Welcome to the Discworld & Pratchett Wiki. Have fun, contribute and be warned articles may contain nuts and spoilers to the plots of the books.

From Discworld & Pratchett Wiki

This is a location to discuss non-content matters (what do we do with content disputes, vandalism, etc, what do we want to do with this wiki, and so on).

[edit] Server errors

This error message shows up frequently lately.

Error 500: Internal server error

Er is een fout op de server opgetreden. Reden van deze fout is vaak:

• De map waarin het PHP script is geplaatst heeft alle rechten toegekend gekregen. PHP weigert uit te voeren als de map waarin het bestand staat alle rechten toegewezen heeft gekregen. De map mag maximaal de rwxrwxr.x (775) rechten hebben.
• Het PHP script zelf heeft te veel rechten toegewezen gekregen. De rechten voor een PHP script mag maximaal rw.rw.r.. (664) zijn.
• Indien u deze foutmelding ziet en bovenstaande niet van toepassing is, neem dan contact op met de helpdesk van bHosted.nl.

--Old Dickens 00:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now it appears when I submit an edit, even though the edit has gone through. Is no one else getting these? --Old Dickens 14:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned it! Same problem, same error message. It came on a week ago. Tech-speak is as impenetrable as Klingon, and getting it in Dutch only makes it more interesting! Although if I read the first line in a Norfolk (East Anglian English) accent, it sounds like

'Er's a fault of the server operatin'. Rayson for this fault is loike:-

and then it goes into Computerese, which still makes no sense whatever English dialect you translate it into! --AgProv 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of this error; it has to do with another website hosted on the same server, which drains too much resources away. Currently I don't have the time to work on it properly, so in the mean time this error will crop up sometimes.

BTW, quite accurate translations :) Literally, it says "A server error has occured. The reason for this error is often:".

--16:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No great distance by boat, which is how it got to be Anglia, of course. --Old Dickens 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As the first post-Roman visitors to these shores discovered! (Ref. the Anglo-Saxon burial site at Sutton Hoo, in Suffolk) I was at uni in Norwich and lived in East Anglia for eleven years, which is time enough to get the gist of a people. Now, that ceremonial helmet discovered at Sutton Hoo was clearly designed for a person with a long, oval-shaped, face. Walk around Woodbridge or Martlesham or Debenham, and what do you see in the natives but that distinctive and not unattractive long, oval, face calling down the centuries...

And as one of the closest parts of England to continental Europe, the local accents are beguiling. The port of Ipswich, for instance, is a corruption of a Dutch/Flemish name, Gippeswyck. Especially with Suffolk people, listen to them talking and try to ignore the content of what they're saying, just listen to the rising and falling cadence of English as she is spoken in those parts. Then tune your radio to a Flemish or a Dutch station, and listen to the rising and falling cadences of the speech. They're practically identical. And the further north you go in East Anglia, into Norfolk, the more "Dutch" the local accent gets... with a bit of intuitive deduction, it's a nice way of making sense of Dutch! --AgProv 11:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done or must we grit our teeth and bear it? Is there a pattern or is it just random?Beligaronia 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the translation:

• The directory which contains the PHP script has been granted full permissions. PHP refuses to run scripts from a directory which has been granted full permissions. A directory must be granted no more than rwxrwxr.x (775). (i.e. not writable by all)
• The PHP script has been granted too many permissions. The permissions granted to a PHP script can be at most rw.rw.r.. (664). (i.e. not writable by all, not executable)
• If you see this message and the above does not apply, please contact the helpdesk at bHosted.nl.

Seem to me this error could be solved by fiddling directory/file permissions.

[edit] Template:Book Data

Sanity (or anyone,) how can we get cover art into the book template without the various problems that come with them? My method leaves code fragments above and below the graphic; the magic method which produces a picture with no entry in the template leaves white spaces. What is expected under "photo"? ...--Old Dickens 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I discovered that the "magic" method depends on using the ISBN-10 number, but I'm still not keen on the white bars. --Old Dickens 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There's more, apart from the ISBN magic. If you've uploaded a picture, it works the same way as the Character template. Just use "photo=image.jpg|description". --Sanity 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. The "|caption" is Required. That's better. (;]--Old Dickens 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] System warning:

Tried to add a topic and got this advisory message

WARNING: This page is 33 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

I'm assuming this means we've exceeded the page limit and not much more may be added here? I've added my intended pennyworth to the "Discussions" page, for now. --AgProv 09:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all old Discussions (See Banner at top). This should let us have some more space. I don't foresee this happening on too many other articles or Talks.--Beligaronia 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You can safely ignore this. This is a "legacy" feature of the wiki software. Certain browsers used to have problems rendering pages over 32kb - this is no longer the case. The 32kb limit is now only retained as a courtesy towards dial-up and mobile phone users. 91.108.207.188 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discworld Series

Would anyone object to putting a tag on the Discworld series template saying something like Publication Order. I don't really have a problem with it but it seems a little silly to have Night Watch followed by Wee Free Men. They aren't really related so I think we should show our reasoning behind it. If anyone at all objects I'm fine leaving it.--Beligaronia 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're related by being set on Discworld and they're in publishing order already. Si Non Confectus, Non Reficiat, as the fella said. (Having Night Watch in the Ankh-Morpork series or creating new overlapping series annoys me.) I believe this was the original master category since the original wiki was to be Discworld only, but soon expanded to all things Pratchettian. --Old Dickens 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing:Help

Proposed addition to Editing:Help. SysOps and experienced contributors please comment or edit. --Old Dickens 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, since there are no objections...--Old Dickens 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The {{wp|stuff|text about stuff}'} template

Would it be an idea to present links to en.wikipedia.org in a diffrent manner. Regular external links get the tiny arrows but links created with {wp}-template looks exactly like an regular wiki-link. Diffrent color or something? Iron Hippo 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You could have the arrow by writing a Wp link like any other external link. I think the template was created to avoid it. --Old Dickens 18:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History

I wonder why the "Oldest pages" page is so wrong. It seems to be in order of the last edit rather than the original. --Old Dickens 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Price of Popularity

The wiki is noticeably busier since all comers were allowed to edit without signing in, but the quality seems to be taking a beating. The inevitable spammers and the odd obvious vandal or naughty child can be dealt with summarily and quickly, but there are many who fall between these and useful contributors. I call them graffiti artists; they want, mainly, to get something published, even scratched on the dome of Small Gods' or the pub washroom stall. They NEVER explain or justify their actions or use the discussion page to argue a point. So...as Editor Quia Nemo Vult, I have to decide among reverting, working a lot to edit their trivia into a compromise, or being perfectly democratic and watching the wiki descend to the level of a Star Wars bulletin board. Any useful suggestions? . --Old Dickens 00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd be really nice if there was some middle ground between allowing all anon editing and allowing none. A moderation period for the first few posts would be a welcome addition. Unfortunately, I know of no mediawiki plugin which will allow that. Fhh98 01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean...the page Once More* *with Footnotes was created by an anonymous contributor from Omaha who did some good work for a month in 2005 and disappeared. Some people just aren't joiners but filtering them is getting to be a struggle. --Old Dickens 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to say the least, if you would bother looking at the original state of the Pump and Reacher Gilt article, both were a lot smaller and not much better off before I came along. Is that useful, or is that not? You decide. I add and shuffle information based on a question of Right or Wrong.

P.S. Too lazy to register. 99.238.41.80 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a MediaWiki plugin which allows for that. Flagged Revisions ensures that edits made by users without the "autoreview" (or something like that) right are filtered and not displayed until a "sighter" comes along and filters it. The German Wikipedia and MediaWiki's own wiki both use this plugin. Also, the Abuse Filter plugin allows for edits in a certain style to be instantly reverted. --Azrael 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Uploads

The instructions on the upload page suggest the form Media:File.ogg, but neither .ogg nor any other audio file is actually allowed. Wouldn't it be nice to have audio files, especially for a pronouncing guide? --Old Dickens 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, I must have misread your message. Only the server admin can do it by adding $wgFileExtensions[] = 'ogg'; to LocalSettings.php after the original $wgFileExtensions. --Azrael 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] We're Back!

(Chorus of Valkyries and Little Angels:) Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Halle-e-e-lujah!
A Glorious 25th to all. --Old Dickens 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened? Thank you for bringing it back.--Beligaronia 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I was getting a little twitchy, myself. --Old Dickens 21:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I kept getting "you are not allowed to access this server bla bla bla". I thougt some mod blocked the IP I post from or something (was just about asking the sister to access the Discwiki from her ISP). Keep up the good work all Iron Hippo 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editnotice

I created an editnotice at Main Page/Editnotice to deter vandals as the Main Page is very important, but it isn't showing up when I edit the Main Page. Can anyone help me with this, and I apologise if I've broken policy/done something wrong? --Azrael 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it should show up. Even Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a template for Main pages and I don't think anyone has ever used an editnotice here. We don't have much trouble with edits of the Main page anyway; what vandalism there is is usually in articles. The software seems to recognise the function and create a link, but I don't know if it can do anything else. --Old Dickens 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC) ... Besides, I think your average vandal would regard the notice as encouragement. --Old Dickens 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we just protect the main page without putting up a site notice, if it would be a problem? TC01 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already "protected". --Old Dickens 03:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The protection log shows that it's sufficiently protected to stop new users and IPs from editing the page, and moving the page is limited to sysops or SQL users. If anyone opposes the idea, feel free to delete it, I just thought it might discourage some disruptive editors. --Azrael 11:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] So what's an annotation?

"Annotation: A note by way of explanation or comment."
So the dictionary definition is useless; everything here is annotation. What do we mean by annotation for wiki purposes?

A contributor suggests that any information from other than canonical sources must be "annotation". This doesn't seem reasonable in light of the many subjects which have no canonical explanation, only the mention. It would require considerable devastation of the wiki and leave a lot of articles on the plan: "Mentioned in Book:Title", followed by a page of annotations. I would hate to see the wiki as a dull index to a lot of graffiti.

There are relevant and supportable data that should be included in wiki articles and there are opinions and suggestions and speculation that do not fit a wiki environment and should be confined to their own areas. (Factual and supportable notes may still be added to actual Annotations pages as well.) "Annotations", defined as "anything anyone wants to say about it", or a front-page talk page are not subject to the wiki process and don't belong. Unfortunately we don't know what to do with the existing lot, but let's not let them bloat forever. I can't support any scheme to boost them, especially at the expense of the wiki articles.

Any other definitions...suggestions? .. --Old Dickens 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"This contributor" has recently risked the wrath of Old Dickens for moving one of his comments into an annotation. I see annotations as adjuncts to articles, rather like footnotes or appendices to a text. They function as giving the backstory or a reference that is useful, risible, or germane to the point being made without breaking the flow of the main article. This is clearly different to the function of the Discussion Pages, where "anything anyone wants to say about it" may fairly be said. In the particular instance that so incensed Dickens there were three definitions and/or observations as to the possible antecedents of the subject in question (the derivation of the term "Lance-" in military usage), and I moved a fourth (Old Dickens') to join them. I do not believe this was slander, merely sense. Grouping them together still makes more sense to me. I am proud that I have written something of the order of four hundred annotations to articles, and believe I have added something worthwhile to each of them by doing so. I am willing to be overruled by consensus, but this seems to me a clash of styles rather than a wiki-wide issue. I agree that the annotations need to not be "bloated", but if they are germane to the article or give a Roundworld reference (with or without a wikipedia link) then I believe they have a valid place. Any other talk or discussions around the articles have their place in the Discussion Pages. --Knmatt 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a clash of styles, but I can't think of a more wiki-wide issue than what's eligible for inclusion. Before we start tearing up all those articles on subjects not defined in the canon and all the old ones from before there were annotations we might consider the name of the site: Wiki, not bulletin board. If a point is germane to the article and is supported by evidence, why is it not in the article and subject to normal wiki editing? --Old Dickens 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy Links?

The underwhelming response to the previous question on standards prompts me to try another.

Viridovix's recent article causes me to wonder (though it's been done many times before; not castigating him) whether we should use links to explain the terms as he did with Biers. This leads the visitor to follow the links and explore, but I'm sure Wikipedia and others would want the terms defined, at least generally, in the article. I'm torn between these camps, myself. --Old Dickens 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it depends on how much you would likely know if you were in the article? In this particular case, Mrs Gammage is a fairly obscure character, if you were looking her up specifically then you are probably an officianado and the reminder of Biers would be enough to place her. That said, someone might get to the page via Random Page or similar and require more of an explanation. --Viridovix 16:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, a reasonable point for that article, but also a re-statement of the question. It also leads into the question of whether we write for each other (who know most of it already), or the newcomer and the general public. I think writing for ourselves is a common problem (I've done it myself) that we could also try to reduce. --Old Dickens 17:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back

For no appaerent reason I've been away for a while. Did you miss me? Does anyone remember me? Now I'll find out if anything interesteng has happened. Feel free to fill me in. Iron Hippo 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Swedish Engineer lives! I was certainly wondering: four months is a long sentence just for being found rascally drunk. The usual busy and slow periods have been happening; you'd have to look around. A couple of questions above could use opinions. (I tried to translate "pull up a chair and call the cat a bastard" into Svensk, but I don't know that it works.) --Old Dickens 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To the charges of being rascally drunk I would have to claim the fifth amendment (When life gives you lemons, suck them!). As to the cat being a bastard, my Madame had a litter of five kittens which, if I know anything about cat genetics, must have been fathered by at least two diffrent tomcats. --Iron Hippo 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Effects

Anybody still awake out there? TC01, Fhh98? I'm getting very odd response from HQ, not just slow, but random, wrong responses, as if the SQL were _ing up again. --Old Dickens 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing it. Alas only Sanity has access to the HQ. All we can mess with is the exposed wiki parts. No access to the backend server or database. I do hope Sanity is backing things up regularly. --Fhh98 01:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess: I'm still having a terrible time accessing the wiki although other sites seem ok. --Old Dickens 02:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had any trouble on the wiki either today. I haven't really been on much, though, so maybe it'll start if I edit a few pages. TC01 03:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine at work this morning. --Old Dickens 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The wiki appeared to have collapsed altogether last weekend (3-4 July). I was getting nothing but an error message when trying to gain access. I emailed the L-Space Librarians who presumably alerted Sanity and got him on the job - it was up again on Monday morning.

The error message was

Database errorA database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate >> a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: >> >> (SQL query hidden) >> >> from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff::_doquery". Database returned error >> "1194: Table 'objectcache' is marked as crashed and should be repaired >> (localhost)".

Hypatia from L-Space alerted someone called Michel (Sanity's "Clark Kent" identity?) who did whatever repairs were neccessary, as things were sorted out by Monday. So there are still glitxhes and gremlins? --AgProv 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

...someone called Michel, indeed. Yes ,that was fixed on Monday. Last night I got some goofy, out-of-order copies of Recent Changes and then repeated timed-outs and failures. As I said, it seemed fine at work, but back home it's very unreliable again on either computer. Must be our lovely ISP again. --Old Dickens 22:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oy. I should know by now. Reset the modem and the router and everything goes like stink! --Old Dickens 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Thanks for the information" comments

I've noticed an interesting set of what I assume to be spam comments on Talk:Infernal Zoth, the Undying Renderer, Talk:Pyrites, and Talk:Tolliver Groat that are essentially the same: (see below, from Groat's talk page)

"Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!"

I assume they're spam- is this some kind of coordinated attack (for instance, by a botnet)? I can't see how they would be, since all they're doing is saying "What a great article"...

Old Dickens said the Infernal Zoth post was from China- I looked up the other two IPs and one was from Oklahoma and the other from Italy.

Do we revert these edits, block the IPs? Or let them be? TC01 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Most peculiar. They may be a code exchange, but as you say, they don't seem to hurt us much. I'd defer to Fhh98 here. --Old Dickens 23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The first was curious considering what page it was on. The second is alarming. The third should get blocked with a short ban. --Fhh98 00:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Kudos on blocking work so far --Iron Hippo 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the simplest tool to tell where a specific IP is located? --Iron Hippo 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

many many places. a google search for IP Location turns up a ton of sites like http://www.iplocation.net/ --Fhh98 23:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, the latest attack on Talk:Bigmac was from Thailand. (Since Old Dickens has been posting them, but didn't this time, I thought I'd mention it). TC01 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Bot created users

I took a few moment to sift through the few thousamd users that are registered here. I can make no other conclusion that many if not the majority of these are clumsily added by bots.

Display all users in order of joining. At april-may of 2007 there are accounts added with four minute intervals, names consisting of six random letters. In 2008 there are more of this, with slighly less obvious names but still easliy spotted.

Should these be purged so that the member list reflects reality? --Iron Hippo 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now Fhh98 has taken to popping up before I can actually enter the question (creating edit conflict). I suspect he's an Igor. Anyway, now filter for actual edits: the list falls to ~600 and some of these are spammers already banned. I've long wondered what to do with all the obviously phony "members", but investigating them one at a time sounds tedious and I don't really know how to remove them anyway. As usual for structural questions, back to User:Fhh98. - --Old Dickens 23:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The don't actually hurt anything and there is no easy way to purge a user. --Fhh98 00:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Series Redundancy

Who's in favor of including the Tiffany series in the Witches series? I don't like overlaps myself. --Old Dickens 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in favor. It would be like saying that the Truth is part of the Watch series because Watch characters are involved.

(My reasoning exactly. --Old Dickens 23:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

The main focus of the Witches series is Granny Weatherwax, triumphing over evil and getting on the nerves of the whole world, with a bit of help from other witches. The main focus of the Tiffany series is Tiffany... well, I don't quite know what the main focus is- learning witchcraft, I assume. Haven't read them. But there's enough info on the wiki for me to conclude that the main focus of those books isn't the same as the other Witches books. TC01 01:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not hearing anyone for overlapping series, I shall confine her to three. --Old Dickens 22:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)