Talk:Book:The Truth

As a new member, i would like to start out by pointing out just how amazing this book is. Unlike your classic everyday press book, William was not bribed or tempted to much, which puts a subtle twist on the standard "Should i do the right thing?" predicament, notably by nearly removing it entirely. I would definitely suggest buying this book if you haven't already. Now this is, as you may have noticed, an opinion, and if your policies don't allow opinions, I apologize in advance.
Snowglobe 17:16, 15 May 2007‎

Chronology

Although published between Thief of Time and Night Watch, The Truth plainly cannot happen between them, since Night Watch occurs the day Thief of Time ends. The Truth opens on an "icy night" with "freezing fog" with slush and patches of ice, and so must be set in the winter before, since The Times is in existence by Night Watch; but must take place after The Fifth Elephant, since the Watch has an Igor. Therefore The Truth must take place at the start of the year, tentatively 1989. Solicitr 02:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Un-elect or Un-select the Patrician?

I listened to the unabridged audiobook of The Truth last week. I initially thought I heard it wrong, but I'm pretty sure the audio called it the "committee to un-SELECT the patrician," while this article and the dead-tree book I remember called it the "committee to un-ELECT the patrician." Is this some Britishism I'm unaware of? A change made by Stephen Briggs? A change made by TP himself, communicated to Briggs? (I mean, un-SELECT does seem to make more sense, as the Patrician is emphatically not elected, elections seeming to be confined to that newfangled form of government practiced poorly in Pseudopolis.) Or am I, in fact, hearing things? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the audiobook, but the real one says "unelect". I believe the Patrician is actually elected by a council of guild leaders (a far-from-secret-ballot, prearranged election, but still...) --Old Dickens (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Technical oddity

This page has history going back to 2007, unlike anything else I've noticed. How did that happen? --Old Dickens (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Been discovering this all day whilst tidying the list of "wanted but still empty pages". A lot of redundant or un-necessary red links related to very old discussions on Talk pages kept cropping up - I almost found myself answering a question posed in 2007 by somebody who I'm sure got their coat and left the building some years ago. (Edited the redlink, though, so the full list is now down to 1,254 as opposed to over 1,300 a day or three ago Less all the links to the German wiki that show here in blue for some reason, that's maybe 800 redlinks to check, of which anything up to half are likely to be redundant).

As I recall, when we had the big house move some years back, the Talk pages were considered a far lower priority for migration than the actual front-page articles. It was a few months down the line when we requested Osiris to see if he could bring them over from storage at the old address - I'm sure there's an archived discussion about this somewhere. Some was lost and the Talk pages remain empty or were rebuilt from scratch with new issues: but I think the final statistic was that 60% made it. So there are a lot more 2007 conversations out there than you'd think! AgProv (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages go back to the beginning of time (i.e. 2005), but nothing usually has history before the move. --Old Dickens (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Conversation going back to 2005 [here] AgProv (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

...but, as usual, the history only includes the last edit before the move; there are lots of Talk pages like that. --Old Dickens (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)