Discusión:El archivo de las tormentas

Book titles

General question about this page and all the other "series" pages (like Mistborn_(series)). Why are all the book titles in italics? In all other pages (that I can tell), a book title in italics means it's unpublished, while a published work is in normal type. Seems like the same convention should be followed on the series pages as well. Or at least, is there a reason not to? That way I could go to the series page and see what is published and what is not, just like in Template:Books. Hadhad (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2017 (MST)

Where are you getting italics-as-unpublished from? I've always thought that we use italics on book titles similar to how they are italicised throughout wikipedia for example. It's a way to emphasise them, and especially when they end up having to be included on in-world articles it makes it more obvious that it's not in-world? All the infoboxes automatically italicise the books row. Though we tend not to in navboxes, maybe we should? That I guess is a place where we don't italicise books. --Joe ST (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2017 (MST)

Well, I'm not sure of all the history here, but if you look in Template:Books, all the upcoming books are italicized, and in the past, they've been un-italicized as they've been published. I actually never noticed that in the info boxes they are italicized, and it does help to distinguish in-world vs. meta. Sort of, because in-world stuff is labeled that way anyway, like The Way of Kings (in-world). Anyway, no big deal, but it seems like it should be consistent. Honestly, I kind of like the Books template because I can immediately view all the upcoming books.

If you look in wikipedia, it looks like book titles are italicized. Poems and shorter works have quotes. For example, The Road Not Taken within a collection called Mountain Interval. Hadhad (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2017 (MST)

I'm a big fan of consistency, so this is making me itch. It's generally proper to italicize books (and use quotes on shorter things). We really should italicize all book and series titles. This includes in-world books. Why does inconsistency exist? Probably because people are lazy and/or forgetful. :) I'd say when we see this done incorrectly it should be fixed just like any basic writing error.

Unfortunately the error is very widespread. Just look at Cosmere for example. That probably further contributes to people doing it wrong, and it means there's a lot of work necessary to fix it. Don't suppose there's a magical way to change every instance of the ones that are always book/series titles?

The biggest problem is the books template, where italics are being used for future books. Parenthesis are already used to note shorter/tangential books that aren't directly part of the main series. Is there an alternate way to note future books in that template? Perhaps flipping the current convention, and using non-italicized text to note future books?

--Jofwu (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2017 (MST)

"Is there an alternate way to note future books in that template?" Color or font? Hadhad (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2017 (MST)

Structure of the Stormlight Series

Under the Structure heading it says that each of the 10 books of the Stormlight Archives will focus on one order of the Knights Radiant. But at the top of the page we see that book 8 is supposed to contain Shalash's flashback chapters. This indicates that we will have 2 books focusing on Lightweavers. There does not appear to be a book focused on the Dustbringers. How certain are we that the list of main characters provided by Brandon Sanderson is final? Something is amiss here.

Hey! Brandon has indeed confirmed Ash is a back five POV character. When asked specifically about the double up in Orders he RAFO'd the question, though the common thought is that Ash's book will double as the Dustbringer book. Hope that helps! Here's a couple of WOBs that I found :)

• Question about Shalash's book
• Most recent confirmation I could find of back five characters

LadyLameness (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Brandon's been consistent about the list of characters (see this wob, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one). He's also said that the Heralds will be larger focus in the back five (see this wob). All of which is to say the list of characters seems pretty final. Most people believe that Shalash will end up as a Dustbringer, though this has been RAFO'd. I'll see what I can do to make this clearer.

--Stargazer (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Looks like LadyLameness responded while I was typing. What she said is very correct. --Stargazer (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Infobox

I'm in favor of splitting up the infobox to divide Novellas from Novels. We know enough about the Novellas to know they are quite different in structure than the Novels. Novellas only have one focus character, and a "From The Stormlight Archive" prefix. They don't have a flashback character, and they don't have a Radiant order with them. Additionally, I think there is value in adding in more detail to the existing infobox. We might as well include the Prologue Viewpoint character as well as the Interlude Viewpoint character. I also think adding in the Ketek as well as a link to the in-world text would be valuable. SimonEwok (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I do see your point, the obvious counterpoint is that some individuals might really want see a chronological list of Stormlight things, which would be appropriate on the series page. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the novellas are clearly not the same as the Stormlight Archive and should be separated, I think I was able to find a solution to your concern and hope it will be satisfactory as a more elegant way of displaying the data. Although I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the ".5" notation, I left it in absence of being able to think of something better. SimonEwok (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would echo Chaos' concerns, but would also like raise a few other points. First, for background, the table originally only had the "standard" columns for series, of "Year," "Book," "Order," "Length," "Notes," and "Refs," with a separate list at the top of the page of which book would have which flashbacks (see Special:PermanentLink/118182). After the concerns raised in the previous section of this page, I consolidated all that information into the table we have now and added the Radiant Order column as well. Second, the table is already very tightly packed, and so while I see the appeal to giving readers more information, Stormlight novels have a lot that's unique because of their structure, I worry that throwing in "Prologue Viewpoint Character," "Interlude Viewpoint Character" (except it'd probably have to be even wordier, to clarify that we mean "the interlude viewpoint character who has viewpoints in every set of interludes"), "Ketek," or "In-world Text" could be information overload. Without doing a detailed survey of Arcanum, my general impression if that when Brandon talks about the structure of Stormlight novels, the biggest thing he mentions is how each one focuses on one character/order, and I think it makes sense for the table to reflect that. Though honestly, "Radiant Order" would probably get redundant at some point as people associate orders with characters; I mostly added it to clarify some of the situation about Ash and it might be good to remove down the road to make the table feel less cramped and/or maybe open things up to add the standard "notes" column back in. To me, the much better solution would be to discuss the things you want to mention in the article, but leave them out of the table.

--Stargazer (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Radiant Order is most definitely a good addition to the table and one that should stay permanent. Especially because with the leatherbound editions, we've seen that Dragonsteel will be altering the spine and cover symbols and cover page color of each book depending on which Radiant Order the book is assigned to. But yes, there is also a WoB where - paraphrasing - he said that each book would explore a Radiant Order. As for the table feeling cramped, I've spent a lot of time getting the formatting to work well and displaying cleanly on both small screens and 4k monitors. The only one that isn't as ideal is mobile formatting, but I think the tradeoff is definitely worth it, in order to present and compare and contrast more information. SimonEwok (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

While we're discussing this, I'd like to say the I'm entirely comfortable listing Horneater on the table yet. Granted, I'm much more conservative about listing books on the series table than other people are (I didn't even list Wandersail when I made the changes in early April), but I feel like it's not entirely clear what novellas Brandon will actually have time to write, as he's mentioned a lot of possible novellas, and my general feeling is that it would be appropriate for us to do some expectation management by not including it on the table. We say "Brandon has said he also hopes to write novellas in between at least all the remaining arc one novels, though is unsure if he has enough time" right before the table, and that's enough for now, in my mind. All that said, I'm curious to here what others think on the matter.
--Stargazer (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say - it's not our role to provide expectation management for Sanderson. We should just organize the information as is. Sanderson's been pretty upfront and clear about his wish to write novellas for Rock and Lopen, and so they belong in the table. Now if that means we need to include footnotes to express that titles are only working titles or that in the case of the Lopen novella, Brandon has said he's not sure if he'll get to it, then I think that's fine, but leaving it off of the table completely is the worse option. SimonEwok (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I was a bit hesitant, I do really like how it being split looks. It looks really nice and I'm sold, personally. I wonder if any other Keepers have comments. I'm fine with Horneater being on the list. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The one thing I would say is that we should remove the keteks from the chart. t makes the chart look incredibly cramped on mobile. I don't think the information is that important to have in comparing the books to make including it necessary. Better to just include them on the individual book pages and the ketek page. -- Thegatorgirl00 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

While I agree it looks slightly cramped on mobile, I don't think it looks bad on mobile, and it doesn't impact usability. And is it really our goal to optimize for mobile anyway? I don't think that moving the keteks to the individual book pages and ketek page (although I agree they should also exist there) fulfills the same purpose of being able to view the similar structure for each Stormlight book. While I could get behind copying the table to provide a simple overview table on one page and a more detailed table on another page, I don't have permissions to create pages, so unless someone else wants to create that, I think this page is the place to include the detailed information. Speaking of creating pages, it would also be cool if someone uploaded the file https://www.brandonsanderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WoR_EPHEMERA-KETEK_v02_fmt.jpeg as File:WoR_Endnote.jpg since File:Navani%27s_Ketek_glyphs.svg just isn't the same.

More people view the Coppermind on mobile than desktop, so I'm inclined to agree with Grace there. It definitely is something to worry about. We will eventually have a more mobile-centric skin. I can give you editor right so you can upload that file. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Chaos thank you for allowing me to upload files now. I've also made a change to the table to include a scrollbar and added minwidths to the columns, I hope you'll agree it keeps the table from looking cramped on both mobile and desktop. SimonEwok (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, my general thoughts:

• Yes, the majority of our viewers are on mobile; "optimize" might be a bit strong, but it is something we want to be very conscientious of
• I agree, the table looks too cramped on mobile, and it feels to busy to me even on my laptop
• I still think people would want to see novellas and novels together; that's also consistent with what we do on Mistborn (series)
• Looking back, "expectation management" was bad wording on my part. You're right that Brandon has said he wants to write novellas about Lunamor and Lopen. He's also said he wants to write The Silence Divine, a Silverlight novella, a Sixth of the Dusk sequel novella, a series of novellas starting with Adamant, a Hoid's apprentice/magic kites novella... and I'm probably missing some. My point is, I'm not sure the Lunamor or Lopen novellas are at a stage where they need this kind of prominence.

On to specifics:

• First, I want to say I like how you did the in-world text links and years on the table (though I'd argue the years aren't really necessary for the prologue or interludes)
• I'd cut the ketek columns, for the reasons expressed above. Personally, I wouldn't have added the Prologue Viewpoint column, but I'm not opposed to it staying. I'm on the fence about the Interlude Viewpoint column, but I'd lean against it. It isn't clear at-a-glance what it means (are all interludes from The Way of Kings from Szeth's viewpoint?) and I don't see that character's identity as very important to the structure.
• I still think there should be one table, rather than a separate one for novellas, but I'd like to here the opinions of other Keepers (on everything else too, but this in particular). I'd also bring back the Length column with that; we could make it so that people could use that to separate novels from novellas, if they want.
• I could accept listing Horneater, though even that's pushing it for me. The Lopen novella, however, seems way too indefinite to me to be on the table at this point.

I don't really like making changes to the page itself while things are under discussion, so I did some drafting in my user space (see User:Stargazer/General_Testing). Opinions welcome, including that I'm just crazy.
--Stargazer (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Stargazer, I have added a scrollbar to the table and minwidths to the columns - this should prevent the table from looking cramped on mobile and smaller laptop screens, as the less important information will now overflow to the left. I've reviewed the Mistborn series page, and while I think there are deficiencies with the grouping there as well, ultimately I think it's apples vs oranges - the Mistborn works aren't as clearly delineated as the Stormlight ones are. For Stormlight, a main book has a very specific structure the novellas don't adhere to, and Mistborn just doesn't have that same structure. When we have many columns like Knights Radiant Order, Flashback Character, In-World Text, etc. that just don't apply to novellas, and novella columns like Focus Character that don't apply to the main books, it suggests that our grouping needs to be reworked. Not to mention that the novellas aren't even numbered by Sanderson to be part of The Stormlight Archive, they are just corollaries, which suggests they don't belong in that table anyway. Now, one thing I did do was remove the separation between the two tables that I initially favored, this not only keeps the font the same size on mobile, but it also makes the two tables feel closer, in the vein of what you're advocating for.

To address your points about the Rock and Lopen novellas - you bring up The Silence Divine and yet that exact novella is listed in the first sentence of the page for Ashyn. The Silverlight novella is referenced on the page for Silverlight. This is the Stormlight Archive page, and these novellas are planned to be included in the "From the Stormlight Archive" collection, I think it makes sense to include them. The Silence Divine on the other hand, Sanderson has specifically said that it will not be considered a "From the Stormlight Archive" novella. Why do the Rock and Lopen novellas include a spot here? Sanderson has been very clear for quite some time about his desire to write them - it's not like fans asked for these novellas, and Brandon ambiguously agreed it could be a possibility while on air - he freely volunteered the information that he was working on these novellas. The Coppermind should reflect what the current future plans are, even if there is a possibility things could change - for all we know, Sanderson could change the flashback characters in the back five - but I still think it's important to show what the latest plans are. I have however added in footnotes to be clear that some of the novellas are indefinite.

As for the Interlude character, I quote from our article (I didn't write this) "Each novel has one character who gets multiple interludes, whose interludes effectively form a novella." I think that's clear enough, but we could add in additional text in the title - "Main Interlude Character", "Interlude Novella Character" - but I still prefer just "Interlude Viewpoint". As for the years, I'm not too attached to those. They do make things a little more complicated (especially Puuli's chapter) and I was pained there wasn't enough space to include months, but I am of the opinion it should be an all or nothing. SimonEwok (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I strenuously do not like a scrollbar at this time and I think the ketek should not be there. It's too busy. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Scrollbars on tables are a pretty common feature on other wikis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Scrolling_table_doc), I don't see why we should be opposed to them here. Any particular reason you don't like them? I thought the scrollbars were a good solution to the previous direction from you, which was that the display on mobile wasn't ideal - now I think it looks great on all screen sizes, and if "business" is a concern, it's easy to sort the columns by priority or expand the minwidth on certain columns as needed, so that the most important columns are always in view. In fact, I think there are more columns that would be valuable - such as Word Count comparisons, and maybe even comparison of the Epilogues - and now that the table size isn't a concern with scrollbars, I think there's a good case to add those columns in as well. Ultimately, I think having a detailed comparison of the Stormlight book structures is something that has a lot of merit and is definitely a use case for the Coppermind. If there are concerns about spoilers or overwhelming casual users (although personally I don't think either of those concerns hold much water) - I could understand being required to split off the page to something like The_Stormlight_Archive/Statistical_analysis (maybe The_Stormlight_Archive/Comparison) - but I think for now everything fits well and this is the best location to include the data. I think the table is a cool and elegant way to display the similarities between the Books. I can imagine it helping some of the more casual people who visit the page realize that each of the books follow a specific structure - maybe something they hadn't picked up on yet. Before I read the series, I visited this page, and it was helpful for me understanding that each book had a specific Flashback character, the other changes I made are to add information I also think would've been helpful for me to see. SimonEwok (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's table further mobile optimizations for now... it really depends on how we do our full mobile skin so I don't really have a lot of brainspace to think of all the permutations. I strongly think the ketek should be removed; we have discussed this among the Keepers and there is consensus on not having the ketek there. The table is too busy right now. Additionally, I think the years aside from the series chronology part should also be removed. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think word count would be useful information, but then aside from that I think we're at a good balance of information density. The thing with scrollbars is just that it really can be not obvious to viewers when there is a horizontal scrollbar, and I think if we can avoid it, that will be best. There will probably need to be scrollbars when we do have a mobile-centric responsive design, though, I do concede. I removed the ketek and I do strongly prefer this. Word count would be useful information so I'm in favor of that. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I keep adding more thoughts, my apologies. I can see why you put the keteks there when the actual ketek page is so poor. I think a table displaying each book's ketek would be warranted there, or at least some place of making it clear. Regarding word count I definitely think it's worth putting on all series tables, linking to the respective statistical analysis pages. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also just want to state that novellas being grouped in or not is a thing where reasonable minds may absolutely differ, so do just be aware that that is a lot of personal preference. I do mostly prefer it separated now. (But I'd remove the ketek). -- Chaos2651 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My primary reason for wanting novels and novellas together is so that people can clearly see how they all fall in chronological order, so simply putting the two tables closer together doesn't really resolve that. As for the points you raise about how we cover other novellas, I agree you're right and I have no objections to talking about the Lunamor and Lopen novellas on this page, just to putting them in the table already. That said, I think I'm in the minority on both of these points, and I'm about ready to let them go. As for the interlude novella character, I'm well aware of that sentence you quote—I'm the one who wrote it. My comment was just that I wasn't sure that information was important enough to be in the table. At the end of the day, though, I'm not really opposed or interested in arguing it. I agree on adding word count—that's actually something we think could be added to all series tables; not sure if that's something that would interest you—and have added it here. I do think the table's sort of "full" at this point though. And finally, I would second Chaos' suggestion that the ketek page would be a good place to elaborate on the keteks.

--Stargazer (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been wondering if the reference column is necessary - feels like the references could easily be moved to the book titles column (or another) to free up more space. LadyLameness (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Legend for table?

Speaking as a user, I can't begin to fathom what the green background on all the squares besides the title mean. Red on title means that it's unpublished, but all the non-title squares are green. This seems to be some kind of convention between all the series pages, but I can't figure it out. Perhaps a legend would help? --Extremepayne (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Good question! Looks like the colors are coming from MediaWiki:Common.css which says:

• Every table cell with the bib and other classes gets a tan background
• Every table cell with the bib and cosmere classes gets that green background
• The first table cell with the bib and unreleased classes gets that red background

Note: it doesn't look like the stormlight class is doing anything. Anyways, since cosmere and non-cosmere books won't be in a table together, the end result is that green (or tan, as the case may be) basically just ends up as a background color. At the end of the day, I'm drawing a blank on an easy and aesthetic way to add a legend and since it essentially just comes down to "unreleased title cells are red, and then the rest of the table just has a green/tan background," I'm not sure how much that would add. On the other hand, I'm not sure how useful the green/tan background is in the first place.

--Stargazer (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Stargazer for clearing than up. I too think a legend isn't super helpful if its as simple as that, but maybe if the green background on all the other cells could be just the default grayish, that would be more intuitive. --Extremepayne (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If there was a way to restrict the red and green to the Book Title column as a indicator of released/unreleased and then have the other (non-header) cells Series Chronology onward be a different colour I think that might make things a bit more intuitive. I think that's what the table is currently trying to do? The confusion, as far as I see it, is coming from green being both the 'completed' colour for the Book Title column and then the regular colour for the other columns.LadyLameness (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I like that idea and yes, it should be doable. We'd probably have to add a released class to released books on the series tables, but that wouldn't be too much work. The main question, I think, would be what do we want to do for colors beyond the Book Title column: Leave them white (well, on Pivot it's an alternating white and gray), have a single background color for all bibliography tables, or have separate background colors for cosmere vs non-cosmere?

--Stargazer (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)