Category talk:American novelists

1609:

a 20th century novelist." The parsing of the sentence in the interpretation used to place novelists into these categories is that "Xth century" is a determiner that limits the scope of the noun "novelist" based on centuries in which the novelist published. However, this is *not* what is meant in reliable sources who use the phrase. Let me digress for a bit. In English, often an adjective describes a noun. E.g. in "red car" the word "red" is telling us something about the car. But it's also possible to make phrases where the noun in fact tells us something about a (usually) nominalized adjective. E.g. "American dream" is not used to to say that a particular dream is American, but to to say that the dream tells us something about Americans. Not every dream that happens to be dreamt by an American is an American dream. This is the way that the determiner "Xth century" is used in the study of literature. Not every novel published in century X is an Xth century novel. The novel has to be thought to reveal something about the century in order to be called this. Whether given novels are Xth century novels is a subject of widespread debate among scholars on the subject, which wouldn't be the case if the phrase were being used as its being used to define these categories. Sure, every book or class on the 19th century novel is going to talk about Dickens and Eliot, but very few if any are going to mention Upton Sinclair, currently in the category because he published some novels in the 19th century. Similarly books and classes on the 20th century novel will cover Hemingway and Roth but rarely Thomas Hardy, even though he published some novels in the 20th century. I doubt that when it comes time to teach the 21st century novel that Roth will be included, even though he's in our category, because he is a 20th century novelist, not a 21st century novelist. In their drive to diffuse the American novelists category, these by-century categories were created for the purpose of having objective criteria that can be applied by editors who won't take the time to understand the subject of each article, but that makes them contrary to how the words describing them are used in reality. It's letting the editor's ease trump the reader's need, like so many of our categorization decisions. There are other problems with these categories too, but that's the one about objectivity. I have to say again that I have no problem with these categories existing. I only have a problem with them being seen as a legitimate and objective way to diffuse their parent category. They are not.—

1117:

subcategories for now. This would return us essentially to the status quo ante and allow us to have a conversation about the subcategories under circumstances which are not so maddening to a number of people who've worked hard on those articles and understand them quite well. Additionally it would be more in line with the consensus reached at the CfD on American women novelists to undiffuse that subcategory back into American novelists rather than into by century subcategories. It would also have the beneficial effect of looking good to the world outside without needing arcane explanations, which will allow us to have our conversation in peace without being harried by more bad press. More bad press is certainly coming, too. Finally, by leaving authors in the subcategories the hard work of the people who have put them there won't be undone. If they're still in the subcats a bot can perfectly easily take them out of the parent cat as put them into it should consensus dictate that result. I won't make my arguments here about why every single subcategory of X-country novelists ought not to be diffusing, but will wait for a larger scale conversation to do that. Since Obiwankenobi and I agree about the need for a larger conversation, the only difference here is about what to do with the subcategories in the meantime.

1513:

decide what to do while a conversation on that issue is held, not what should ultimately be done. My suggestion is meant to (reversibly) assuage the feelings of those who oppose diffusion while the merits of diffusion are discussed. If the larger discussion reaches consensus on diffusion we just have a bot remove the parent category from all the novelists and no harm done. Obi-Wan (correct me if I'm wrong, OWK) also agrees that a larger discussion is necessary but wants to finish diffusing the category while the discussion is held and then if the larger discussion reaches consensus against diffusion we have a bot undiffuse and no harm done. This current discussion is only about the interim state of the category while the larger discussion is going on. I suppose that a Fix 3 could be to leave the category in its current state while the larger discussion is held;kind of a cease-fire.—

1076:

1" on the American novelist category page. At the same time, we start a new conversation over at Wikiproject Literature or Wikiproject Novels (which is a better place for this sort of discussion anyway) about a broader RFC on the Writers tree, which would address diffusion to by-century-nationality categories, in what cases can gendered/ethnic sub-cats be created, how to deal with genres, etc. Such a broader RFC did seem to have some support, and I would support it and even help draft the language (I've never done one so need help). The broader RFC would also, depending on the outcome, override any consensus we come to here. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has another idea, which I will let them propose below. Any of you are of course welcome to propose another way out. I happen to like my proposal, as it only involves moving 75 more bios, and there was broad support for Option 1 listed above.

2023:(non-diffusing). So the answer is, if none of their novels fit into a genre, then you just don't put them in any genre categories. If she then wrote 3 more novels in the mystery theme and was called a mystery writer by RS, then she'd be added to the mystery writer genre cat as well (but not removed from any other cats as a result). What this means is, in the new-world-order, genre cats would no longer be diffusing (they were sort-of diffusing previously). Those calling for all novelists in the head cat are saying the same thing, by the way - that genre categories should be non-diffusing. So the only real difference between Fix 1 and Fix 2 is whether the century cats are diffusing or not. If you like, you can suggest a real novelist, and I'll tell you how I would categorize according to Option 1, and then we can discuss.-- 1898:(a) different from "author published a novel in this century" and (b) assign a unique category to each author. There is no resemblance to our system here other than the names of the categories. What I was suggesting above is that we use actual LOC assignments of authors to their categories in order to put authors into our categories. Look up their novels in the LOC catalog, see which *single* category they're in, and put them in that category here. I don't grant that their categories are globally objective but they're objective in our context and they may not be objectively useful but they're useful to readers in the sense that people are used to them.— 203: 1677:

African American studies and Asian studies, and now also Native American studies (all in literature). Generally Am. Lit is not broken into centuries and certainly novels aren't. That's why I didn't respond to an earlier comment about 18th cent. Am. novelists. Upton Sinclair by definition is a 20th c. American novelist; I'd put Edith Wharton and Henry James in the 19th c. I'd put Hardy, not American, in the 19th c. So, we seem to have created our own definitions. But I'm learning that the category system on WP is arcane to say the least.

185: 564: 956: 1304:

American novel", for instance). If I understand this correctly, no novelist will be removed from the comprehensive century categories due to any further categorization. Stephen King was given as an example of a novelist who would appear in two century categories; I see no problem with dual categorization for century-straddlers, with the trivial issue of whether it's the life or the career that's being categorized (I'd say the career: if you were born in 1895, you're not a 19th-century novelist).

324: 213: 314: 296: 1733:

easily get a consensus on that if and when there's a consensus to diffuse. Possibly it would be good to change the names of the by century categories to reflect what the inclusion criteria really are. Alternatively we could use the Library of Congress system (I don't know the details off-hand but they do manage to keep each author in one chronological grouping), which would at least be objective in the context of our decision-making and is the product of scholarship.—

154: 596: 1959:, and pages can have multiple categories, many of its considerations are unnecessary. For reference, this is the LOC's base rule on numbering: "If a number has already been established for the author, use it." So if an author had their 1903 novel cataloged, and it turns out they also wrote in 1897, the later book goes in 1900-1960 range. The only exception is works written in multiple languages, each of which get a separate author number. Details 1416:- it doesn't make sense, given the relatively short history of the novel as a literary form, to define by nationality & century. Wouldn't it be better to have a container category called "Novelist" (for novelists of all nationalities, genders, and centuries), and then in the next level define the century, going back to the 18th, and then yet another level to define nationality? Finally, if necessary, diffuse out by genre. As it is, we have 502: 398: 478: 380: 123: 408: 2104:

category. And there'd be NO ONE in the head cat. NOT A SINGLE PERSON. That's the important thing to remember. No-one gets to be up top. I guess that would be my answer. (sorry Mr. King, you've been diffused to a by-century cat. C'est la vie, take it up with obiwan, or better yet, kill him off in a gruesome way in your next novel, er, horror novel, er, 21st-century horror-novel-written-by-a-male-writer-from-Maine..erg. --

1643:

could potentially create a 20th-century (genre) novelist category, and then we'd scour the sources and syllabi and find which ones are *really* 20th century novels and which ones are just plain old 19th-c ones written in the 20th century. Remember, now, we're talking about 6700 novelists. It's just not workable, and it would violate a lot of rules about categorization annotated at

512: 1993:- Fix 1 says: "For now, diffuse the remaining 75 novelists to the by-century tree, and any other sub-cats as necessary." My question is this: how to diffuse any of those novelists who have the misfortune of writing simple novels that can't be shoehorned into a category? Where will they go? I'd like a clear and simple answer to this. Thanks. 2089:, also male 20th/21st century, diffused to mystery, and they say: "wait a minute! I write novels, I'm prolific and my sales are huge. Why doesn't WP categorize me as a novelist?" How are we to answer? Again - use as few words as possible. (Btw - I'm logging out in about 20 minutes and won't be back for a while). 2103:

Ok, quickly, King would be in both 20th/21st like you say, and would be in the horror genre as well. So he'd be just like the other more vanilla novelist, but with an *additional* category (not fewer). So if you looked at the list of ALL 21st-c novelists, he'd be there, and he'd also be in the horror

1815:

1 and 2 can be dealt with relatively easily. 1 gets put in the century she wrote it, 2 gets put in both centuries. The last case, #3, that of someone who was writing before or after their time, can also be dealt with by simply listing them in both categories. Again, this doesn't need to be difficult,

1188:

help anyone, it's not maintainable, manageable or useful in any shape or form. I don't see why there should be concern with placing authors in small groupings, it makes them easier to find. About the only good solution to this is a good tool on Knowledge which allows us to show intersections of tags,

1075:

Fix 1: My proposal is, given the support given above to "Option 1", and the lack of support for an RFC on American novelists, is that we agree that current consensus per above is to diffuse the rest of the American novelists to the by-century categories, and explain the rules for diffusion of "Option

1699:

the delightfully erudite argument above, it's useful in this instance for the very reason that it's merely chronological, and otherwise meaningless: it's like the alphabet. We don't object to the fact that writers are alphabetized when we visit a category page, even though in an alphabetized list of

1676:

I think Am. lit is a bit different for a lot of reasons that I won't go into. But generally the fields of study are Early American Literature (with the Civil War as the cut-off in some cases) and American Literature from the Civil War. Of course, too there are Chicano studies and Women's studies and

1661:

Cynwolfe; I see I forgot to add that being written in a given century (give or take a decade-ish) is necessary but not sufficient for being an Xth-century novelist. Hilary Mantel is not a 16th century novelist and I don't know whether or not she's a historical novelist or a 21st century novelist or

1608:

Sure. As used in practice in our categorization scheme, "Xth century novelist" means "published a novel in century X." People have argued that this is a defining characteristic because reliable sources and high school classes evidently use the terminology to describe novelists, e.g. "Hemingway was

1912:

As someone recently said, the category system is not a scalpel, it is a sledgehammer. If you really want to go through all 6700 novelists, identify any duplicate categorizations (actually you can do this with catscan, I can show you how if interested), and then go to the Library of Congress and see

1897:

A perfect example of what I'm talking about, Obi-Wan. The names of the LOC categories are the same as ours but the meanings are different. How do I know they're different? Because each novelist is in only one of them. They have some criteria for sorting novelists into those categories which are

1512:

The trouble is that not everyone agrees that it's possible to have a "neutrally diffused category" in this case. A number of people find the subcategories, even the supposedly objective ones like by-century, highly objectionable if they're meant to be diffusing. In this conversation we're trying to

1160:

If this doesn't seem like a good way to organize the discussion feel free to change it. I'm putting a sample support to show what I envision. I won't make my own statement now because I'd like to see how people feel about this method of proceeding. We can take this explanation out of here if the

2118:

As it see it, the problem is only being pushed down a level. So no one will be in the head cat, but X number who can't be defined will be in the by century cat, and others, like King who can be defined, will be diffused even more. This is the very situation that brought us here in the first place.

1642:

I'm going with strenuously arcane for $ 500 Bob. Wow - it's a very interesting missive above, but, yeah, we're talking categorization here, not postmodern deconstructuralizationalism of the modern novel, the novelist, and the quintessnialness of it all. Alf what you seem to be proposing is that we

1420:

with only 9 entries - which is probably about right. Better would be to make that a container category for all 18th century novelists, regardless of nationality. I'm sure there's a reason this can't be done, that somehow it will affect the tree, but throwing it out as a suggestion to think outside

2209:

To follow up your comment above, novelists would never be removed from the by-century cats, and the cats are based on when the novelist was active - not when they were born. So you just look for when they published their first novel, and when they published their last. A fuller description of the

1820:

for example - (there may be *other* terms too, but saying this isn't a way people talk about literature is provably false from umpteen reliable sources). In the worst case possible, a novelist might be in one extra century cat that sources say she shouldn't be in, but I don't think this is such a

1732:

Like I said, I was just explaining my position and not making a proposal. On the other hand, if the whole idea is to diffuse the parent category (which I don't really see the need for, but that's for another time) I think it'd make a lot more sense to do it alphabetically, since I think we could

1623:

I have a graduate degree in English as well as classical studies, and I have no idea what this means. My area of specialization in English was "16th-century non-dramatic literature": that meant precisely "non-dramatic literature written in the 16th century", though of course one might account for

1303:

per GTBacchus. If a writers' category is too large to be browsed easily (and that seems to be the case here), "by century" seems the only neutral and comprehensive way to diffuse, and it's a legitimate way to categorize the subject within the field of study (I once took a course in "20th-century

1721:

I do think it would be desirable to have text at the top of the category page explaining the precise criteria for membership in the category, since what we're talking about really is quite cut-and-dried. Nobody has to evaluate Hardy's work and decide which to which century he belongs. He's just

1265:

Fix 2 is a non-starter. Because then you would have to ask, why don't we put them into the higher cat than even novelists? Because clearly they are that too and then the higher one from that and the higher one from that. Then you end up with 50+ cats in an article and the entire category system

2300:

which probably should be bigger than it is, but lots of actors we only have information on their film careers, not their vaudeville/stage careers beforehand, at least not enough to say that if they first appeared in a film in 1908, and we have information that they previously were appearing on

2259:

Those who published works in 2000 have been put in the 20th-century American novelists cat. Those who published works in 1900 are in the 19th-century American novelists cat. Generally, 2000 is considered to be in the 20th-century so we so categorize. There are lots of people who seem to have

1749:

Regarding alphabetical versus by-century... hmm. I can see running into complications with alphabetical categorization in cases where writers use pen-names, especially if they'r no entirely consistent with their pen-names. There are also writers who change their name at some point during their

1291:, because nobody is there; it's fully diffused. If everyone can be found in by-century categories, I don't see a problem. If there is a problem with that, I'd like to hear about it. I believe that the advantages of a full top-level category are still present with a few by-century categories. - 1116:

Fix 2: I agree with Obiwankenobi about the new conversation about how to deal with diffusion and subcategories. However, I propose that in the interim we have a bot put all entries in subcategories of American novelists back into the parent category recursively without removing them from the

1714:

Yeah... I haven't been thinking of categorization by century as a stylistic matter. I can see that some novels might be considered to be strongly associated with the century (or decade) in which they emerge, and that those are quintessentially "of" that time period and deserving of special

1157:

In order to keep this from becoming as unreadable as previous attempts at this discussion, I propose that editors put a short statement here about which option they support (new Fixes should be added at will, of course) and that threaded conversations be kept in the next subsection.

1913:

how that author is categorized, and then eliminate a duplicate category, say for someone who published one book in 19th-c and 20 books in 20thc, I'm not going to revert or stand in your way. Also I note that LOC sometimes ghettoizes by gender, but that's another issue...--

1527:

Right, I'm fine with a larger discussion about writers in general, covering many topics, but we do need to resolve the stalemate, one way or the other; a cease-fire is bad for everyone, as then an article gets written that Knowledge has decided there are only 75

1491:

Some people are protecting famous authors. Most of the ones I know about have been personally invited to this discussion. In any case, we can just let the discussion run its course, then we can point anyone who disagrees with either result to the consensus here.

1816:

there aren't that many cases to worry about. Also, for anyone who doubts whether the term 20th-century novel or 20th-century novelist is in fact a thing, just try a google book or google scholar search, these terms are used all over the place (one essay

1399:@Sadads: Since Fix 2 proposes to leave them all in the subcategories it won't be any less useful. Readers who find the long list of names daunting can ignore them and use the subcategories until we find a more permanent solution to our problems.— 1715:

recognition for that. Great. However, when I've been talking about categorizing novelists by century, I mean by "nineteenth century novelist" nothing more nor less than "novelist who was active in the nineteenth century". I don't mean "writer of

1750:

writing career. I'm not saying these are insurmountable problems, but they're something to think about. I'm not, in principle, opposed to categorization by first-letter-of-last-name if people find that preferable to by-century categorization.

1548:

There should be an article to that effect because that's exactly what the diffusion effort has done. No matter how much you try to shoehorn some novelists into categories, they simply won't fit. Given that, the only other alternative is allow

1452:

tree, going back to the 2nd century - for whatever that's worth (not the place to debate that 2nd century category, BTW). In this case, "American" diffuses the more general category - this is pretty typical. There are also French/British/etc

1363:

was around 3700 novelists in the head, and the majority of genre-novelists diffused in the children. This bubbling up would result in around 6700 novelists in the head cat, so not quite the same as it was, but whatever, the old way was also

1695:. But if "American novelists" must be diffused (I don't feel strongly about it, but am persuaded by arguments that it's too friggin' big to peruse and be of any use), then I see "by century" as the simplest and most neutral way to do it. 1700:

all novelists ever, Virginia Woolf would be near the bottom of the list, and Dan Brown nearer the top. (The sound you hear is me gagging.) Chronology is simply another arbitrary organizational device like that.

1662:

what. But really, how is Upton Sinclair a 19th century novelist? How is Thomas Hardy a 20th century novelist? Anyway, I'm just answering a question I was asked. I wasn't making a proposal about anything.—

1809: 2119:

But if we establish consensus to follow that pattern, fine. I'd only request that we don't try to create categories which don't exist (I've seen this happen on some pages). Anyway, time's up. Back later.

2176:

novelists will be neutrally categorized by century (with some in two century categories), and all novelists will remain in the century categories regardless of how they might be further categorized?

967: 98: 2406: 1469:

Fix one requires zero novelists in the root category. And it serves as a demonstration of how a neutrally diffused category would look, complete with two links to comprehensive lists (

2411: 1794:

Look, I think this is a red herring, but we can deal with Alf's "novelist wrote in century X but is actually century Y" issue nonetheless. There are three cases we have to consider:

1382:

Indeed. This is why I qualified it with "essentially." In any case, moving just the ones that were there before would probably be impossible for a bot. Anyway, is a small thing.—

2296:

On the other hand, actors was always a tougher case, and I generally didn't place into a new category with one outlier. Of course the really messy thing about actors is things like

1691:

Or "Victorian novelists" for Brit lit. Truthkeeper's periodizations are of course valid and useful, and categorization by century doesn't preclude this kind of categorization by

2366: 2011:

It's a good question. Let's take an example - Mary, an African-American woman who wrote 2 novels in the 1950s, just regular old novels - no genre really. She would go in

1217: 1628:

is a 16th-century novelist because she writes fiction set in that period? Such usage seems a little … strenuously arcane. Or deconstructionistically postmodernist.

1330: 2041:

answer. You give an example of a female African American novelist. Now tell me this: where does the white male novelist go? Use as few words as possible. Thanks.

114: 1686: 1473:

and the Search Tool). Implementation question: What are the obstacles to moving the last authors out? Can we get opponents on those pages to come discuss here?--

1255: 2172:

Is it the case that if "American novelists" becomes essentially a container category (or at least in the sense that no individual novelists will remain there),

1922: 1907: 1594: 1541: 1391: 1347: 1277: 573: 488: 243: 1757: 1742: 1618: 1603: 1295: 1067:

Ok, we seem to be at a bit of a stalemate here. All novelists have been diffused, except for around 75, quite famous, authors, who remain comfortably in the

2310: 2287: 1671: 1637: 1313: 2269: 879: 1966:

Now, to return to the three cases Alf.laylah.wa.laylah mentioned: (1) and (2) are straightforward single and double century cats. For (3), I would urge a

1522: 1236: 1198: 2416: 2128: 2113: 2098: 2071: 2050: 2032: 2002: 1580: 1562: 1462: 39: 2219: 2204: 1931:

As an interjection, this would be an 'inherently' useful thing to do if you added the library of congress numbers to authority control in the process.

1338:

as nom. Also, I agree with JPL - having everyone in the head cat makes it much more difficult to find new articles in need of further categorization.--

260: 1585:

It's not difficult to debate, actually, and it's not neutral, and it shouldn't diffuse. But we're saving those arguments for the real conversation.—

2246: 2228: 1709: 2185: 1656: 1071:

category. Given the intense media scrutiny around this issue, I think this result is not acceptable. Either all novelists should be there, or none.

2421: 2146: 1482: 742: 1940: 1501: 1726: 1753:

I'd be interested in knowing more about how the Library of Congress categorizes novelists, but I'm not sure I have time to dig into it myself. -

1408: 2356: 2361: 1979: 2376: 2371: 1719:", in some sense beyond the strictly literal and chronological. I get the impression that I'm not totally in the minority on this point. 1438: 250: 1891: 1373: 2401: 2381: 1184:- Generally it is common practice to diffuse articles into their more specific categories and placing all of the articles in one place 1001: 996: 991: 110: 106: 102: 74: 2342: 1321:

The vbig problem with fix 2 is that it makes it impossible to easily notice new articles created and not put in apprpriate sub-cats.

1172: 1147: 441:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the

2055: 2012: 1599:

Alf laylah, can you please tell me what makes by-century categorization not neutral? I don't see that, so I'm curious. Thank you. -

1568: 1417: 529:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 255: 530: 1130:

Start an RFC on the whole Writers tree to address this at scale. Any consensus reached there would override what we decide here.

2386: 1050: 2391: 2297: 1722:

listed in each century in which he published at least one novel. Some people have been active in two centuries; so it goes. -

346: 238: 80: 1747:

Fair enough. :) What's a better way to name by-century categories to indicate they aren't to be taken as stylistic claims?

1127:

For now, undiffuse all American novelists to Category:American novelists while leaving them in any subcategories they're in.

1110: 2396: 1227:— We seem very close to consensus on option 1 above, and fewer than 100 pages would need to be moved to make this happen.-- 1062:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

534: 234:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

122: 2324:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020: 226: 190: 1353: 538: 2137:

American novelist is in a by-century cat. Some are in two. And I'm with you on avoiding categories that don't exist.--

2016: 443: 842:"Knowledge in sexism row after labelling Harper Lee and others 'women novelists' while men are 'American novelists'" 2081:- thank you for the succinct answer. Now, let's say he have X number of novelists in those categories. Along comes 337: 301: 2059: 1445: 1266:

collapses. There's a reason why diffusing to the lowest categories is the way it is done across the entire wiki.

525: 483: 2062:(non-diffusing) (assuming American men novelists cat is kept. If not, then just the 20th-c cat. that's it.) -- 1903: 1738: 1667: 1614: 1590: 1518: 1404: 1387: 1213: 1168: 1143: 20: 1449: 1288: 69: 2333:

The category has now grown to 90. I am not sure if any have not been put in appropriate by century sub-cats.

668: 421: 385: 165: 1810:"In this sense, Joseph Conrad can be considered either a 20th-century novelist or a 19th-century novelist" 1798:

A novelist who only wrote in one century and is never claimed by any sources to be in a different century

1068: 60: 24: 1470: 1086:

For now, diffuse the remaining 75 novelists to the by-century tree, and any other sub-cats as necessary

961: 776: 93: 1571:

is an undifferentiated novelist - just grouped by century, which is neutral and difficult to debate.--

2338: 2306: 2265: 1899: 1808:

Here's a link to such a claim for Joseph Conrad (if we ignore the fact that he also wrote in 20th-c)

1734: 1663: 1610: 1586: 1514: 1400: 1383: 1326: 1209: 1164: 1139: 1046: 604: 1970:

criterion for X's inclusion in the century X didn't write in. But go for it if you're convinced.--

1817: 345:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2328: 2283: 2124: 2094: 2046: 1998: 1682: 1558: 1434: 1251: 894: 2234: 713:"On Knowledge, Men Who Write Books Are Just Novelists, While Women Who Do Are "Women Novelists"" 2242: 2215: 2200: 2109: 2067: 2028: 1918: 1887: 1652: 1576: 1537: 1497: 1458: 1425:

who is categorized as a 20th century novelist (which imo is correct). This by the way might be

1369: 1343: 1272: 1152: 1106: 2301:

vaudeville, do we know they appeared in the 19th-century or not. It is very head ache causing.

1093:

tree to address this at scale. Any consensus reached there would override what we decide here.

665:"Knowledge's Female Problem: Yes, There's A Sexist Slant, But Here's What You Can Do About It" 153: 865: 789: 171: 2334: 2302: 2261: 1322: 218: 8: 1042: 615:"Women Novelists Knowledge: Female Authors Absent From Site's 'American Novelists' Page?" 50: 2085:, a male 20th/21st century novelist, but he's been diffused to horror or some such, and 2279: 2181: 2120: 2090: 2042: 1994: 1967: 1705: 1678: 1633: 1554: 1430: 1309: 1247: 978: 648: 137: 65: 2238: 2211: 2196: 2105: 2063: 2024: 1914: 1883: 1648: 1572: 1533: 1493: 1454: 1365: 1339: 1267: 1102: 1025: 729: 329: 46: 2142: 2086: 1975: 1956: 1936: 1478: 1232: 1194: 1090: 1014: 691:"Knowledge: male novelists are "novelists," female novelists are "women novelists"" 660: 517: 1647:. I think you misunderstand what the category system is for, in the first place.-- 1567:

I couldn't agree more - you can't always put novelists into genres. Which is why,

1824:

Finally, FWIW, the library of congress categorizes modern literature as follows:

1034: 202: 184: 2225: 1804:

A novelist who wrote only in the 19th century, but who reliable sources call a

1754: 1723: 1644: 1600: 1292: 716: 627: 563: 974: 133: 2350: 2177: 1701: 1692: 1629: 1625: 1305: 703: 413: 231: 2224:

So, which century cat for someone who only published in the year 2000? ;) -

2082: 909: 773:"Knowledge: Outrage after female authors removed from 'American novelists'" 763: 640: 230:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 1960: 2138: 1971: 1932: 1474: 1422: 1228: 1190: 929:"Wiki Wars: Female Authors Fight To Be Listed Among 'American Novelists'" 890:"Knowledge's Separate "American Female Novelists" Category Is Way Sexist" 875:"Knowledge's sexist turn: Men are novelists, women are 'women novelists'" 438: 313: 295: 980: 799:"New Job: Fix the Inaccuracies of the Internet, Starting with Knowledge" 751:"'Sexist' Knowledge relegates female authors to a category of their own" 138: 937: 928: 919: 904: 889: 874: 861: 857: 849: 841: 833:"Knowledge Quietly Removes All Women From 'American Novelists' Section" 832: 824: 811: 802: 798: 785: 772: 759: 750: 738: 725: 712: 699: 690: 677: 664: 652: 636: 623: 614: 342: 1801:

A novelist who wrote in both centuries (Joseph Conrad is one of these)

2210:

approach is given under "--Option 1--", listed a bit further above.--

815: 681: 1624:

those who wrote a little earlier or later. Surely you aren't saying

905:"Sexism on Knowledge Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor'" 739:"Knowledge Creates Sexist Subcategory For American Female Novelists" 726:"Knowledge Is Quietly Moving Women Off Their American Novelist Page" 976: 700:"Knowledge wars: are there really novelists and 'women novelists'?" 537:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 501: 477: 135: 595: 407: 397: 379: 862:"What's In A Category? 'Women Novelists' Sparks Wiki-Controversy" 434: 430: 850:"Knowledge removed women from its 'American novelists' category" 981: 139: 825:"Knowledge banishes lady authors to virtual menstruation hut" 786:"Book News: Maya Angelou Out Of Hospital, Recovering At Home" 426: 1037:, this discussion is closed with the consensus to implement 425:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 2407:

Category-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles

2412:

NA-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles

1421:

the box, and also to make consistent with something like

920:"Knowledge Sexism: Amanda Filipacchi is Owed An Apology" 2367:

Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance

653:"French agency ordered removal of article: Wikimedia" 637:"French agency ordered removal of article: Wikimedia" 1955:

identification numbers to books. Since Knowledge is

1951:

The LOC numbering has a specific purpose, providing

1287:- There is currently no controversy about who is in 678:""American women novelists" segregated by Knowledge" 507: 403: 341:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 319: 208: 15: 2278:Phew, glad that's sorted in such a logical manner. 1866:

PS700-893 Colonial period (17th and 18th centuries)

2260:published their debut novel in 2000, but so be it. 2348: 760:"Knowledge's Boys Club of 'American Novelists'" 2237:. ugh. I'm not even going to go there. :) -- 624:"Knowledge's Sexism Toward Female Novelists" 1189:otherwise diffusion should be our default, 938:"Knowledge Can't Escape its Gender Problem" 2417:Arts and entertainment work group articles 605:mentioned by multiple media organizations 164:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 2056:Category:20th-century American novelists 2013:Category:20th-century American novelists 1569:Category:18th-century American novelists 1418:Category:18th-century American novelists 2422:Knowledge pages referenced by the press 1882:Does anyone see a resemblance here? --- 812:"Breaking News: Nerds Are Still Sexist" 447:to talk over new ideas and suggestions. 2349: 1553:novelists to have the novelist label. 2357:Category-Class United States articles 2298:Category:19th-century American actors 574:the arts and entertainment work group 523:This category is within the scope of 419:This category is within the scope of 335:This category is within the scope of 224:This category is within the scope of 151: 2362:NA-importance United States articles 1058:The following discussion is closed. 590: 147: 2021:Category:African-American novelists 271:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 170:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 2377:Category-Class Literature articles 2372:WikiProject United States articles 918:Sierra Schellenberg (2013-04-30). 689:Abigail Grace Murdy (2013-04-25). 562: 274:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 2433: 2402:Category-Class biography articles 2382:NA-importance Literature articles 2017:Category:American women novelists 2320:The discussion above is closed. 1359:RE: Fix 2 - a minor point - the 954: 903:Amanda Filipacchi (2013-04-30). 622:Amanda Filipacchi (2013-04-24). 594: 510: 500: 476: 406: 396: 378: 355:Knowledge:WikiProject Literature 322: 312: 294: 211: 201: 183: 152: 121: 40:Click here to start a new topic. 2060:Category:American men novelists 1446:Category:18th-century_novelists 823:Robyn Pennacchia (2013-04-25). 724:Madeleine Davies (2013-04-25). 711:Alyssa Rosenberg (2013-04-26). 547:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 358:Template:WikiProject Literature 936:Arikia Millikan (2013-05-02). 840:Kevin Rawlinson (2013-04-26). 676:Katie McDonough (2013-04-25). 571:This category is supported by 550:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2387:Category-Class novel articles 1863:PS700-3576 Individual authors 1450:Category:Novelists_by_century 1289:Category:American politicians 784:Annalisa Quinn (2013-04-25). 771:Kristen Butler (2013-04-25). 349:and see a list of open tasks. 37:Put new text under old text. 2392:NA-importance novel articles 1444:It already is done. We have 669:International Business Times 535:contribute to the discussion 453:Knowledge:WikiProject Novels 7: 2397:WikiProject Novels articles 1069:Category:American novelists 888:Anna Breslaw (2013-04-30). 835:. The Inquistr. 2013-04-26. 635:Alison Flood (2013-04-25). 456:Template:WikiProject Novels 45:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 2438: 1471:List of American novelists 1089:Start an RFC on the whole 777:United Press International 737:Emily Smith (2013-04-25). 698:Sarah Ditum (2013-04-26). 444:general Project discussion 2343:03:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 1869:PS991-(3390) 19th century 1717:Nineteenth Century Novels 1051:15:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 1013:This page is archived by 873:Sandip Roy (2013-04-30). 810:Miles Klee (2013-04-25). 570: 495: 391: 307: 227:WikiProject United States 196: 178: 75:Be welcoming to newcomers 2322:Please do not modify it. 2311:03:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 2288:23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2270:23:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2247:17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2229:16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2220:14:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2205:13:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2186:13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2147:03:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2129:23:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2114:23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2099:23:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2072:23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2051:23:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2033:23:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2003:23:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1980:12:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC) 1941:05:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 1923:13:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1908:12:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1892:06:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1846:PQ2149-2551 19th century 1843:PQ1947-2147 18th century 1840:PQ1710-1935 17th century 1837:PQ1600-1709 16th century 1758:02:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1743:01:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1727:01:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1710:00:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1687:22:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1672:22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1657:21:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1638:21:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1619:20:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1604:16:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1595:19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1581:19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1563:18:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1542:18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1523:18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1502:18:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1483:18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1463:16:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1439:16:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1409:15:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1392:15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1374:14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1348:15:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1331:23:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1314:14:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1296:04:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1278:20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1256:18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1237:18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1218:15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1199:15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1173:14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1148:14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1111:13:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1060:Please do not modify it. 927:Tom Blunt (2013-05-01). 613:Emma Gray (2013-04-24). 232:United States of America 2233:omg not another one of 895:Cosmopolitan (magazine) 758:Jen Doll (2013-04-25). 753:. The Week. 2013-04-25. 1414:Comment and suggestion 852:. MSN Now. 2013-04-26. 797:Deb Rox (2013-04-25). 567: 489:Arts and Entertainment 338:WikiProject Literature 277:United States articles 70:avoid personal attacks 2019:(non-diffusing), and 1875:PS3550-3576 1961-2000 1872:PS3500-3549 1900-1960 1852:PQ2660-2686 1961-2000 1849:PQ2600-2651 1900-1960 1806:20th-century novelist 1532:American novelists.-- 1354:Threaded conversation 866:National Public Radio 790:National Public Radio 566: 526:WikiProject Biography 115:Auto-archiving period 1900:alf laylah wa laylah 1860:American literature: 1735:alf laylah wa laylah 1664:alf laylah wa laylah 1611:alf laylah wa laylah 1587:alf laylah wa laylah 1515:alf laylah wa laylah 1401:alf laylah wa laylah 1384:alf laylah wa laylah 1210:alf laylah wa laylah 1165:alf laylah wa laylah 1161:method's acceptable. 1140:alf laylah wa laylah 219:United States portal 603:This page has been 361:Literature articles 245:Articles Requested! 1834:Individual authors 1828:French literature: 1821:terrible outcome. 1448:, in fact a whole 1061: 931:. Word & Film. 880:First Post (India) 844:. The Independent. 827:. Death and Taxes. 649:Amy Sterling Casil 617:. Huffington Post. 568: 553:biography articles 422:WikiProject Novels 166:content assessment 81:dispute resolution 42: 25:American novelists 2335:John Pack Lambert 2303:John Pack Lambert 2262:John Pack Lambert 2235:those discussions 1878:PS3600-3626 2001- 1855:PQ2700-2726 2001- 1831:Modern literature 1323:John Pack Lambert 1059: 1033:Per a request at 1023: 1022: 1018: 949: 948: 730:Jezebel (website) 693:. Melville House. 589: 588: 585: 584: 581: 580: 471: 470: 467: 466: 373: 372: 369: 368: 330:Literature portal 289: 288: 285: 284: 146: 145: 61:Assume good faith 38: 2429: 2087:Michael Connelly 1275: 1270: 1208:- As proposer.— 1122:Thus, in short: 1091:Category:Writers 1081:Thus, in short: 1012: 982: 958: 957: 951: 950: 941: 932: 923: 914: 899: 884: 869: 853: 845: 836: 828: 819: 806: 793: 780: 767: 754: 746: 733: 720: 707: 694: 685: 672: 661:Christopher Zara 656: 644: 631: 618: 598: 591: 555: 554: 551: 548: 545: 531:join the project 520: 518:Biography portal 515: 514: 513: 504: 497: 496: 491: 480: 473: 472: 461: 460: 457: 454: 451: 416: 411: 410: 400: 393: 392: 382: 375: 374: 363: 362: 359: 356: 353: 332: 327: 326: 325: 316: 309: 308: 298: 291: 290: 279: 278: 275: 272: 269: 221: 216: 215: 214: 205: 198: 197: 187: 180: 179: 157: 156: 148: 140: 126: 125: 116: 16: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2347: 2346: 2331: 2329:Category growth 2326: 2325: 1361:status quo ante 1356: 1273: 1268: 1155: 1064: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1028: 1019: 983: 977: 955: 945: 944: 935: 926: 917: 902: 887: 872: 856: 848: 839: 831: 822: 809: 796: 783: 770: 757: 749: 736: 723: 710: 697: 688: 675: 659: 647: 634: 621: 612: 608: 552: 549: 546: 543: 542: 516: 511: 509: 486: 458: 455: 452: 449: 448: 412: 405: 360: 357: 354: 351: 350: 328: 323: 321: 276: 273: 270: 267: 266: 265: 251:Become a Member 217: 212: 210: 142: 141: 136: 113: 87: 86: 56: 12: 11: 5: 2435: 2425: 2424: 2419: 2414: 2409: 2404: 2399: 2394: 2389: 2384: 2379: 2374: 2369: 2364: 2359: 2330: 2327: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2291: 2290: 2273: 2272: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2239:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2212:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2197:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2189: 2188: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2106:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2064:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2037:I asked for a 2025:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2006: 2005: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1964: 1944: 1943: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1915:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1884:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1880: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1858: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1813: 1812: 1802: 1799: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1659: 1649:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1573:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1534:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1494:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1486: 1485: 1466: 1465: 1455:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1453:equivalents.-- 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1377: 1376: 1366:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1355: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1340:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1333: 1316: 1298: 1281: 1280: 1259: 1258: 1240: 1239: 1221: 1220: 1202: 1201: 1177: 1154: 1151: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1119: 1118: 1103:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1087: 1078: 1077: 1065: 1056: 1043:Nathan Johnson 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1027: 1024: 1021: 1020: 1011: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 999: 994: 986: 985: 984: 979: 975: 973: 972: 959: 947: 946: 943: 942: 933: 924: 915: 900: 885: 870: 860:(2013-04-29). 854: 846: 837: 829: 820: 807: 794: 781: 768: 755: 747: 743:Opposing Views 734: 721: 717:Think Progress 708: 695: 686: 673: 663:(2013-04-25). 657: 651:(2013-04-25). 645: 632: 628:New York Times 619: 609: 602: 601: 599: 587: 586: 583: 582: 579: 578: 569: 559: 558: 556: 522: 521: 505: 493: 492: 481: 469: 468: 465: 464: 462: 459:novel articles 418: 417: 401: 389: 388: 383: 371: 370: 367: 366: 364: 347:the discussion 334: 333: 317: 305: 304: 299: 287: 286: 283: 282: 280: 264: 263: 258: 253: 248: 241: 239:Template Usage 235: 223: 222: 206: 194: 193: 188: 176: 175: 169: 158: 144: 143: 134: 132: 131: 128: 127: 89: 88: 85: 84: 77: 72: 63: 57: 55: 54: 43: 34: 33: 30: 29: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2434: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2408: 2405: 2403: 2400: 2398: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2388: 2385: 2383: 2380: 2378: 2375: 2373: 2370: 2368: 2365: 2363: 2360: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2352: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2323: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2190: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2133:By my count, 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2079:Next question 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2058:(diffusing), 2057: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2015:(diffusing), 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1989: 1988: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1822: 1819: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1800: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1698: 1694: 1693:periodization 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1660: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626:Hilary Mantel 1622: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1336:Support fix 1 1334: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319:Support Fix 1 1317: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1301:Support Fix 1 1299: 1297: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1285:Support Fix 1 1283: 1282: 1279: 1276: 1271: 1264: 1263:Support Fix 1 1261: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244:Support Fix 2 1242: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1225:Support Fix 1 1223: 1222: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1206:Support Fix 2 1204: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1182:Support Fix 1 1180: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1121: 1120: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1092: 1088: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1080: 1079: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1070: 1063: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1016: 1009: 1008: 1003: 1000: 998: 995: 993: 990: 989: 988: 987: 970: 969: 964: 963: 953: 952: 939: 934: 930: 925: 921: 916: 912: 911: 906: 901: 897: 896: 891: 886: 882: 881: 876: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 838: 834: 830: 826: 821: 817: 813: 808: 804: 800: 795: 791: 787: 782: 778: 774: 769: 765: 761: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 735: 731: 727: 722: 718: 714: 709: 705: 704:New Statesman 701: 696: 692: 687: 683: 679: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 655:. Policy Mic. 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 633: 629: 625: 620: 616: 611: 610: 606: 600: 597: 593: 592: 576: 575: 565: 561: 560: 557: 540: 539:documentation 536: 532: 528: 527: 519: 508: 506: 503: 499: 498: 494: 490: 485: 482: 479: 475: 474: 463: 446: 445: 440: 439:short stories 436: 432: 428: 424: 423: 415: 414:Novels portal 409: 404: 402: 399: 395: 394: 390: 387: 384: 381: 377: 376: 365: 348: 344: 340: 339: 331: 320: 318: 315: 311: 310: 306: 303: 300: 297: 293: 292: 281: 268:United States 262: 259: 257: 254: 252: 249: 247: 246: 242: 240: 237: 236: 233: 229: 228: 220: 209: 207: 204: 200: 199: 195: 192: 191:United States 189: 186: 182: 181: 177: 173: 167: 163: 159: 155: 150: 149: 130: 129: 124: 120: 112: 108: 104: 100: 97: 95: 91: 90: 82: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 64: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 47:Learn to edit 44: 41: 36: 35: 32: 31: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2332: 2321: 2192: 2173: 2169: 2134: 2083:Stephen King 2078: 2038: 1990: 1952: 1881: 1823: 1814: 1805: 1793: 1752: 1748: 1720: 1716: 1696: 1550: 1529: 1426: 1413: 1412: 1398: 1360: 1335: 1318: 1300: 1284: 1262: 1243: 1224: 1205: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1159: 1156: 1137: 1100: 1066: 1057: 1038: 966: 960: 922:. PolicyMic. 910:The Atlantic 908: 893: 878: 764:The Atlantic 641:The Guardian 572: 524: 442: 420: 336: 256:Project Talk 244: 225: 172:WikiProjects 161: 118: 92: 19:This is the 2280:Truthkeeper 2121:Truthkeeper 2091:Truthkeeper 2043:Truthkeeper 1995:Truthkeeper 1968:WP:DEFINING 1679:Truthkeeper 1555:Truthkeeper 1431:Truthkeeper 1423:Franz Kafka 1248:Truthkeeper 1015:ClueBot III 2351:Categories 1953:unchanging 858:Lynn Neary 803:Babble.com 435:novelettes 352:Literature 343:Literature 302:Literature 2226:GTBacchus 2170:Question. 1957:not paper 1755:GTBacchus 1724:GTBacchus 1601:GTBacchus 1364:broken.-- 1293:GTBacchus 1153:Positions 1026:Stalemate 816:BlackBook 682:Salon.com 544:Biography 484:Biography 83:if needed 66:Be polite 27:category. 21:talk page 2178:Cynwolfe 1702:Cynwolfe 1630:Cynwolfe 1306:Cynwolfe 1186:does not 1035:WP:ANRFC 962:Archives 431:novellas 162:category 94:Archives 51:get help 1645:WP:OCAT 940:. Vice. 119:90 days 2139:Carwil 2039:simple 1972:Carwil 1933:Revent 1697:Contra 1475:Carwil 1269:Silver 1229:Carwil 1191:Sadads 450:Novels 427:novels 386:Novels 261:Alerts 168:scale. 2135:every 1991:Query 1427:Fix 3 1274:seren 1039:fix 1 968:Index 160:This 99:Index 79:Seek 2339:talk 2307:talk 2284:talk 2266:talk 2243:talk 2216:talk 2201:talk 2182:talk 2143:talk 2125:talk 2110:talk 2095:talk 2068:talk 2047:talk 2029:talk 1999:talk 1976:talk 1961:here 1937:talk 1919:talk 1904:talk 1888:talk 1818:here 1739:talk 1706:talk 1683:talk 1668:talk 1653:talk 1634:talk 1615:talk 1591:talk 1577:talk 1559:talk 1538:talk 1530:real 1519:talk 1498:talk 1479:talk 1459:talk 1435:talk 1405:talk 1388:talk 1370:talk 1344:talk 1327:talk 1310:talk 1252:talk 1233:talk 1214:talk 1195:talk 1169:talk 1144:talk 1107:talk 1047:talk 533:and 437:and 68:and 2193:Yes 2174:all 1551:all 1041:. - 2353:: 2341:) 2309:) 2286:) 2268:) 2245:) 2218:) 2203:) 2195:-- 2184:) 2145:) 2127:) 2112:) 2097:) 2070:) 2049:) 2031:) 2001:) 1978:) 1939:) 1921:) 1906:) 1890:) 1741:) 1708:) 1685:) 1670:) 1655:) 1636:) 1617:) 1593:) 1579:) 1561:) 1540:) 1521:) 1500:) 1492:-- 1481:) 1461:) 1437:) 1429:. 1407:) 1390:) 1372:) 1346:) 1329:) 1312:) 1254:) 1246:- 1235:) 1216:) 1197:) 1171:) 1163:— 1146:) 1138:— 1109:) 1101:-- 1049:) 971:) 907:. 892:. 877:. 864:. 814:. 801:. 788:. 775:. 762:. 741:. 728:. 715:. 702:. 680:. 667:. 639:. 626:. 487:: 433:, 429:, 117:: 109:, 105:, 101:, 49:; 2337:( 2305:( 2282:( 2264:( 2241:( 2214:( 2199:( 2180:( 2141:( 2123:( 2108:( 2093:( 2066:( 2045:( 2027:( 1997:( 1974:( 1963:. 1935:( 1917:( 1902:( 1886:( 1737:( 1704:( 1681:( 1666:( 1651:( 1632:( 1613:( 1589:( 1575:( 1557:( 1536:( 1517:( 1496:( 1477:( 1457:( 1433:( 1403:( 1386:( 1368:( 1342:( 1325:( 1308:( 1250:( 1231:( 1212:( 1193:( 1167:( 1142:( 1105:( 1045:( 1017:. 1002:3 997:2 992:1 965:( 913:. 898:. 883:. 868:. 818:. 805:. 792:. 779:. 766:. 745:. 732:. 719:. 706:. 684:. 671:. 643:. 630:. 607:: 577:. 541:. 174:: 111:3 107:2 103:1 96:: 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.