Talk:Discworld (world)

Dragons??
Correct me if am am wrong, but offically the only dragons in discworld are swamp draons, and the dragons rincewind visted are not techniacally of the discworld, but of some parrell dragon world, or some such?Oxinabox1 10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Discworld Companion, the noble dragons from TCoM originated on the Discworld during the Mage Wars but left for another dimension, that of the human imagination. Since they're barely referred to in this article, it doesn't need to be an issue, IMO.  (BTW, please add new topics to the bottom of talk pages, not to the top) Vashti 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, i didn't no that convention (ui've only just stated,) thanks for inorming me,

and also this artical isn't really about the place, discworld but the series right?Oxinabox1 11:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you're wrong... Discworld (world) is the title! --80.242.32.51 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Physics and environment
Shouldn't we mention such aspect of the DW as the light/meta-light/dark concept and the absurdly-but-necessarily complex system of days and years described in TCOM? Especially since they've been referred to in the last few novels more than usual... or is there already a page for this? Tyrhinis 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a page on the Discworld calendar, but I don't think there's much information about ideas like "dark light" and "anti-crime" and "pork futures" etc. It might be interesting to explain it. Serendipodous 10:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Discworld locations
Could I ask people to take a look at this page and see what they think of the recent change of making every location a link?

I disagree with it as I feel it makes the page look ugly, most of the locations referenced are done so in such a brief referenece as to never deserve an article, and the user who linked everything made no attempt to make sure the links were relevant - see Razorback, Bugs, Eskrow, Brindisi, Kom and many more. --Neo 09:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Magic (Discworld)
I really think this article should be merged with that one. You cannot give an overview of the Discworld without mentioning its standing magical field, the law of narrative causality and the power of belief.-Serendipodous 11:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a merger would be a good idea, just that a summary should be written here (there is already a blank section ready for it). violet/riga (t) 10:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Revisions
I've just completed a revision of this article that I hope will make it more readable and accessible. I haven't added or taken away anything, but I've shifted some of the sections around and added some new titles. The information was a bit scattered before, now I hope it's better organised. Serendipodous 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Copying?
This is obviously a very tricky matter, but a lot of the article reads like it was copied or lightly paraphrased from The Discworld Companion. Now obviously it's hard to describe the Discworld without using some of the words from the novels, but is it possible to do it in a way that feels more like a study of the books than a cut-and-paste? Confusing Manifestation 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out which sections you feel are paraphrasing the Companion? Serendipodous 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

map?
Nice idea, but apparently, even linking to an online map is not permitted, since it would violate copyright. I suppose someone could design their own map, but that might violate copyright also.Serendipodous 07:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i don't know about image copy right but in graphic modeling (computer mesh and texture programing) it doesn't breech copy right if it is 'scratch' built, as in there wasa not direct copy and pastes etc. Oxinabox1 11:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging
This article has been created from information taken from the following articles: Discworld, Sto Plains, Ramtops, Überwald, Borogravia, Counterweight Continent, Klatch, Circle Sea, Great A'Tuin. It needs work and the general idea is: I haven't removed the content of the above articles (except Discworld) yet but plan to shortly, assuming there is no large objection to this process. violet/riga (t) 21:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * to have this as the central point of reference for the Discworld itself
 * the Discworld article being about the books and plays (etc.)
 * the country articles redirecting here
 * individual cities or aspects (Ankh-Morpork, Clacks for example) to have their own articles where such an article would be large enough
 * I've chopped back all the continent/country information here and left it to the main articles - I think they're all worthy of their own articles and this one should just tie them together. violet/riga (t) 19:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK; I've merged "The Sto Plains", "The Circle Sea," and "The Hub" with this article, since they are essentially duplications. All information in those articles that was not in this article has been shifted here. I've also included "The Ramtops", "Klatch", "Howandaland" and "The Counterweight Continent", since they were, I think, short enough to be made into subsections. The other locations have articles of their own detailed enough to stand. I'm debating whether or not to merge "The Discworld Calendar" with this article as well. Serendipodous 10:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since every other Discworld continent now directs to this article, I feel it is right that the FourEcks article, even though it is relatively large, should also Serendipodous 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just merged "Discworld calendar" and some of "Magic (Discworld)" with this article. I know this article is getting very large but there are a gargantuan number of Discowrld articles on this site, many of which I've only discovered since I began merging all the smaller ones. I think the Discworld needs a few portals to make some of these lesser known articles accessible. Serendipodous 07:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

End of the world
Methinks it would be worth it to mention somewhere that the end of the universe will be followed shortly by the beginning of the universe, or at least of a new one (as seen in the sequence when Death waits for this at the end of time in  Faust Eric and implied by Azriel's thoughts, "I remember when all this will be again" in Reaper Man). Any thoughts on where this ought to be put? &mdash;Yar Kramer 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Great A'Tuin
I seem to recall as a kid learning about a myth about the Earth being held on the back of elephants, which in turn are on the back of a turtle. When I first was introduced to Discworld, I thought Prattchet had used that ancient myth as the basis of his novels. However, the only myth I could find that was similar was an Iroquois myth that had the earth on the back of a turtle. I have yet to find a myth that has both the turtle and elephants. I thought that perhaps I was just confusing Discworld with this myth, but this article indicates that it was in "reference to popular mythology." Can anyone help me out here? What was the myth? If it exists, it should be mentioned in the article.

-- Fogelmatrix 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

From a lecture on early cosmologies:

Brahmin World Mountain, resting on the back of elephants, themselves on the back of a giant turtle swimming in an infinite sea.

OK. I found an authoritative reference to it in Brewers:

The Tortoise which Supports the Earth is Chukwa; the elephant (between the tortoise and the world) is Maha-pudma.

This would suggest that it is of Hindu origin. Perhaps "Hindu" rather than "popular" is a better descriptor.

Serendipodous 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I found something similar to this, mentioned by Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, in one of his lectures ("The Value of Science"). He says: "For instance, how much more remarkable it is for us all to be stuck - half of us upside down - by a mysterious attraction to a spinning ball that has been swinging in space for billions of years than to be carried on the back of an elephant supported on a tortoise swimming in a bottomless sea." See more of this speech at http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/phys216/Feynman.html

69.140.123.125 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The story I heard was in one of the discworld books and involved a lecture given by George Bernard Shaw and a woman who believed it was 'turtles all the way down'

86.130.220.45 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

moving geography stuff
Would anyone mind if I merged "List of Discworld locations" with the geography section of this article into a new article called "Discworld geography" (or something). That way the main article would become a bit more managable without increasing the number of Discworld articles.
 * Sounds OK to me. Serendipodous 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dung beetles?
"A'Tuin is also orbited by a number of small "planets" made from the droppings of the elephants by giant dung beetles." I don't remember this bit - where's it from? It does seem Pratchetty. Mon Vier 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Last Hero. Leonard compares it to the Dhelibeybian (i.e. Egyption) myth of the Sun being pushed by a scarab beetle. Daibhid C 13:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Neo-liberal science"
"The Discworld is the fictional setting for all of Terry Pratchett's Discworld fantasy novels, although some hold to it as more real than neoliberal-'scientific' ideas of reality."

...uh, what? Is this something mentioned in a book I haven't read (possibly the Science of the Discworld), or is it some fundamentalist Christian taking a swing at geologists who say the Earth is more than 10, 000 years old? 58.7.224.214 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 6000, but, uh, yeah. I think we need to do some reverting. &mdash;Yar Kramer 04:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In-universe
To the editors who keep putting an "in universe" tag on this page: Of course this article is in-universe. So is pretty much every Discworld-related article on this site. The only way to deal with the problem is to nominate every Discworld-related article on this site for deletion. But if you were to do that, you'd also have to do it to every nearly every Harry Potter-related article, nearly every Star Wars-related article, nearly every Star Trek-related article, and nearly every Dune-related article. So unless you're willing to go the whole hog, bite the bullet and stop being pedantic. Serendi pod ous  06:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the article, frequent comparisons or references to the real world (unless your arguing their to roundworld) are not in universe, and the into is one of the least in universe I've seen! For the most part where it appears to be discussed in-universe it is on the grounds of the information reviled to readers, for example no-one, on the disc (or probably Prachett himself) knows the sex of Great A'Tuin. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, the article here says "Roundworld," completely in universe. To avoid in universe style try reading WP:WAF, find people in the real world who have written about this topic and use them as sources. It's not pedantic, it's required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As is, this article is really just fanboy nonsense, with utterly no relevance in the real world. There is a such thing as a good article about fiction and this isn't it. IvoShandor (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not too mention the fact that if "editors keep adding" the in universe tag, don't you think that it means there is a problem here. Removing it and declaring that they are wrong really does little to improve this article, which has no real references to much of the material. How do I know it's true? Because you say so? Doesn't cut it. I would suggest thinking again before you summarily dismiss the concerns of others. IvoShandor (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I really care that much, but there is a trend on Wikipedia to eliminate pop culture articles that are written in universe, or without sources. I only came to this page because I watched Hogfather on Ion last night. IvoShandor (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I would also point out that this statement: ''But if you were to do that, you'd also have to do it to every nearly every Harry Potter-related article, nearly every Star Wars-related article, nearly every Star Trek-related article, and nearly every Dune-related article. So unless you're willing to go the whole hog, bite the bullet and stop being pedantic'' really is a logical fallacy. The status of this article has nothing to do with the status of other articles and vice versa. IvoShandor (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're going to point out logical fallacies, it's not pedantic, it's required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is also a howler. Some of Wikipedia's guidelines plumb the depths of pedantry, Mr. Shandor, but that aside, I tend to agree with your general point. I've read some of the books, and many of the details are throwaway jokes. They're mentioned once and have no effect on the rest of the story or any other story. They seem to be of limited use in Wikipedia. Including them out of context without the accompanying joke is especially unforgivable. Well, just saying. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Howl away, the fact of the matter is, any encyclopedia must have some kind of references. Say what you want about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they are open to discussion, and I suppose problems with them should be brought up there, though they are hard to change. But honestly, if you want an article to stand in Wikipedia, which I assume the authors here do, then it has to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Not doing so would be like telling any other publication to shove their publication guidelines, because "I am gonna do what I want." Seriously, if any of the guidelines and policies are good, the one that requires authors to attribute their information is it. IvoShandor (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an added note, the show I watched last night intrigued me, not to be off topic but I may actually read some of the novels now. IvoShandor (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And as I said, I am not that concerned with this, but I found the idea of Discworld interesting and came here, because even if it is unreferenced, at least I can find out something about it. I have seen a lot of pop culture deletions, many because of lack of sources, or lack of real world sources. Surely someone has written about the Discworld series in the real world. And, yes, while some policies and guidelines are pedantic (parts of the MOS comes to mind) several of them are nothing more than common sense, including some of the key ones. IvoShandor (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Also, I hope I am not coming off like a jerk, I am trying not to. IvoShandor (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seasons on the Rim

 * Technically, the fact that the Disc's sun, like Earth's, passes from solstice to equinox once a year should mean that the Rim would be alternately scorched desert and frozen wasteland rather than the balmy tropical region it is presented as, and the seasons generally would be significantly more pronounced than on Earth. It has been theorised that the standing magical field equalises the sun's energy across the Rim (the "slow light phenomenon").

Removed. Minus two points for dull pedantry and unfunny explanation. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheDiscworld.jpg
Image:TheDiscworld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Making Terry Pratchett a Featured Article
This is a call to arms to make the Terry Pratchett article a Featured Article. It will greatly help the cause if all the side articles that link from it are of a reasonable standard. Terry Pratchett has around 40 side articles (ie the ones relating to his work) - I don't think they are all expected to be GA (Good Article) standard for TP to become featured, but certain basic elements will be looked at for sure.

A full list of the sub articles is here on the TP talk page: I'm posting this comment on the talk pages of each article on the list. Editors reading may also like to help with the TP article too?

The main issue, especially with smaller articles, is often a finding reasonable amount of citations, and prose can sometimes be a little POV too. Coverage of the topic is probably less important, but of course it needs to be reasonably good. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Librarian??
There is no mention of the librarian on this page nor on the fauna and flora page. The librarian is definitely a sentient creature what used to be a human wizard. Does it not deserve a place on this page? Aethalides (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Unseen University-- Auric 13:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the 'Octarine' section contain an "Easter Egg" link?
I'm not familiar with the article's subject, so I didn't understand why the phrase "eighth colour" was linked to the article for "Impossible colours". I wondered if it might be an "Easter Egg" link, especially regarding "veiled and uncited interpretations of fiction through piped links" mentioned in WP:EASTEREGG.

My ignorance isn't quite complete, so I can guess that Pratchett draws on this science in describing the "eighth colour"; or does he? Would that be original research, or a truth that's unsourced?

Maybe someone with knowledge of the subject could rewrite this to provide a link that has a clearer relationship with the text. Willondon (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

merge from book
I've proposed a merge from The Folklore of Discworld, as the book doesn't appear to be notable on its own. With no objections, I'll perform this merge in a couple weeks. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have performed this merge. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Discworld (world). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100713000407/http://www.matchitforpratchett.org/2008/03/wear-the-lilac.html to http://www.matchitforpratchett.org/2008/03/wear-the-lilac.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Discworld (world). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126062843/http://www.terrypratchettbooks.com:80/discworld/dollar.html to http://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/discworld/dollar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713000407/http://www.matchitforpratchett.org/2008/03/wear-the-lilac.html to http://www.matchitforpratchett.org/2008/03/wear-the-lilac.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2017

 * 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: Not moved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Discworld (world) → Discworld (fictional planet) – PER WP:INUNIVERSE. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alternative move to Discworld (fictional world) as it's not really a planet (it's a disc).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose.  Prefer world > fictional world > fictional planet.  As noted, calling it a "planet" is really weird in-setting, the cosmology is not very similar to the normal sense of "planet."  I don't see the need to add "fictional" in front of anything in-universe as far as good article titling goes; the fictional nature can be discussed in the lede.  SnowFire (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move to Discworld (fictional world) per ZXCVBNM. We don't usually use such a name for a fictional world. Planet would be too inappropriate for the title.  CookieMonster755  ✉    19:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support move to Discworld (fictional world) per ZXCVBNM. It's not a planet, but it would possibly need "fictional" per WP:INUNIVERSE. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SnowFire and WP:CONCISE, particularly WP:NCDAB (bold mine): If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure); examining Category:Fantasy worlds, there are precedents for this title in Titan (world) and Narnia (world).WP:INUNIVERSE is primarily a content guideline, and while MOS complements AT, there's no pressing reason to apply it here: the point of the disambiguator is to distinguish the subject from Discworld franchise, not to be an exercise in MOS fine points. No such user (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well then. Thinking about it, seeing the precedent set by other articles, I'm starting to be a bit more on the fence on this one... Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As above, its not a planet. (fictional world) seems redundant as all worlds generally spoken about are fictional (except Earth of course). Revisit to add "fictional" is someday we discover other populated worlds. -- Netoholic @ 10:36, 9 January 2018 (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.

"Mouldavia" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mouldavia. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

absence of heat is described as "coldness"? ...
I get it .... But an absense of heat isn't describing coldness. It's describing a loss of perceived warmth, measured in temperature. Perhaps the writer means without energy: a measure of units expressed by degree in temperature..

Nvm I'm missing the point probably 2600:100F:B077:62D0:6ED2:AADA:39F9:39E6 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"Cheery Littlebottom" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheery_Littlebottom&redirect=no Cheery Littlebottom] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergeant_Cheery_Littlebottom&redirect=no Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ephebe
"unclear" time setting in "Small Gods ? => Somewhere in that book we are told, that,by acts of the prophet Brutha (and of course of Lu Tse, the monk) a timeline of another 6000 years of ... :let's say "killinginthenameof"(insert name of your favourite...god here, if you tend to be philosophical?) ceases to exist - therefore the story is set 600o years before the century of the fruitbat, in which their clergy attacks no more living beings at all, and even only one of the undead, right ? 46.114.221.103 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The century (not 6000 years) of killing is at the end, said by Lu-Tze, but as it was supposed to be. I quote, "'Er... you know the books say that Brutha died and there was a century of terrible warfare?'
 * 'you know my eyesight isn't what it was, Lu-Tze'
 * 'well... it's not entirely like that now.'
 * if this is not what you are referring to, I am sorry, please tell me. thank you Cal3000000 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Dark Gods‽
For the things from the dungeon dimensions on the lifeforms part, it says Things from the Dungeon Dimensions (AKA Dark Gods), as well as being under Gods. As far as I can tell from the books, they are never referred to as dark gods, and they are certainly not a subset of gods, with how they work being completely different (the things from the dungeon dimensions do not need belief, just as gods do not crave being. Gods already exist.). Therefore I suggest someone put the things from the dungeon dimensions as it's own subset and remove the dark gods part. (If you want to be very pedantic about this, they are not even sentient.) Cal3000000 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)