To keep a distincion of short stories from books, I have created the Short Story namespace. --Sanity 16:09, 5 January 2006 (CET)
Is it just me, or is it completey useless to have even the years be actual Wiki links? Is anybody going to go: "Hmmm, Mort was published in 1987, and -- oh wait, let me see what Wikipedia has to tell me about the year 1987"?
Linking just-because-you-can is merely screen pollution and only causes the truly useful links to become obscured. An abundance of choices is not always helpful.
This is of course a problem I have with Wikipedia in general. Most articles these days are more blue than black, simply because every friggin' word for which an article exists gets. (Unsigned comment by Leo Breebaart at 11:20, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC))
- I agree. I overdid it. I've scaled back the links by removing all year links, and linking only the first occurrence of each publisher. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:40, 4 Jul 2005 (CEST)
I'd just like to say that most of the blurbs here, I assume they are from the UK editions, are different from the US ones and, ye gods, the blurbs I read here are fun, so much more fun than the US ones. Also the UK blurbs are more Discworld-ly, whereas the US ones seem to try to generalize things, squish too much information in a few words, and end up implying the wrong thing. For example, the US blurb for Feet of Clay ends with the sentence "Even when the investigation leads to an out-of-work golem, a vampire dragon, and a vegetarian werewolf...."; however, in the book the vegetarian werewolf is a member of the investigation team, not something that the investigation finds, and the investigation hardly ever led to the vampire named dragon. US blurbs also include weird mistakes, like "Even when one of the victims is murdered with a loaf of her own Battle Bread (available in convenient throwing slices)." for Feet of Clay. I can understand the attempt to squish the commercial dwarf bread with the dwarf bread museum, but they used a female pronoun on poor old Mr. Hopkinson... -- Vsl
The (old) Discworld Companion seems to have multiple editions without changing the names. My copy is the "Updated" 2001 version, so on the copyright page I see that first edition was 1994, and my copy was 2001. On some bookseller websites I keep seeing people saying they are selling used copies of 1997 edition. Is there really a 1997 edition? If not, please correct it on the Bibliography page.--Vsl 01:28, 1 February 2006 (CET)
- There are mainly 3 different editions (1994, 1997 and 2003), but the paperback release of the first hardback edition has an updated introduction, too. You can have a look at them in the database I created here. It lists all editions that were released in the UK and in Germany. (I removed the US editions when redoing the whole database in 2004). --Death 08:58, 10 February 2006 (CET)
Diaries and such
Where do the 6 diaries, the almanack, the Pratchett Portfolio, the Art of the Discword and the forthcoming 2007 diary come into this list, if at all? Also, I listed Making Money because of its announcement on Paul Kidby's website, but what of Nation, Unseen Academicals and Scouting for Trolls, which as far as I know haven't had an announcement as such, they were just inferred from interviews. Do they belong in the list? Thegreatloofa 18:33, 8 February 2006 (CET)
-A good point. Also I was wondering if Discworld sources supervised but not actually written by TP should be included in the bibliography or even the individual articles. I am thinking specifically about the PC game 'Discworld Noir' which has lots of interesting facts if it is appropriate to include them. --High_king_gilgalad 18:15, 12 April 2006 (GMT)
...............two years pass.....................................................................
The introduction to this page and the title of the whole wiki specify the works of Terry Pratchett. A few entries here seem to belong in some other article/list. --Old Dickens 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a place for listing, or discussing, audio adaptions of the books?
I ask, because I bought a copy of the "talking book" edition of The Fifth Elephant at the weekend. It is abridged onto two C90 audio cassettes, and read by Tony Robinson, a man best known for playing Blackadder's sidekick Baldrick. This seems to be about the only release format of Pratchett's books that doesn't have its own separate section in the bibliography. (As those books so far released all appear to be in the same format and are all audiotape editions read by Robinson, it's arguable that this doesn't need too much attention, over and above an acknowledgment that they exist?) I've dealt with the specifics of this particular adaptation in more depth in the discussion pages of The Fifth Elephant.--AgProv 17:08, 15 January 2008 (CET)
- I've tried to list all of Stephen Briggs's on his page despite the barriers erected by the publishers; they can be copied and pasted here. By all means dig out Robinson's if you can and just add a section. I think there are older recordings by another reader as well. --Old Dickens 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Numbering Sequence: advice sought
Ref. the soon-to-be-released fully illustrated version of The Wee Free Men. I have inserted it into the list at no.39, which has necessitated re-numbering the subsequent three working titles.
It occurs to me, however, that both Eric and The Last Hero were originally released as fully illustrated books, and in later editions as text-only volumes. (ie, two releases of the same text, but one eidtion lacks pictures) They each only appear once in the list, however, by chronological release date. Therefore, should The Wee Free Men be similarly treated, perhaps with a note after it first appears as no.31 in the list, to say it will soon be available in a fully illustrated edition, while (When I Am Old) I Shall Wear Midnight, Unseen Academicals and Raising Taxes retain their previous positions at 39, 40, and 41 respectively?
List extract in question reproduced below and awaiting opinions!--AgProv 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- 38 Making Money (Doubleday, 2007)
- 39 (31a?)The Illustrated Wee Free Men (Doubleday, release date 11th September 2008)
- 40 (39) (When I Am Old) I Shall Wear Midnight rumoured, unreleased
- 41 (40) Unseen Academicals rumoured, unreleased
- 42 (41) Raising Taxes rumoured, unreleased
- As you noticed, different editions and formats have not been listed before and I think it will get much too messy if they are. Anyone wishing to compete with ppint's complete bibliography can add editions to the basic article. I suggest one title = one article. --Old Dickens 00:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Advice taken and correction made! --AgProv 10:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I made it a "Book:" article (even though it's just a working title), and moved it over Raising Taxes (since, if it's the next adult Discworld book, it will come before a book that's only rumoured). TC01 21:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- And now I've created a short little article (about the same size as the Raising Taxes article) with all the information we know so far- essentially, only what we know from the article.
- I have moved the the wee free men (illustrated), Snuff, and raising taxes etc into different headings and generally tidied it up.
And the play? There's a stage version of Thud! listed on this page as being published two years before the novel, but I can't find any other evidence of its existence. Patrick Neylan 11:47, 3 January 2012 (CET)
- Neither can I. Methuen doesn't mention it. I think there are more playscripts, but I can't find them; cmotdibbler.com being lost in the dungeon dimensions doesn't help. The Studio Theatre Club has also performed Feet of Clay, Making Money and Unseen Academicals, but are they published? --Old Dickens 15:59, 3 January 2012 (CET)
Link to treefrog games, not much info on the site though; =====Tabletop role-playing===== Ttias 11:49, 24 March 2012 (CET)
From 1975 to 1980 Terry used the pseudonym 'Uncle Jim' to write stories for the Bucks Free Press, a weekly newspaper- there is a link, I believe, here: http://terrypratchett.weebly.com/index.html. Are these worth noting somewhere on the wiki, or should they be dismissed? --Stanley Howler 21:17, 17 May 2012 (CEST)
- Why not? Just as relevant as Nomes, I should think. Old Dickens 05:24, 18 May 2012 (CEST)