Talk:The Luggage

The Luggage also appears in "The Science of Discworld". I dont't trust myself to get it right, but maybe someone else might wantto add that? 128.176.151.124

From VfD:

A fictional talking trunk that should be merged with the novels that mention it. -- orthogonal 11:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep: "The Luggage appears in some of the Discworld novels by Terry Pratchett." &mdash; so you suggest that this article be merged into serveral (seven) articles instead of having it worked on in one place? -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   11:49, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps Discworld (fantasy book series) -- orthogonal 11:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It at least seems to me that this is not a minor character, the article also exists on fr and it might be expanded more in the future. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   11:58, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)


 * Given the fact that all the characters of the Discworld novels have entries, all the countries of Discworld have entries, and a number of the artifacts in Discworld have articles, deleting this one without going after all the others would be a waste of time. The Luggage is a character that appears in four or more of the novels, so it actually appears more than most of the named characters.  Therefore, if there is going to be a Discworld consolidation, this would be one of the items to be merged and redirected.  However, that's the only justification for a delete, I think.  I'd argue that, for ha-ha fiction, this is higher profile and more longevity.  Geogre 12:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A noteable character from a noteable series. If anything, the article could probably be expanded... --G Rutter 13:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, ditto G Rutter. If disambiguation is likely to become an issue then rename it The Luggage (Discworld) or somesuch, but the Luggage is an important character in the Discworld series. -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 14:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, since this is a recurring figure that was used in the advertising of at least the early books in a series that managed to get 4 of the top 100 on the BBC's Big Read. Certainly more notable than yet another Pokemon thing... Average Earthman 16:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons mentioned by Average Earthman. Livajo 16:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely a notable character. &#8212;Rory &#9786; 16:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Odysseus is a notable character. Leopold Bloom is a notable character. Tyrone Slothrop is a notable character. (And yes, the last two are perhaps re-imaginings of the first.) The Luggage is notable only on a Terry Pratchett fan site, not a general encyclopedia. But I can see that this is one fight I won't win. :) -- orthogonal 17:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think some people fail to recognise quite how notable the Discworld is. Before JK Rowling came along, Terry Pratchett was Britain's best selling living author, and Discworld was most of that. The Luggage is a significant character in seven of the books. &#8212;Rory &#9786; 10:39, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, FWIW. I'd love a character rodeo.  Rope 'em, brand 'em, and corral them.  It's just that I'm a lone voice in the wilderness on this, and some folks feel like Mustrum Ridcully is on the same ground as Ahab. (shrug)  If the Great Cartoon and Minor Fiction Rodeo ever begins, I'll have the spurs on and a lasso in my hand. Geogre 20:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Sign me up, too. I'm OK with fiction on WP, as long as it's clearly identfied as such, mostly because we don't have someplace to transwiki it to, and because it brings in new Wikipedians (I'm pretty sure the first I heard of Wikipedia was when I was looking for LotR info, because of the movie--I'd like to point out that I was NOT thinking I'd find it in an encyclopedia--WP just happened to be one of the top Google hits). That said, I am strongly opposed to excessive granularity, fiction or not (well, probably especially fiction, as long as redirs get people to the info they seek). If nothing more than a sentence or two can ever be said about a subject, I don't think it's worth the extra overhead and mouse clicks that come with being in its own article. Also, there are precedents for round-ups--a bunch of minor Hobbits got corralled into Female hobbits, and then there was the recent purge of D&D spells, and the consolidation of a bunch of Zelda articles into The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time characters, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time places, etc. I've registered a bunch of appropriate domain names I'd be willing to donate if it is decided to make a wikifiction 'sister project' (wikimusic, too). Niteowlneils 01:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The trouble with the character rodeo is that, within a few months after its completion, some of the same articles will be reappearing, by new users who weren't here for the roundup and who search only to the extent of finding that there's no current article under the character's name.  I think we're better off keeping articles like this one.  I'm even OK with all the minor Tolkien characters (notice how many have their own articles that link to The Silmarillion). JamesMLane 06:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would only support such a roundup if all the individual names were left as redirects, as was done with female hobbits, avoiding that argument. Niteowlneils 11:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No vote, but people tell me that my proposal at Improving categories could be of interest for people here. Read and comment, if you're interested. Zocky 02:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pratchett's books are quite popular, and The Luggage is a recurring "character".   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lacrimosus 12:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely definitely, just as we have articles on each books and most of the other major characters. James F. (talk) 09:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons already stated, or possibly merge with Rincewind. Coralling all the DW characters would produce a really large and ungainly article, IMO. Oh, and maybe add a bit making it clear the Luggage doesn't talk 8-). Daibhid C 10:50 15 Sept 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definatly. He is a great character and you would only understand if you read the books. =D 199.224.81.132 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Octavo
This article says that The Luggage "'ate' the most powerful magical spell book on the disc" and then asumes that it is still in The Luggage. In the book Sourcery Rincewind say something along the lines of "It ate a magic book last year, moped around for a bit then threw it up". I always belived that this was a reference to the book it ate in The Light Fantastic. I would qoute from the book but I don't have it on me. JimKandol 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The impression that I got was that it was a different book. The Octavo seems to have wanted to be eaten...  It wasn't putting up a fight, and didn't seem to plan to go anywhere for another 4500 years or so. Emry (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was the Octavo. I'll have to find the reference, but somewhere in one of the books it is said that the Octavo was subsequently welded into an iron box and buried at the bottom of a deep shaft (like nuclear waste).  RobertDean (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Luggage.jpg
Image:Luggage.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 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)