Talk:Book:The World of Poo - Revision history

AgProv: removing un-needed redlink

2016-07-24T15:21:18Z

removing un-needed redlink

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 24 July 2016
Line 7:		Line 7:
	And for mentioning it on other pages.. maybe in a separate section on the article, like the annotations section? Or possibly just a paragraph along the lines of "He is mentioned in [[Felicity Beedle]]'s story [[Book:The World of Poo\|The World of Poo]] as.. {insert details here}."?		And for mentioning it on other pages.. maybe in a separate section on the article, like the annotations section? Or possibly just a paragraph along the lines of "He is mentioned in [[Felicity Beedle]]'s story [[Book:The World of Poo\|The World of Poo]] as.. {insert details here}."?

	I was going to suggest we distinguish the [[Book:The World of Poo\|book published here]] and the ~~[[The World of Poo\|~~book published on the Disc]] for organizational reasons (it felt weird to me seeing Book:The World of Poo in the Discworld publications category). But maybe that would just create redundancies? [[User:TC01\|TC01]] 23:04, 11 June 2012 (CEST)		I was going to suggest we distinguish the [[Book:The World of Poo\|book published here]] and the book published on the Disc for organizational reasons (it felt weird to me seeing Book:The World of Poo in the Discworld publications category). But maybe that would just create redundancies? [[User:TC01\|TC01]] 23:04, 11 June 2012 (CEST)
	:As far as we know it's the same book, isn't it? We don't do different pages for Doubleday and HarperCollins. I'd just put characters and things in a ''Category:The World of Poo'' as we do with ''Nation'', e.g. [[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 23:56, 11 June 2012 (CEST)		:As far as we know it's the same book, isn't it? We don't do different pages for Doubleday and HarperCollins. I'd just put characters and things in a ''Category:The World of Poo'' as we do with ''Nation'', e.g. [[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 23:56, 11 June 2012 (CEST)

Old Dickens: Old Dickens moved page Book talk:The World of Poo to Talk:Book:The World of Poo without leaving a redirect

2012-12-26T19:07:45Z

Old Dickens moved page Book talk:The World of Poo to Talk:Book:The World of Poo without leaving a redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:07, 26 December 2012
(No difference)

Old Dickens: 5 revisions: getting the hang of it

2012-12-26T17:49:48Z

5 revisions: getting the hang of it

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:49, 26 December 2012
(No difference)

Old Dickens at 21:56, 11 June 2012

2012-06-11T21:56:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:56, 11 June 2012
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I was going to suggest we distinguish the [[Book:The World of Poo\|book published here]] and the [[The World of Poo\|book published on the Disc]] for organizational reasons (it felt weird to me seeing Book:The World of Poo in the Discworld publications category). But maybe that would just create redundancies? [[User:TC01\|TC01]] 23:04, 11 June 2012 (CEST)		I was going to suggest we distinguish the [[Book:The World of Poo\|book published here]] and the [[The World of Poo\|book published on the Disc]] for organizational reasons (it felt weird to me seeing Book:The World of Poo in the Discworld publications category). But maybe that would just create redundancies? [[User:TC01\|TC01]] 23:04, 11 June 2012 (CEST)
			:As far as we know it's the same book, isn't it? We don't do different pages for Doubleday and HarperCollins. I'd just put characters and things in a ''Category:The World of Poo'' as we do with ''Nation'', e.g. [[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 23:56, 11 June 2012 (CEST)

TC01: whoops

2012-06-11T21:05:16Z

whoops

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 11 June 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:Maybe it's time for a category 'Character's fictional on the Disc'? --[[User:LilMaibe\|LilMaibe]] 21:34, 11 June 2012 (CEST)		:Maybe it's time for a category 'Character's fictional on the Disc'? --[[User:LilMaibe\|LilMaibe]] 21:34, 11 June 2012 (CEST)

	I would say characters deserve pages, but possibly just pages in the Discworld culture category. We could make a Fictional characters category of some sort but if this book is the only published Disc fiction that would fill it maybe a [[Category:The World of Poo characters]] would be better? But since we know it's in-universe fiction I don't think the characters are ''real'' in the same way [[Sam Vimes]] is "real". (Of course, I just opened myself up to the counterargument that neither of them are real, which is of course technically correct, but you know what I mean).		I would say characters deserve pages, but possibly just pages in the Discworld culture category. We could make a Fictional characters category of some sort but if this book is the only published Disc fiction that would fill it maybe a Category:The World of Poo characters would be better? But since we know it's in-universe fiction I don't think the characters are ''real'' in the same way [[Sam Vimes]] is "real". (Of course, I just opened myself up to the counterargument that neither of them are real, which is of course technically correct, but you know what I mean).

	And for mentioning it on other pages.. maybe in a separate section on the article, like the annotations section? Or possibly just a paragraph along the lines of "He is mentioned in [[Felicity Beedle]]'s story [[Book:The World of Poo\|The World of Poo]] as.. {insert details here}."?		And for mentioning it on other pages.. maybe in a separate section on the article, like the annotations section? Or possibly just a paragraph along the lines of "He is mentioned in [[Felicity Beedle]]'s story [[Book:The World of Poo\|The World of Poo]] as.. {insert details here}."?

	I was going to suggest we distinguish the [[Book:The World of Poo\|book published here]] and the [[The World of Poo\|book published on the Disc]] for organizational reasons (it felt weird to me seeing Book:The World of Poo in the Discworld publications category). But maybe that would just create redundancies? [[User:TC01\|TC01]] 23:04, 11 June 2012 (CEST)		I was going to suggest we distinguish the [[Book:The World of Poo\|book published here]] and the [[The World of Poo\|book published on the Disc]] for organizational reasons (it felt weird to me seeing Book:The World of Poo in the Discworld publications category). But maybe that would just create redundancies? [[User:TC01\|TC01]] 23:04, 11 June 2012 (CEST)

TC01 at 21:04, 11 June 2012

2012-06-11T21:04:46Z

New page

Ah. A bit of pickle, this. As it is a work of fiction ''written on the Disc'', should we accept it as canon? The footnotes are factual, Gargoyle's digestive tracts, gongfemers and so on, but is Geoffrey real, and does he deserve a page? And what of Louis? Or Plain Old Humphrey? Or Lily? And should we note the events of the book in the Harry King or Charles Lavatory page?--[[User:Stanley Howler|Stanley Howler]] 19:03, 11 June 2012 (CEST)

:Maybe it's time for a category 'Character's fictional on the Disc'? --[[User:LilMaibe|LilMaibe]] 21:34, 11 June 2012 (CEST)

I would say characters deserve pages, but possibly just pages in the Discworld culture category. We could make a Fictional characters category of some sort but if this book is the only published Disc fiction that would fill it maybe a [[Category:The World of Poo characters]] would be better? But since we know it's in-universe fiction I don't think the characters are ''real'' in the same way [[Sam Vimes]] is "real". (Of course, I just opened myself up to the counterargument that neither of them are real, which is of course technically correct, but you know what I mean).

And for mentioning it on other pages.. maybe in a separate section on the article, like the annotations section? Or possibly just a paragraph along the lines of "He is mentioned in [[Felicity Beedle]]'s story [[Book:The World of Poo|The World of Poo]] as.. {insert details here}."?

I was going to suggest we distinguish the [[Book:The World of Poo|book published here]] and the [[The World of Poo|book published on the Disc]] for organizational reasons (it felt weird to me seeing Book:The World of Poo in the Discworld publications category). But maybe that would just create redundancies? [[User:TC01|TC01]] 23:04, 11 June 2012 (CEST)

Stanley Howler: Created page with "Ah. A bit of pickle, this. As it is a work of fiction ''written on the Disc'', should we accept it as canon? The footnotes are factual, Gargoyle's digestive tracts, gongfemers..."

2012-06-11T17:03:34Z

Created page with "Ah. A bit of pickle, this. As it is a work of fiction ''written on the Disc'', should we accept it as canon? The footnotes are factual, Gargoyle's digestive tracts, gongfemers..."

New page