Talk:Short story

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Short story (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Short story task force.
 
WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Science fiction genre[edit]

It's true that the Nebula Awards (and now Hugo awards too, i understand) define the short story by word-count less than 7500. There are parallel awards for novelettes, however, defined by word-count 7500 to 17,499. Because this article contrasts the short story with the novella (longer than 17,499 for purposes of the SF awards), some more explanation may be appropriate.

The Stub articles short story collection and novelette were not claimed by the short story task force (now I have added that parameter |short-story-task-force=yes). I don't recommend them; indeed, I do recommend that this article should be the target when "short story collection" is linked, and I regret using the other target in some infoboxen. --P64 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up needed[edit]

Just a quick scan of the Overview section revealed lots of repetition and unreferenced observations out of place. I'm going to have a go at cleaning up this important article over the next little while. Thoughts and/or help, anyone?

Some good content here, too - just lots to do. --Chronotopian (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems faced is the tendency to try to list 'some practitioners': especially in the overview, this is just an arbitrary and impossible task. Even in the historical sections, it's difficult, though undoubtedly a necessary part of the article. I understand that students of particular authors will want to get their man/woman in there, and this will always be a contention with this article. Still, I think more other content and a better structure will make this kind of edit more obvious and less likely.

Pictures will help, too. I'm on it. --Chronotopian (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you can start major cleanup to article without discussing here and without valid reasons.If you think you have some concerns, first discuss that and reach the WP: consensus. Justice007 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
My reason was stated in the edit summary: repetition. Looking at the deleted sentences, do you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronotopian (talkcontribs) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact, looking at the edit history, there was a previous set of deletions that I thank is mostly appropriate (I was being conservative with mine!) that were reverted. My doctoral work is on short fiction, so I don't mind helping to improve the article. How long do I have to wait for consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronotopian (talkcontribs) 16:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing to do with origin research, we need WP:reliable sources to verify and support the content.Discussion is under way, other editors will soon take part to give their opinion. We have to wait and not further edits till any consensus.Justice007 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Please specify where is redundant content, I have realy no time to go through.Lead is whole summary of the article that should not be consider as redundancy, if any other sections include same content, would you please indicate where?. You just summarised the version that I reverted to origin.Justice007 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Justice007 is right that we shouldn't be deleting repetition from the lead section, as the lead is meant to be a summary of the entire article and "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". The edit to the Overview section seemed a small and reasonable enough first step of cleanup, though, removing the unnecessary repetition about the short story's spoken-word ancestor being the anecdote. Being WP:BOLD is often the best way to improve Wikipedia - we don't need to discuss and agree on every edit before making it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see how it works. Thanks for your patience as I am new editing Wikipedia, as you can see no doubt. I didn't mention my doctoral research to imply I'd include original research, only to say that I consider myself a good judge of descriptive content that seems accurate. So, to specify in the lead:
1) There seems to be a contradiction between the claim that the short story is often narrative in form, and the counterclaim (loosely worded and unclear) that it deals with 'creation of the mood' rather than plot. Also, this writing would not be appropriate for encyclopedic content, eg. the ambiguity of the term 'mood'.
2) 'more pointed than other works of fiction' is unclear. Ditto 'novellas (in the 20th and 21st century sense)'. This would need to be clarified, or at least a link included to the wikipedia article for Novella - ?
3) 'Guidelines vary greatly among publishers' seems to be more a creative writer's approach to trying to get short fiction published, rather than the previous tone, that sees the short story as a literary-historical form. Plus there's a [3] that seems orphaned here.
4) 'Many short story writers define...' - reference? Plus this sentence is not clearly correct, or clearly worded. Who? And do they?
5) The final sentence of the lead doesn't seem to offer any summative value - it's only a repeat of what will come later. Surely the summary lead should offer a road-map for the rest of the article, a historical/cultural intro? Thanks! --Chronotopian (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the Overview section would more usefully be merged into the lead section, given that the lead itself is meant to provide just such an overview, so Chronotopian was definitely heading in the right direction here. I'd suggest merging the two to make a new lead section, dropping any resultant repetition within that lead, and moving some of the more specific sentences (Shirley Jackson's crate, and some of the lists of authors and books) into the relevant sections further down. Any objection to that? --McGeddon (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed me too, no objection, lets see progress and thinks for your assisting.Justice007 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I like the edits you just made, and what you describe sounds good. Apologies to both McGeddon, Justice007 and other editors here. When you're new here - and on many pages elsewhere - it's easy to think Wikipedia is a deserted landscape, but obviously you guys have done a lot to develop this page before I got here, and I'm looking forward to doing a bit more collaborative editing.
I might also raise a point about the first sentence of the overview (unsupported): 'Short stories tend to be less complex than novels'. I think this is might be easily contended against by most short story theorists. If there's a reference, perhaps we can clarify a bit - ? I don't necessarily expect each of my points to be debated here, as you say McGeddon - I'll probably just go through slowly over the next few days and change each one carefully, and we can debate as and if needed. --Chronotopian (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes there are many phrases that are unsourced, but big problem is that we can not add or change as we like or as our personal view point is, it is considered here original research and that is not acceptable and encouraged even for the improvement and standard of the article. We must provide the reliable sources. In this regard you have to be careful, and I think as you are much active in your real life, it is possible to find sources in the published books written by academics, those are considered very reliable sources. I hope this helps. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Chronotopian said "If there's a reference, perhaps we can clarify a bit - ?" and I think clearly understands that any new claims have to be sourced. --McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


I agree with what's been said here about splitting up the 'Overview' section into more distinct and useful sections. I suggest a section on 'Characteristics' as well as 'Adaptations' (for the film and TV stuff), and then moving the author-lists down into the relevant sections. Sound ok? If so, I'll do that, and we can work on expanding those sections. I've got a lot of good references to include once the framework is there. --Chronotopian (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I tkink that's a good idea to improve and expand the article.Justice007 (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I made some of the changes as mentioned above. Checking through the 'examples of great short fictionists...' authors in the old 'overview' section were mentioned in the 'history' sections below, only these need interpolating back in:
William Trevor, Hermann Hesse, Vladimir Nabokov, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Dino Buzzati, H. P. Lovecraft, D. H. Lawrence
I'll do that later. Hope we're moving towards a more useful structure here. --Chronotopian (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Good work, I think section "History" should be the first/starting section and then others, what do you think?.Justice007 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the argument against that would be that the 'History' section is always going to be quite long, and most people visiting the page would probably want some kind of details on the characteristics and definition... the history is illustrative of this. I put the 'Adaptations' section at the end because, again, I think that's illustrative rather than primarily defining or core information on the subject. --Chronotopian (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Saul Bellow Canadian?[edit]

While Saul Bellow was born in Canada he is normally treated as an American writer.Rwood128 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres[edit]

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of short-stories. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

HOW ABOUT A HOW TO WRITE A SHORT STORY ARTICLE[edit]

HOW ABOUT A HOW TO WRITE A SHORT STORY ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.109 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)