Talk:Small Gods

message: I have removed the Trivia section from the article, since the list of names seems to have lost its meaning and is in fact false - I've just thought of at least two more characters mentioned elsewhere in the series (Lu-Tze and the Abbot). Perhaps some mention of the way the book is disjointed from the rest of the series could be made, but the current section was just plain wrong. QmunkE 10:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Section

message: It is worth noting, however, that in Carpe Jugulum, a discussion between Omnian priest Mightily Oats and the witch Granny Weatherwax suggests that the events took place several generations ago.
Does it? It read to me as suggesting the exact opposite. Granny compares how she'd react if she'd seen Om to how current Omnians are behaving, suggesting that the current generation is the one who saw Him. 
But in any case, Thief makes it clear that there isn't an answer, or possibly that the answer is "both".Daibhid C 00:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The timeline thing

message: 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) 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making [[Terry Pratchett]] a Featured Article 

message: "Deus ex aquila".  Cute joke, but does this belong in an encyclopedia? 63.107.91.99 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deus ex aquila 

message: Well I give up.  After having my edits reverted twice, when I altered a couple of sentences to correct plot mistakes, and added another couple to add a little more to the plot, I can't be bothered anymore.  Friends have already told me it wasn't worth making a wikipedia account as new people almost always have their edits reverted, mainly because of the "holier than thou" attitude of most of the longer standing members.
Admittedly my punctuation needed a little rework, that was something I had just logged on to do, only to find it reverted again. I had a look around the wiki guidelines and came across []
I had thought a small article like this, would be a good place to learn the wikipedia ropes, as it's not a contentious article or anything.  I noticed a couple of small plot inaccuracies and thought I could add more to the article, but instead of maybe a message on my talk page saying what needed to be improved, I have my edit reverted twice - the second time to a version without the info I added, and even stating that it concerned "original research", (when all I did was add a couple of lines to flesh out the plot description)  but that same editor corrected grammar on the earlier version - so why not just correct the grammar/punctuation of the info I added if you are going to correct grammar anyways?
No wonder new people give up so easily.  I have been around wikipedia for quite a while.  While I was unregistered, I would occasionally make small changes e.g. spelling errors, to find them reverted with an hour.  I can only assume that was a result of certain editors who revert non-registered users edits without even to bother reading them.
Impablomations (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Give Up 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Small Gods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410142720/http://blog.jackheath.com.au/post/23284968838/get-thee-behind-me-demon-says-brutha-i-am to http://blog.jackheath.com.au/post/23284968838/get-thee-behind-me-demon-says-brutha-i-am
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: i firmly belive that almost any article's most relevant (that is: infomative on its topic) section is criticism. for articles on works of literature this is even more so. this article has a section named reception but it seems no more encyclopedical than what you find on the back cover: it is unvariably praising and only good for selling the book. 
what is needed instead is a comprehensive criticism of the work, including genre, quality categorization (like where it lies between pulp and high literature - even if that cant be black and white), and how well it performs in its own nieche. the way it is now in the article is double sinful - omitting relevant information about the literary meritfulness of the work AND replacing it with irrelevant noise.
besides Small Gods is OK on overall reading quality, has next to nothing to do with Ankh-Morpork (aka discworld) though written with the same lingo, has one really cheesy story element (the dice throwing fantasy roleplaying game club of gods as a story device) and is more philosophical (some thoughts on ethics/morality well introduced) than funny, though there is once in a while the occasional pun you expect from Pratchett.
89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  reception vs. criticism