How do we deal with lists of interesting information about a work (called “annotations” in the Pratchett fan community), such as Which of the items and monsters were references?

This question is gathering answers with just a small tidbit of additional information. Such disparate answers are not presented in a useful way — this is one of the main problems we've had in the past with list questions.

However, I can see the value of having annotations on this site. Unlike lists of works on a common theme, which are unending and subjective, there is some hope that we can be exhaustive, or at least that we can gather everything that has been found.

How should such questions work? Should we have a single community wiki answer? (Note that anyone can edit a CW answer, even if they are unregistered — all CW changes technically is that the threshold for suggested edits becomes 100 instead of 2000.)

2 Answers 2


I think this is one of the few good uses of a Community Wiki.

All answers should be consolidated into a single, comprehensive Community Wiki answer. The question should be edited to indicate that all answers should be incorporated into that single comprehensive answer, and it would be up to the community to periodically police the question and move any additional answers created into the comprehensive CW answer.

  • Amen. Make it on-topic, make it CW. Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25

Once the number of possible answer exceeds a handful, I don't see these as any different from list questions.

  • I see two differences with list-of-works questions: there's a clear pool to draw in, and whether an item is in the list is a lot more consensual.
    – user56
    Apr 23, 2012 at 19:56
  • I agree. I hate when items are in lists without their consent! ;) waiting for comment migrated to english.stackexchange.com/questions
    – dlanod
    Apr 23, 2012 at 23:03
  • 1
    @dlanod - items hate it when you anthropomorphize them. Apr 24, 2012 at 2:26

You must log in to answer this question.