Talk:Unseen University

Devolving?
Uhm... Is this project devolving to the point of fiction?

Close. It's a project about an evolving work of fiction. Haunti 17:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eta Beta Pi
I thought that was "Eat-a Bit-a Pie" in a stereotypical Italian accent. Could be wrong though. Vitriol 19:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In one of the Susan Sto Helit books she tells someone it's "Eat a Better Pie." I could have sworn it was in Thief of Time, that she's telling Lobsang, but I just leafed through it and that's not the one.Dvallere (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in Hogfather - Susan explains it to the Oh God of Hangovers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.214.132 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Cunning Artificer" sculpture ?
Should there be mention of the Bernard Pearson/"The Cunning Artificer" sculpture of the UU somewhere in this entry ? IIRC it was sold in 7 or 8 parts, in a limited edition of 250 complete sets ... sold out many years ago, so an entry can't be considered an advert. There is a mention of the scuplture on Bernard Pearson's page, but no mention of it when you get here - IanG, 18:18, 3 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Address of UU?
Does the UU have an official and known street address in Ankh Morpork? If yes, it should IMHO be mentioned in the article.

Tower of Art Inaccuracy
Whomsoever wrote the segment about the Tower of Art made an understandable but rather glaring error in calculation. Yes, 800 feet of height divided by 8,888 steps yields a step height of 1.08"...but that's a linear scale. The steps are described as a winding staircase on the interior of the tower, much akin to a lighthouse. This being the case, the step height depends greatly on pitch between spiral levels and step depth. Since these variables are presently unknown, I would humbly suggest that the mention of step height be removed as the present assertion is incorrect and no viable corrective method exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.107.67.88 (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC). 199.107.67.88 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The height of each step is declared in at least one book - The Colour of Magic to say the least - as being just over one inch high. While I do agree with the general principle of your calculations, don't forget that the tower is inherently magical and thus the laws of physics do not generally apply, or if they do, are severely bent. Magical construction (since it is also presumed that the Tower may even be older than the Discworld) doesn't always pay heed to normal universal laws. LudBob (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And even without magical effects, the whole argument of the anonymous first commenter is fallacious. The spiral shape affects the width (left-right) and depth (front-back) of each step, but not the height (up-down). The linear scale is precisely along the vertical dimension of the Tower. --Thnidu (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Double Former Archchancellor list
In this article, there are two lists, one of the "Former Archchancellors" and one of the "Previous Archchancellors". Maybe I don't get the joke there, but as far as I see it, the two lists should be merged. 141.76.40.160 13:22, 10 October 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) 14:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Flead
Isn't Dead Flead acting as a bouncer also for the club he is haunting? Noteable? Lots42 (talk) No, he's not. He was insorcized in Making Money - presumably the reverse of an exorcism. He's not acting as a bouncer, though - he inhabits one of the chairs in the front row. Since Lipwig's paper money is so popular, the "management didn't mind the loss of one seat, although the record for anyone staying in it was 10 seconds" (paraphrasal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by LudBob (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Size and pleasaunce
The prose style of this article is very nice, and I'm reluctant to muck about with it. I am, for that reason, inclined to make the very contrawikipedian suggestion that whomever has so delightfully penned this piece insert a further couple of points of fact, rather than I. Namely, while the comparison between UU, and Cambridge and Oxford, has been hinted at, two direct allusions are overlooked here, and ought to be included somehow.

The Bridge of Size is a reference not to the Bridge of Sighs in Venice, but to its counterparts, or perhaps more correctly its imitators, in Oxford and Cambridge. The Oxford bridge crosses a street, whereas the Cambridge bridge crosses the Cam, connecting between the colleges and the Backs (the area on the opposite side of the river from the many old college buildings on Trinity Street and King's Parade). The bridge forms a part of St. John's College. Sourcery places the UU bridge in a similar setting.

Secondly, "Wizard's Pleasaunce" is a direct reference to "Scholar's Piece", right down to the corresponding misspellings of the words Pleasance and Peace. The Piece is a meadow, featuring heifers in the warmer months, forming a part of the Backs on the property of King's College. This is a short way down the river from John's, where the Bridge of Sighs is located, and the whole corresponds nicely with the UU layout, and is clearly the inspiration for its Ankhian counterpart.

Well, something of this ought to be included, and I'll do so if the principal author is not so inclined to expand on his or her contributions. I pray nobody gets over-eager with the tabs, as I can find no suitable citation for this. I contend that it's clear, but that's 'Original Research', isn't it? Perhaps a permissiveness will prevail here. Let it be hoped. Should citations be demanded, I dare say that a reference to "Sourcery", and to a map of Cambridge, would suffice.

Cmsg 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You make points I tend to agree with; but then the 'other' side of me -wants- citation needed tags. I don't know what to think. Which goes with the whole spirit of the University. Heh. Lots42 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

missing staff member
i would like to point out that the list of staff is missing the lecturer in recent runes. As a character mentioned in many books, i think it would be appropriate if he was included —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaroosrule (talk • contribs) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete
I see this page is up for deletion. Please don't. It's a good one, just needs tidying.--WestwoodMatt (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion is actually located at Articles for deletion/Unseen University (2nd nomination), where you are welcome to comment. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced this article by about 40%
Hopefully, that should keep it from being deleted for the time being.  Serendi pod ous  20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's back to where it was, since I merged two new articles with it. Still, I think it can be trimmed again.  Serendi pod ous  19:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Notes on the Library
In case there's space for it, it may be worth noting the Libraries roots in Borges "Library of Babel" and earlier ideas.
 * ??? Lots42 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Eskarina Smith
Why is Eskarina Smith on the Witch page and not the Wizard's? It's explicitly stated every time she's mentioned that she's not a witch, but the only female wizard. It's noted in one of the books (The Discworld companion-encyclopedia thing, I believe) that the method of magic is more important than gender in the classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.120.10 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Go ahead and move her. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed some of the more recent edits to Witches (Discworld); however the individual who added them is somewhat... insistent, and if this sparks another edit war I would appreciate some backup.  Serendi pod ous  19:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Flead
Flead deserves his own entry. Lots42 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Other Staff
Shouldn't some of the other staff who ain't wizards be included in this section such as Glenda, Mr Nobbs (no relation), Mister Nutt etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.72.7 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole Discworld coverage is sort of a poor hodgepodge right now, and it could certainly benefit from someone who feels like helping clean it up. Are you that someone? :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Plot summary"
The "issues" header includes a "plot summary" complaint dated September 2009. This is probably a dead issue by now; someone remove it? And anyway these sections aren't plot summaries in the usual sense, though maybe they are in Wikipedianese: they don't describe plot so much as settings, characters, etc. --Thnidu (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Other staff
This section was a single very long sentence listing titles and names, all joined with commas. This made it very hard to read. In addition, the apparent appositions were ambiguous. E.g., when we read
 * ...the Professor of Recondite Architecture and Origami Map-Folding, Ladislav Pelc, Prehumous Professor of Morbid Bibliomancy, Professor Goitre, Posthumous Professor of Morbid Bibliomancy,...

we can't tell whether this means or or or After checking on the L-Space Wiki, I've changed the format to a bulleted list. --Thnidu (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pelc is the Professor of Recondite Architecture and Origami Map-Folding and Goitre is Prehumous Professor of Morbid Bibliomancy
 * Pelc is the Prehumous Professor of Morbid Bibliomancy and Goitre is Posthumous Professor...
 * Pelc is Prehumous Professor, Goitre's position is not given, and the Posthumous Professor's name is not given
 * some other combination.

L-Space....
The Librarian also utilized L-space in Guards! Guards! to retrieve a stolen book about summoning dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.37.218.179 (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Time for a 4th deletion nomination?
How has this article gone a decade without a fourth delete nomination? Did it simply get forgotten whilst similar entries for other franchises were being reduced, culled or otherwise banished to Wikia/Fandom? Was it shielded by Wikipedians' partiality for the source material? I'm a Pratch lover myself but there's no justification for this article's continued existence in its present form. The dearth of citations or a 'references in popular culture/other media' pretty much affirms its dubious notability. --Danish Ranger (talk 02:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. More specifically, feel free to focus it better by removing less important or redundant information. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't very well fix an article I think should, at best, be merged with Witches (Discworld) and Ankh-Morpork City Watch into an "Organisations of Discworld" super-article (other article names are available). Shan't do any unilateral editing in that direction, however. --Danish Ranger (talk 15:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can trim some stuff down and incorporate references. It's what the encyclopedia needs more of, really. Few people are really interested in doing the hard work of taking an article and making it a good article, or a great article. It's far less work to just ignore policy, cite WP:TNT, and nominate something for deletion. This is why Wikipedia is failing to attract new non-partisan editors, but that's a topic for another discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, feel free to go look at the sources I found for the second AfD a dozen years ago, and incorporate them. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Improving vs. eviscerating
, thanks for trying to improve things, but your edits are not taking into account the reality that in cleaning up other Discworld articles, much of their content has been merged here. Do have a look at what links here. There are over 200 pages, with many of them being substantial redirects. Thus, we can't really just hack out whole sections that seem out of place without losing content: the reason they seem out of place or excessive is that often little effort was made to integrate the merged articles into a coherent whole. THAT, rather than wholesale removal of sections, is what is needed here. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , a year later, and it appears you missed this part of the talk page. Feel free to actually improve sections or engage in thoughtful reorganizations of the material that reflect implementing past mergers. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , I didn't miss it. I'm afraid the reasoning is wrong. Nothing I removed was sourced in any way. As you surely well know, verifiability is one of the unconditional requirements of any material on Wikipedia. How many other unsourced articles have been merged here in the past is irrelevant. In addition, the text I removed was overwhelming written with a sniggering, in-universe fan's perspective, which is not appropriate for wikipedia articles. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the whole thing needs to be rewritten using third-party sources, in an encylopedic tone and style. The fact that this argument has been going on for 15 years, according to the past afd discussions, makes clear that interested editors are well aware of this article's issues, but have done very little to address them. Therefore, it's slightly strange to object to others removing this material on the grounds that it should be "improved". You can't thoughtfully reorganise reams of unsourced trivia. Jdcooper (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your reasoning is incorrect. Yes, it's unsourced. No, it's not entirely unverifiable, just unverified: there's a difference. We're agreed verifiability it's a requirement, but if verification were a requirement cn would be against policy. Ditto, nothing you say about how the information should be presented is incorrect... but the starting point is the consensus article--the result of multiple mergers and AfDs--not your idea of a minimialist stubbification. By all means, feel free to tag things, entire sections if appropriate... but deleting multiple entire sections (which are themselves merge targets, in most cases) without any attempt at improvement is neither required by policy nor supported by consensus, including current consensus in light of the below comment. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From Verifiability: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." -- The first AfD highlighting the poor state of this article was 14 years ago. How much more time do you think you will need to provide references?
 * I'll add again that the discussion of what has been merged here is irrelevant if that content itself is unsourced. Jdcooper (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It does appear a lil like throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the erased content ought to be put back, some not. It'll require work.Halbared (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All the material is preserved in the edit history, just waiting to be re-added with third-party sourcing :) Jdcooper (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ... and on the basis of this additional objection to the wholesale removal, it is being readded again per consensus, so that improvements can be made on the basis of the article which correctly lays out the required (or at least, expected based on past mergers) subtopics. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hate to do this to you,, but I'm reverting your improvements as they aren't enough to restore the article to its consensus state. Please don't hesitate to work down from the maximal article, as we're agreed much of it needs trimming. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've listed this discussion at Third_opinion. Jdcooper (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:3O
Hello, I'm responding to a request for a third opinion. This article, as of its current version, is written exclusively from an in-universe style. As such, it is fundamentally in need of a complete rewrite. It should be stubbified and rewritten from an out-of-universe standpoint, using reliable sources. It's worth noting that some of the arguments above refer to a local consensus to ignore the manual of style guidelines on in-universe perspective. This is not correct as a local consensus should not be used to override our style guidelines. Also as a reminder per WP:V, which is policy, material that has been challenged should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)