Template talk:Discworld
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Template:Discworld books was copied or moved into Template:Discworld with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
remove headings for 'illustrated' and 'young adult'
editWhile it is true that some books have been illustrated, and others have been classified as young adult, I don't think these distinctions are large enough to justify the extra space (mostly white) that they require in the template (and every page the template is on). Perhaps on this template, these books can be merged into the general list? The Gomm 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree and have made it so, and I've added the short stories.Eldestone 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Requested move 15 September 2015
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Template:Discworld books → Template:Discworld – Template covers the whole Discworld universe, not just the books, so a move to a less specific title seems appropriate. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment this is the result of a wrong-way merger in 2009. I don't see why it was ever done that way. They should have merged the two to the requested destination instead of this template. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reason as when I declined the speedy. A move would require a history swap and addition of a copied template, and for what benefit? The template title is perfectly fine as it is. Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's no reason to oppose. That's just a technicality - we can WP:HISTMERGE. WP:PRECISE is the benefit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- We can't histmerge because it was a text merge, not a cut-and-paste move between the two. Jenks24 (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's no reason to oppose. That's just a technicality - we can WP:HISTMERGE. WP:PRECISE is the benefit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per nom. Randy Kryn 14:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Added one entry - Lie-to-children
editI've added an entry 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,
Races and Creatures
editSorry to be a bother, but should the Discworld template have so many entries for 'Races and Creatures'? The only one that refers to an individual article is 'Nac Mac Feegle', while all others link to Discworld (world). Also, while Dragons, Dwarfs, Elves, Orcs, Goblins, Igors etc. all have Discworld books centred around them, Centaurs, Fauns, Gnolls, Gorgons, and Kvetch are all only briefly mentioned as one-off jokes; we never actually encounter a named character from one of these races. (I am working from the Discworld & Pratchett Wiki here). Doesn't having all of these ephemeral references confuse the Template, especially when the article they link to doesn't mention them? OldSwinburne (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)