featured Article!

It strikes me this is a perfect subject for an FA, and I thought it would be a great gesture from his fans – any thoughts? I don't know his views on Wikipedia. Ironically I'm not a huge fan of FA’s normally, and have recently been arguing against them on the Alzheimer’s Disease site (especially for that subject). The idea came to me after seeing him on the list of famous people with AD, and following the link here.

I don’t think this article is close to being good enough as it stands, but how hard can it be to get it together? It looks like maybe some laziness has crept in here - hardly any edits are happening, which is surprising with such a popular subject. The staccato intro, for example, I feel can easily be improved (I might even give it a go). All those short sentences! Wikipedia may be a factual encyclopedia, but there’s nothing wrong with a bit of colour and flow.

I haven't actually read any Pratchett since Pyramids (not a good one to stop on I know!), but will happily help with prose and links etc when I have time. The FA judges look at the dedicated ‘side’ (or sub) articles too – so it will all need doing. I’ve seen an FA with 10 sub articles – as long as they don’t break any rules (relevance, notability etc) they are fine. One thing I’ve noticed on the Alzheimer’s site, is that there’s actually been a renewed interest in the article – kick started by an unhidden ambition to reach FA, and a flurry of consequent edits. Anyone up for it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction - what to include

It's always difficult to know what to include and leave out. I was thinking that the last line could simply read: 'In late 2007 he was diagnosed with early-onet Alzheimer's disease.' It doesn't matter of course that it's covered later on. I thought against it, anyway - maybe some other time, if he ups the profile of it maybe. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

JK Rowling

Just put in a couple of [citation needed]s into the short parag refering to Rowling. I took out the existing line there, as it looks like there is evidence of some kind of brief 'spat' between them(?) and I'm not sure Pratchett hasn't actaully had a dig at the books. I can't find any mention of Rowling in these archive pages, or of Pratchett in any of hers.

This Pratchett newsgroup posting looks interesting; [[[4]]. Probably old news now, but could warrant a mention. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He was doing a radio interview a number of years back and someone (presumably a member of the public who phoned in) accused him of stealing the idea of Unseen University from Hogwarts (and possibly also Ponder Stibbons from Harry Potter), amusingly he pointed out that both had been written years before Harry Potter. Sorry but it's late and I can't be bothered to find a ref too hard ;) --SeldooN (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

the Discworld companion = the interview at the back  rdunnPLIB  10:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Section issue

It strikes me that under 'Personal life' a new section is needed - pratchet in the media, or something vaguely & broadly cultural like that. The 'Personal life' section looks like it could feasably cover too much. The general 'Biography' heading might be constricting us here to using awkward subheadings - the heading 'Biography' actually isn't all that often used any more (eg in this slightly dull-looking Featured Article I just noticed J K Rowling). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

'Early life' is used quite a lot - I'll put it in, keep 'Personal life' then add 'life in the media' as nother larger heading. Black Sub-headings can now be added to them.

Other possibilities I've seen around are 'Critical Response' and 'Influence on popular culture'.

I'm changing 'Books containing contributions from Pratchett' to 'Collaborations', which seems more the norm. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC) (used 'Collaborations and contributions') --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Josh Kirby

Any ideas where to put him in? Didn't TP say something about him 'sell' his books once?--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations - more needed

Does anyone have any more convention pics etc? Illustrations are hard to use on Wikipedia, as they have to be completely freely-distributable (and without any rights at all - ie. they can't even have that ubiquitous 'free as long as nobody profits' clause.) --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful links and resources

This has been used a lot but is still a good resource; Paul Kidby website biog of TP (it's written by his first publisher Colin Smythe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.lspace.org/about-terry/index.html

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Terry_Pratchett/

biogs;

http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/pratchett-terry

http://www.bath.ac.uk/internal/news/hon03-pratchett

Interviews;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html (Guardian)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article756002.ece (Times)

http://www.herebedragons.co.uk/gay/pterry.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/entertainment/theatre/pratchett.shtml

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/nostalgia/nostalgiabucks/display.var.1020485.0.he_said_i_like_the_cut_of_your_jib.php

radio/tv

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/interviews.shtml (Radio 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs2BqxjVBCc (Mark Lawson interview)

Currently some unused detail in all the links below 'biogs'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Biography - list of his novel 'blurbs' on the Pratchett Wiki

Sub articles

Here the current sub articles (all are linked to directly from this article), in the current order they occur. 40-odd seems a lot, but they are not that sizable. It contains 11 Discworld novels. To be worthy links from an FA, most of them propbably need at least some work. Maybe they could be tagged? - 'GA', if they ever get it - or just 'OK' for some of the ones just covering a novel.

Discworld B-Class

The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents Start-Class

The Carpet People Start-Class

The Dark Side of the Sun Start-Class

Strata (novel) Start-Class

The Colour of Magic B-Class

The Light Fantastic B-Class

Mort Start-Class

Rhianna Pratchett Start-Class

Unseen University no class, badly reffed

Ankh-Morpork City Watch no class, badly reffed

Going Postal Start-Class

Making Money Start-Class

Discworld (world) no class, very few refs

The Science of Discworld Start-Class

The Science of Discworld II: The Globe Start-Class

The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch Start-Class

The Discworld Mapp Stub-Class

The Unadulterated Cat Stub-Class

Good Omens Start-Class

Nation (novel) (failed delete, but still alive)

The_Bromeliad Start-Class

Only You Can Save Mankind Start-Class

Johnny and the Dead Start-Class

Johnny and the Bomb Start-Class

Collaborations and contributions;

Troll Bridge Start-Class

Theatre of Cruelty (Discworld) Start-Class

Death (Discworld) no class, badly reffed

The Sea and Little Fishes Start-Class

TV etc

Hogfather Start-Class

Wyrd Sisters Start-Class

Soul Music Start-Class

The Wee Free Men Start-Class

Small Gods Start-Class

Guards! Guards! Start-Class

The following Discworld spin-offs are to some degree more detatched, so possibly less important.

Role Playing Games;

GURPS Discworld good but no class

GURPS Discworld Also good but no class

Computer Games;

The Colour of Magic (computer game) Stub-Class

Discworld (computer game) Start-Class

Discworld 2 Start-Class

Discworld Noir Start-Class

If a short sub section on Literary merit is created (which seems to be a theme in his life), Thief of Time could be added, as apparently it almost got on the Booker list. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been standardising some of the subs and putting in info boxes - some pics which weren't there are now needed (strata, Bromeliad). I've tended to put in the sections 'Ideas and Themes' and 'Continuity', where everything was mixed up in 'Plot Summary'. I've changed some stub-class to Start myself - it seems like it's up to us at the early stages.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

the more important subs?

Discworld B-Class

The Colour of Magic B-Class

The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents Start-Class

The Carpet People Start-Class

Discworld (world) no class, very few refs

I personally think they should all be at least Start-class - some aren't yet Stub-class (the above 4, I would say, should be B or better). Apparently it depends on the importance of the main article, and of the sub articles themselves - it seems to be settled at the feedback stage after submitting (I've looked at a few feedback examples). There are 'Featured Topics' too - where all must be of a high standard (not sure TP would qualify for a topic).

submitting for FA today

I'm going to submit it for FA today, to get on the feedback stage - I think it's good enough now to submit at least. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for Featured Article

You need to go to WP:FAC to nominate for FA-status, but please clear the [citation needed] tags by inserting suitable citations where needed before nomination. Thanks.

Looks like I used the 'review' section instead of the submitting one. I'll look at the cite-needed tags now - I'd thought they'd all been dealt with. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll submit this properly 12pm tonight (UK time), unless anyone objects. There's no rush, but it doesn't have to be totally perfect yet either. I'll check through the links first and look for obvious errors. If anyone's around today the same would be apprecated, especially cite/ref formatting. Apparently those citation-needed tags (I thought they'd all gone) can lead to a load of quick reject votes! We need it looked at seriously, at least.

These are the FA criteria --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking around the net I've found a number of things worth including, and will find the time to include them. I assumed this article was more comprehensive than I now see it actually is! As online biogs go, there are a few out there still more detailed in certain areas. This place can also combine many of the useful titbits Pratchett relates in various interviews.

I honestly don't know why TP's Wikipedia article doesn't seem to have attention that is remotely comparative to his support pretty much everywhere else. Maybe he hates Wikipedia? I better look that up! Maybe everyone posts on newsgroups. Given that Pratchett's all about detail, I thought all the more obvious details surrounding his life would have been feverishly included by now (and even the less available details too). This article seems to have been worked on in fits and spurts, to say the least. I've done quite a lot on this the last week, I may as well carry on editing now I’ve got this new stuff.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently 42K long - which is actually on the smaller side for a bigraphy. Wikipedia recommends 'splitting' at 60K. This has lots of sub articles, but some biogs are 100+ even spitting. So plenty of room for extra detail. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been around a year since this was last discussed. I think the article's in pretty good shape - a couple minor punctuation fixes are required and one citation needed to clear up. Any thoughts on getting this article reviewed for FA status? I've done some work on cleaning up the citations already.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes - yes, I agree, they've brought the article up in standard again, and if anyone has time, this is a good candidate for FA Stephenb (Talk) 08:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New structure

I've added a bunch of new headings and subheadings - I think they are all relevant. Many just have single lines in at the moment, but it's easier to start this way. It makes the Contents longer, but that can always be 'hidden'. I've seen plenty of relevant content for each new section on the net. I'll gradually start filling in what I've got - any help at all filling in is appreciated (by which I partly mean - please don't revert, or remove any of the new sections just because they are, as yet, mostly empty!). It probably won't be the perfect layout yet, but please explain any changes to it in the 'edit note' or here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very bad idea. The article seems cluttered now and gives too much credit to trivial things.--Svetovid (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A response at last! There's plenty to put in - I've got a lot of stuff prepared, just not had the time to properly write it in the last couple of days (though I did plan to fill it up stright away, rather than leave clutter). The temporary lines I put in are just cursory - rather than trivial. As I said in the 'edit notes', there is enough valid detail out there to fill all the new headings I made (Pratchett gives nuggets away all the time - and there's a load of recent stuff around too). This will be the best Pratchett biography out there, as it will contain all the best bits of all the others. Some productive help would be nice!--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The structure is now awful - so many sub-sub-subheadings with just a single (usually unreferenced) sentence... This article needs cleaning up more than it did before :( Stephenb (Talk) 16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've explained myself all along - and no one else has replied in here since I started, up until now! If you look at the diff from where I started work here, it's very unfair to all the work I've done to be rude about it (I've worked on this and other Pratchett articles - for the benefit of all). I tell you what - I'm compiling data now - give me today to get it in and then see what you think. I don't mind at all if things get moved around, I've just been trying to seriously progress the article I found (hopefully to FA status, as I've said). Prose is my thing, so see what you thnk. I keep finding more good stuff(!) - that's mostly why it's taken a few days. I wanted to get the structure in before the data, but haven't moved fast enough, I accept. The brief sentences are just temporary summaries as I've said all along (and are meant to encourage input too...)--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(De-indent) Sorry if I came across as rude, but I really don't like the over-use of subsections, especially where there wouldn't be much to add that was in any way important to include, and some of the sentences left in those subsections badly need to be cited. Hopefully you can make your changes quickly; otherwise, why don't you create a sandbox page of your own (under User:Matt Lewis) as work-in-progress, so we can all see how you're coming along? Stephenb (Talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the meat in late tonight, though maybe some prose will be a bit rough. I didn't mean to let it go a few days with only the typo-filled short sentences in! I got a bit bogged down in links etc, and I had some pre-scheduled archiving duty to do last night that got a bit complicated. As its been so quiet on the page I've been using the new layout to refer to like a plan - it's concentrated my mind and helped me collate all the info. I didn't think of a sandbox - I didn't know if you can save them, whereas you can always refer to a 'diff' - even when your edits have been reversed. Problem is I haven't really followed TP for some years, and I'm still finding new things. I'm sure we can work from the details I add - I've leave plenty of cites etc too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll work from the diff - I'm still working things out and getting distracted, and still coming across good stuff too. You can remove the new headings if you want - the diff is fine for me as a ref. I'm finding some stuff is contradictory - which is pretty annoying. He must have made thousands of interviews - the man never stops! Only a third of his writing is on his novels, and when he's not writing, he's on the road telling anecdotes. I'm filtering the trivia - don't worry.

I've removed 'carnivorous plants' - I've got more on 'natural history', but it can all easily go under that heading, maybe 'orangutans' too (though I've got more on that too). I'm knee deep in pratchett! --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So when are you going to do your updates, Matt? If not soon, I will remove the ugly multiple sections and remove uncited sentences (this weekend maybe). Stephenb (Talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I thought I said above you can get it back if you want (I don't know stage suits you)- I can work from a 'diff' as a reference. I don't have the same kind of time I did when I started - I'm doing it when I can (its slowly getting done - but all the scores of details/citations I compliled are on these different files etc and there's still a utube interview I want to watch).

I've just got waylaid - take out what you want by all means. There has been so little interest in the article, apart from yourself, I've lost certainly a bit of the initial fire - I will certainly get done though, I promise! I'm certainly a fan again (he's a very clever guy) - If I can give it a full weekend day, hopefully, it should be up. I can't fully promise for this coming weekend though, so remove what you want to get it neater again.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've made a number of changes (as you'll see by the history!). In particular, I've tried to cite most things (and yes, there are hundreds of possible references out there!) and structure them a little better. Some citations are still required - particularly anything to do with natural history, Tolkien, German publishing (I remember reading that somewhere!) and Pratchett's earnings - but I've run out of time today. Hope everyone likes what I've done so far... Stephenb (Talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's fine - I daren't even look though, till I clear some other stuff I'm doing up! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly some of the one-sentence sections need to either be expanded, consolidated or removed (most of which appears to have been done since I last glanced at them). Additionally, there appear to be some sentences that run on, with too many commas stringing pieces together, kind of like this. I'll work on them some when I get a chance. (My apologies for messing up the British/American speeling earlier, by the way.)   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 14:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't hold it against you :) Thanks for sorting out the references, too. Stephenb (Talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto review

Since the article is being renovated I figured this would be useful

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I was unable to locate the quote "the continued elevation of J. K. Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers" in either of the 2 sources (located in the Writing section of the article (I checked archive.org for the more likely of the 2 as well). I haven't removed it yet, as a google search for the quote has it popping up attributed to Terry Pratchett in multiple places, but I've failed thus far to find a source that seems reliable. The best I've found thus far is here: http://www.biblio.com/authors/315/Tim_Powers_Biography.html. The quote probably needs to be removed if a source isn't cited. Additionally, some quotes are implied as being attributed to Pratchett when they are fairly obviously written by a third person - any thoughts on what to do with these? (An example is "write a book about his experiences, if he thought anyone would believe it".) My take would be to paraphrase them, eliminating the quote.   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

'WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with "knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves."

Neil Gaimans site. He wrote to the Times (to the letters page, I think), though I've never seen the full article (subscription maybe - or perhaps the letters aren't online). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The third-party quotes are probably all from the "About the Author" sections in his books, so I don't think you'll find who actually wrote them (although the language tends to suggest that he at least had a hand in scripting them). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Discworld monthly also has the same Times letter quote that Matt gives Stephenb (Talk) 08:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd found the Neil Gaiman site, but was really hoping to find the Times printing of the letter (or another source that had the full letter). I suppose we can probably use either as the reference in this case.   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of Tolkien

Pratchett has both an admiring and critical view of J. R. R. Tolkien.

A statement like that, if it deserves to be in the article at all, really needs to be expanded and referenced. If anyone wants to do so, I think some of his comments on The Lord of the Rings can be found in the book Meditations on Middle Earth. (I don't have a copy of it myself.) --Nick R^Talk 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree... we've all been waiting for Matt, who introduced that line, and his updates for some time now :) I did try to find online references but failed miserably. I don't have a copy of that book, either :( Stephenb (Talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Better source needed

The article cites a newspaper article when it says that Pratchett has been the most shopliftet writer. However there is no source mentioned in the newspaper article and I haven't found any official statistic verifying that statement. Can anybody help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.238.195 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need the newspaper article to be sourced: it is a reliable source in itself.--NeoNerd 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Pratchett himself debunked this story in his "Desert Island Discs" interview; unfortunately that is not a quoteable source, even if I could remember accurately what he said. IIRC the gist was that it was a inference from numbers sold, and excluded books like the Bible and Shakespeare and non-fiction (like the Driving Test handbook). It applied to one year some years ago (1990s if I remember correctly) and if it ever had any validity he very much doubted that it had now. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The only primary source I could find was an old magazine interview where Pratchett said something like "I was once called the most shoplifted author in Britain, but they don't call me that any more. I wonder who holds the title now?" though that's not worth adding to the article. I had a quick trawl through magazine interviews stretching back decades (including a GQ chat between Bill Gates and TP - I'll have to dig some of them out properly for more interesting quotes for the article) with no luck. Online, several sites suggest that the title originated around 1996, though no primary sources once again. Stephenb (Talk) 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dedications

According to the article "Pratchett revealed that he now found it too difficult to write dedications when signing books" - however I have seen a book that he signed within the last two weeks. I can't add this as it's WP:OR - anyone know if there's an WP:RS documenting that he still can/does sign dedications in books? Exxolon (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the bit about dedications somewhere, I'll take a look if I get time. Beware that a signing is not, strictly, a dedication, just a signature :) Stephenb (Talk) 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The dedication was actually written in the style "To XXXXX, <bit of text about book?>, Signature" Exxolon (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Going Postal Adaptation

Should we add A line or two about the upcoming adaptation of Going Postal (as detailed onTerry Pratchett's Going Postalarticle)FountOfKnowledge (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

fitness terry pratchett is the fittest bloke i know from the 20th centerary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.51.62 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We should leave it until it is developed. At the moment, only a brief mention on the GP page is required, but if it becomes an important part of his timeline (wins award, dies while it is being made), then I think it should be added. --TheGrimReaper 12:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

the book by him called wintersmith

He has a boo9k called the wintersmith and it is the 3 one of wee free men. Also he is makeing a movieon the wee free men well he noot but some one is and it comes out in 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.100.218 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That was fairly incoherent, but yes - he did write Wintersmith, and it appears on the list of books he's written. And yes, the news was that Sam Raimi had been signed on to make a film of The Wee Free Men, which was originally to be completed by now, but if you look at The Wee Free Men#Film, the signs are that it's unlikely to happen in the near future, which means it's going to go the same way as the planned (or hinted at) films of Mort, Lords and Ladies, Good Omens, and probably others. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cult - Unsubstantiated claim!!!

"Despite his popularity, Pratchett is often described as having a ‘cult following’ - a factor seen as having, in the past, hindered his literary recognition."

Oh, come on. How is it truly relevant information if in an interview one irrelevant person (who is she again?) is claiming Pratchett to have "a cult following him" (see the cited interview)?

This one person is reason enough to claim "often described"?

The second "source" is not better. And two sources are substance enough to call them "often"?

The other point (that is just POV) is the "conclusion" that such a claimed "cult following him" is seen (by whom again? With this wording it sounds like that claim is made by many people)) as a "factor" hindering him... Thats plain wild guessing. One could also "conclude" that Pratchett is not that recognized by mainstream because he is writing fantasy novels. Oh thats plain simple.

Pratchett would say: Rats are intelligent. Humans can be too. So come on and dont put such nonsense and nonuseful information into a very nice article.

And dont be picky and only happy, if you find 1 or 2 websites in a zillion (!!! - oh i know about them exclamation marks...) claiming Pratchett to be "head of a cult"!

Gomez 91.113.86.50 (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that having a cult following does not mean being the "head of a cult", but more having a core of highly dedicated fans. And besides mentions in The Scotsman and BBC Breakfast, there's The SF Site, The Times and An actual BBC news article. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2 good sources used, and easy enough to find other reference in the media, so it seem reasonable. p.s. did you read the article cult following, as it seems you have misunderstood what is being described. --Nate1481 08:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• • maybe there are two meanings of cult here. One is to have a "cult following" - meaning he has a smallish, fairly obsure but avid group of fans that inhale everything he does. The other is that there is a serious semi-religious cult who all wear large black hats and bow to stone Terry icons. I think both are unlikely. He has far, far too many fans internationally for his fanbase to be called a cult. And do people ritually sacrifice chickens to him or Blind Io? You tell me. I can't see it,somehow. Spanglej (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people get that confused. I've heard of people who wouldn't let their children watch certain movies because they heard it was a "cult classic", thinking it had something to do with cults. Of course the meaning is that it is something that is not widely popular but enjoyed intensely by people who do like it. Pratchett is too widely popular to be considered a cult classic, but that label is often put on a genre as a way of looking down at it. To dismiss Pratchett's work as a cult classic seems a bit snobbish.--RLent (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cult", in the sense of "cultural cult" has no general meaning, let alone an encyclopedic meaning. Every artistic work has a group of fans -- sometimes only a group comprising of the author. It isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to make unsubstantiated claims about artistic value based on the number of fans, or to bolster the value of artistic works by trying to support them with WP:PEACOCK marketing or fan support.Piano non troppo (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim about the Light Helmet

I've removed the piece about the "Light Helmet". It is irresponsible to make medical claims when the only source saying it works is a pair of business partners quoted in the Daily Mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.195.12 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• 8000 hits on Google is fairly notable. [5] DP76764 (Talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Compare and Contrast

"Some characters are parodies of well-known characters . . . ." Perhaps it would be well to cross-check the definitions of parody and pastiche. I don't want to make unilateral changes in a major article, but I really think the examples adduced are pastiches, in that they lack any element of "polemical allusive imitation".

And while we're at it, whence the idea of "Death communicating telepathically into a character's mind"? Death is described on several occasions as having a strong bass voice. Granted he has no lungs and lips, but then again he has no stomach but eats and drinks.

Eric Walker (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On Death's voice, he definitely states somewhere (I paraphrase, poorly) that the words appear in the listener's mind without bothering to use their ears. I'd be surprised if it wasn't established that way in Mort. By the time Reaper Man came around, this was a running joke ("meme" to you young 'uns out there). What you remember was possibly before Mort's (the character) time. Pratchett continually refines his best loved characters, and as Death got more character, he became less like a man in a suit playing the part of Death.

You're probably right about them being pastiches; but in that case, you'd have to say that they're pastiches that parody certain elements in the victims. Just remember "It'sss my birthdayyy!" in Witches Abroad. Too much parody in them to say they're purely pastiches.--Rfsmit (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters and knighthood

I'm not too sure, but as Terry is now entitled to the title 'Sir' then he must be either a KBE or a GBE, however I am unable to find any source to show which. If anyone knows his exact rank, it should be given after his name. Monkeymox (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As has already been explained on here, and in an invisible note in the article, Terry is a Knight Bachelor,which does not carry any post-noms of its own, just the use of the prefix "Sir", so he remains also an OBE (I'm sure he was probably a blackboard monitor too, once upon a time...). David Underdown (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the citations given seems to say more than that he was announced in the honours list for a knighthood. Contrary to widespread popular & media belief, this doesn't make him a knight. It only entitles him to the style Knight Designate. He becomes a knight, & is entitled to be called Sir, only when he's actually invested by the Queen, or her representative. I've no idea whether this has happened yet. Peter jackson (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

While technically true what are the odds that he has not attended the ceremony yet are very low, I've looked but finding a link that doesn't just refer to the list is nigh on impossible, however if he hadn't been confirmed I'm sure the would be a huge number of articles on why...--Nate^t/_c 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed this previously, Terry went to the Palace abck in Feb (refs now added to article). However, I don't believe Peter is correct. Nothing seems to be said on the civilian honours site, but the RAF dress regulations relating to honours, decorations and medals (PDF), state in Chapter 8 page 5, "A title and/or post nominal letters associated with an award are used with effect from the date of the award." So I think you may be called "Sir" as soon as the award is gazetted. David Underdown (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked on Debretts and the correct form of address is Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE. neekeem 18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Themes

Ha. Pretty amazing that no-one had bothered to mention the significance of the number eight or how Pratchett uses (relatively) recent Roundworld innovations as the basis of his novels. I think these are important to mention, because it can show how relevant his work is to the modern world, providing light relief from our own problems. Something like that anyway. Nice article.--Rfsmit (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

time to archive?

Perhaps this long list of discussions need to go bye bye and a clean sheet started.... Spanglej (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Terry Pratchett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written , conforms sufficiently with MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I repaired some reference links using WP:CHECKLINKS. Ref #78 [6] appears to be a dead link. I have commented it out as I cannot find a replacement source. All other references check out. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, I am more than happy to confirm the status of this as a WP:Good article. I believe this could be taken to WP:FAC. There may be some quibbles about some of the sources, but they are sufficient for GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

species of the fossil turtle Psephophorus terrypratchetti. (1995)

Psephophorus terrypratchetti

A new species of the fossil turtle Psephophorus (Order Testudines) from the Eocene of the South Island, New Zealand. (named after Terry Pratchett)

Etymology: In honour of the British novelist Terry Pratchett, whose wonderful style and great sense of humour, combined with his deep affection for turtles, merits the naming of this new species after him.

http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/site/publish/journals/jrsnz/1995/44.aspx

http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/includes/download.aspx?ID=85093

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand abstracts

---

A new species of the fossil turtle Psephophorus (Order Testudines) from the Eocene of the South Island, New Zealand. R. Köhler * Until now the genus Psephophorus has been known only from Tertiary sediments in Europe, Egypt and the United States. Five specimens from mid Eocene sediments near Waimate (South Canterbury) and one specimen from near Dunedin (Otago) comprise the only such records for the Southern Hemisphere, and are also among the oldest records worldwide. The differences between the New Zealand material and described species of Psephophorus are justification for the naming of the new species, Psephophorus terrypratchetti. Keywords: Order Testudines, Family Dermochelyidae, Southern Hemisphere, New Zealand, Eocene.

(c) Journal of The Royal Society of New Zealand,

Volume 25, Number 3, September 1995, pp 371-384 --Ripvanwinkle111 164.156.231.55 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening Line

I have not seen this mentioned before but was wondering whether in homage to his early discworld books we could put in the opening to this article "Terry Pratchett............and is still not dead"? Surely wikipedia allows the odd one or two in-jokes?Aprhys (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Think "Encyclopedia Britannica". That's what Wiki is aiming for.

I write a fair amount of humor, one problem with adding it to an encyclopedia is that the target audience of an encyclopedia is young, old, the curious, the informed, native English speakers, and those for whom it is not a first language. Jokes generally need to be targeted more specifically than that. E.g., "Still not dead" would be incomprehensible to someone who was just reading about Pratchett for the first time. (There is the "Unencylopedia"[7] -- which I don't feel is very effective for just this reason.) Yours, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I once had a very minor three word humor removed (from a Wiki article I wrote on a humorous book) by a senior editor with the comment "removed nonsense". So it goes. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

While it will make those in the know smile (it was up the 1st time I read the article) Piano non troppo is right, it will confuse those who don't get the joke. This kind of thing is acceptable on somewhere like theL-space wiki but not on a general encyclopaedia which has to be aimed at people who have never heard of the subject of the article. --Nate^t/_c 10:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)