ISFDB:Community Portal/Archive/Archive40

This is an archive page for the Community Portal. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Community Portal.

---

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55

---

Expanded archive listing

Archives of the community portal for April - May 2016

Subdivide Short Fiction Category on Author Page?

I would like to suggest a programming change to split the "Short Fiction" listing on the author page into Short Story, Novelette, and Novella.--Rkihara 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, not a desirable change (perhaps to be propsed in the "Other Views" section). Hauck 16:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If were to do that, we would also have to add a sub-category for "short fiction". FYI, we currently have:

• 169,830 short stories
• 37,747 novelettes
• 16,994 novellas
• 70,513 uncategorized "short fiction" pieces

I don't think having 4 sections instead of 1 would work well.

Having said that, at one point I proposed displaying the "story length" code on the Summary pages, which currently display a generic "[SF]" code. Ahasuerus 17:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe two sections, Short Stories and Novelettes/Novellas? I'm surprised there are so many pieces categorized as Short Fiction, since I thought that category had been obsoleted long ago. Maybe a Cleanup Report for Short Fiction?--Rkihara 17:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Short fiction" is used for excerpts and for works whose length we do not know. Ahasuerus 17:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's also used for stage plays, screen/teleplays, graphic novels' fiction content, etc. And it also just happens to be the default category for any SHORTFICTION work that hasn't been lengthed. A clean-up report would be impossible to clean, unless someone is willing to do a word count for 70K records of SHORTFICTION. Mhhutchins|talk 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe have it split up into alphabetical groupings, or separate pages for each author, or sorted into publication year pages? There should be some way of finding all the uncategorized ones so they can eventually be corrected. Yes, I realize it will take a lot of work to do so. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. A script could find all of them in a few seconds. Creating a clean-up report would be easy. Cleaning it would be practically impossible. First, you'd have to find a primary verifier. Then, that person would have to be willing to do a word count. So much effort for too small reward. I'd wager that less than 25% of those 70K stories are contained in primary verified publications, since most of the editors who verify publications also add the story length for the contents. Mhhutchins|talk 22:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps have a cleanup report only for those which also have a primary verifier? That might make it more manageable, and it would update as people verified contents. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That would work for a clean-up report to get more SHORTFICTION records lengthed, but since the ultimate goal of the poster was to separate them into categories on a summary page, it wouldn't work until all records have been lengthed, not just the verified ones. The unlengthed SHORTFICTION titles would still remain in a fourth category on many author summary pages which most users wouldn't understand. Mhhutchins|talk 23:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least it would be something to get the ball rolling. If we don't have a verifier for something, there's not much we can do to correct that. In the meantime, we can make sure the ones that do have a verifier are listed correctly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like having the story length code displayed on the summary page. Since the record is being listed, it shouldn't increase the load on the server too much to add that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be opposed to grouping the story lengths on an author's summary page, and would only approve of displaying them next to the titles if a user has the option not to display them. Mhhutchins|talk 22:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If you build it they will come. Cleanup scripts could be limited to magazines, anthologies, collections, and the like. I still run across SHORTFICTION as a "subcategory" in magazines, although it was eliminated years ago. I remove those as I find them. Verifiers of magazines do word counts all the time. I still feel there is utility in grouping fiction by length or at least identifying them by code. I don't understand your objection to having this visible, other than it may offend your eye.--Rkihara 22:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying Ron. Nothing has been "eliminated years ago." It remains as a default category for all unlengthed titles. It's not like some entry fields where a user is required to choose from a dropdown menu. Editors have the option to leave it blank. Mhhutchins|talk 23:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I also oppose grouping them by story length (other than how they are right now). I only think it would be useful to have the (nt), (nv), or (ss} next to any short fiction titles. As it's not really obtrusive, I don't really care if there is a way to not display it (and I wouldn't object to having that option, if that's the only way to get the feature past Mhhutchins' objection). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just being among the majority who is for the feature is "the only way to get the feature past Mhhutchins' objection". Believe me there have been many changes here to which I have objected when proposed. Being pointed out as the obdurate one, only riles me up even more and makes me present an even stronger case. Mhhutchins|talk 23:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean to be rude. I merely indicated I was fine if that option existed or was added to appease you (and anyone else) who didn't want the added information being displayed. No offense was intended. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not in favor of the original suggestion either. To me, it just creates more clutter with no benefit. Adding the story length codes is fine though it's not something I care about. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

We can certainly add a user option to suppress story length codes on Summary pages, but first let's take a step back and consider what the proposed functionality entails.

Summary pages currently display short fiction works in two different places. There is a section for "Shortfiction" where the assumption is that all listed works are short fiction. Then there is a separate "Fiction Series" section, which comes first and which can also include short fiction titles.

Let's use Jim Butcher's Summary page as an example. There are short fiction titles in the main "The Dresden Files" series. In addition, there are numerous short fiction titles in its sub-series, "The Dresden Files Short Fiction", and its sub-sub-series, "Bigfoot". All of them have "[SF]" displayed next to them to indicate that they are "short fiction".

My original proposal was to change the "[SF]"s in the "Fiction Series" section to "[nt]", "[nv]", "[ss]" and "[sf]", as the case may be. The current proposal, however, would also add "[nt]", "[sf]", etc to the titles displayed in the "Shortfiction" section. Which is fine by me, but we'll need to decide how the proposed user option/setting will affect these two separate areas. Ahasuerus 00:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Re, Mhhutchins SHORTFICTION Subcategory. You'd probably have to be a magazine editor to have seen it. I can still point out more than a few magazines that show that subcategory. There is a drop-down menu for SHORTFICTION, ANTHOLOGY, and the like, and second drop-down which appears when you select SHORTFICTION, for the subcategories, SHORT STORY, NOVELETTE, etc. One of the choices in the second used to be SHORTFICTION, so you could pick both, SHORTFICTION and SHORTFICTION. The ability to do that for the second drop-down was eliminated, but a lot magazines have that choice grandfathered in until you change it.--Rkihara 00:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not make some mock pages showing each layout so we could see how it appears? It seems to me that splitting SHORTFICTION up into four sections would only make the page eight rows longer.--Rkihara 00:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ron, I've created hundreds of magazine records, and their content entries are no different than any other type of publication. Maybe there was one in the distant past, but I can not recall there ever being a "SHORTFICTION Subcategory". There is an "Entry Type" field that includes SHORTFICTION as one of the options. And there is a "Length" field which gives the editor four options: 1) "-", meaning unlengthed, 2) "novella", 3) "short story", 4 "novelette". If an editor chooses not to complete the "Length" field, the record defaults to "shortfiction" which is how it is displayed in both the title record and the publication record. There may have been a "shortfiction" length option in the past, but now it's simply the default. 70,000 records in the db are a clear indication of that. More than 600 of them are from the first 5 months of 2016. Please give me an example of a magazine record that shows the "SHORTFICTION subcategory" when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, now I see what the discussion is all about. You are both right -- sort of :-) If you choose "-" at data entry time, then the software will default the "story length" value to "sf" for SHORTFICTION titles. In most cases, "shortfiction" does not appear in the drop-down list, but until very recently there was a way to make it appear in the list by changing the title type in Edit Title, e.g. to ESSAY, and then going back to Edit Pub. I think I eliminated it when I fixed Bug 563 "EditPub doesn't recognize changes of Length values to '-'" a few weeks ago, but I can't guarantee that there is no way to recreate it now (that part of the code is horrible and needs to be rewritten.) The bug was fairly harmless because "-" and "shortfiction" mean the same thing for SHORTFICTION titles. Ahasuerus 02:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] With 70K records of unlengthed SHORTFICTION-typed records, any attempt to display the titles in separate categories is going to be confusing to the average user. Yes, we ISFDB editors will understand why there would be a fourth unlengthed category. But put yourself in the place of the new user. They wouldn't understand it. Some authors may have a few dozen such unlengthed titles, and some may have one or two. Now how awkward would that display look? But let's forget about the aesthetics. A user comes to an author's summary page who wants a chronological or alphabetical listing of all of that author's short fiction. They're not going to get that if it's divided into these arbitrary categories. And believe me, to the average reader these categories are as arbitrary as they come. SF geek John Hodgman mentioned on his podcast the other day that he was going to host this year's Nebula awards ceremony and was trying to read as many of the nominees as he could, but had absolutely no idea what a "novelette" was!

So let's look at the second option: just giving the category as a suffix to the title, but all under the SHORTFICTION category on an author's page. The average db user would wonder why some of the titles have "ss" and others have "sf" when they know that these works are roughly the same length. How do we make it clear that: OK, so you want to know what we mean by "sf". Well let us explain. It could be that we don't know its length, or it's an excerpt for which we don't provide the length, or it could be a play or a graphic story. That's why I suggested that if this feature is passed by a consensus, it should be the user's option to have them displayed. At least one other editor concurs with me. Right, JLaTondre? I think we sometimes forget that we're not just doing this for ourselves. (Though I wouldn't be far off the mark to state that it's close to being some editors' attitude about working on the database.) Mhhutchins|talk 01:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to return to the Short Fiction subcategory again, but the ability to do what I was talking about went away over five years ago, so maybe few people remember it. There are plenty of examples still in the System. Check out http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?61727, go to edit and look at the drop down for Time on My Hands, by Mort Weisinger. I clear these as I find them. Once you change the sub-category, it cannot be changed back.--Rkihara 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you change the "story length" value to, say, "novella" in EditPub, you can still go back and change it to "-". When you do that, the software will set the "story length" value back to "shortfiction". Ahasuerus 02:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mhhutchins, If your going to talk about people speaking only for themselves, you should look in a mirror. I've seen more than a few of your tantrums when you didn't or thought you weren't going to get your way.

As far as someone not understanding why we've split things up, a one line explanation should suffice, and I don't think people are as dumb as you think they are.--Rkihara 02:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

To go back to the discussion that we had the other day, diplomacy is all about being able to disagree without being disagreeable. It's harder to do on the internet because so much of the body language is lost, but I am sure we can do it if we make a concerted effort. At least we are not limited to 140 characters per message like certain other sites! :-) Ahasuerus 02:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ron, you're upset only because I speak the truth. I'd hold my record of service to this project up to anyone's, especially yours. As a clear indication of how much you've moderated other editor's submissions, just look at the queue. With six of your own submissions sitting there for a couple of days, it's clear that you never even go near the moderator's queue. So I don't need any whining from someone who pops in and out to work on his own submissions. And I don't think our users are dumb. I just have the ability to look at things from an outsider's perspective. I presented my case opposing your suggestion rationally and unemotionally. You take it as a personal attack, and there's nothing I can do to assure you that it wasn't. I am bowing out of this discussion for my own peace of mind. Mhhutchins|talk 03:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is from the person who threw a temper tantum here, http://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal#Author_Biblio_pages_for_.22uncredited.22, and essentially said he was going to kick his heels and hold his breath until he turned red in the face, because he wasn't getting his way. You're too full of yourself.--Rkihara 04:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

<puts his bureaucrat's hat on> OK, this has gone too far. Time out. We can revisit the proposed changes to author biblio pages in a different section at a later time. Ahasuerus 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)