![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since I've made a lot of changes to this page recently, I thought I should describe what I've done, and open up the discussion about who does and doesn't belong on this list. The MoS ( WP:MOS) in fact demands that every list have "membership criteria" ( WP:LIST); of course, it also says that the criteria should be "clear, neutral, and unambiguous", which, when it comes to deciding whether or not a writer is "notable", means we're in the territory of the impossible--but here goes.
As I said, these categories cover nearly all the writers on the list--but not all. Especially younger writers: Is their body of work substantial enough? Well respected and reviewed enough? I'm sure I included some writers that many others would not, and left off writers that others would have included. For my part, I tried to be more inclusive than exclusive. My thinking was that if this list started as something substantial (that is, after replacing the raggedy, hit-or-miss list that this used to be), it could, with some pruning here and some additions there, grow in the right direction.
They all don't yet, of course, but I'd like to see all that red turned to blue (and, as they like to say here, "You can help!"). I think every writer on the list deserves an entry. Not every title does--but certainly each could have a separate section on the writer's page that the title link could point to.
One other thing: I decided when I started working on the page to give each author one representative title, and to make that the limit, just to help people identify the author. When I began, many authors had 2, 3, or more--and many had none. If an author has more than one noteworthy title, then that author probably already has a page, and the curious can go there to find the other titles.
Anyway, that's what I did and why I did it. I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I left out or underexplained. Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? Or just go edit the list--that's what it's there for, eh? ShelfSkewed 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd try putting in columns, since this is such a long page to scroll through, and columns would, obviously, cut the length about in half. But does it make it look too cluttered, or too hard to read? Comments? -- ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I delete Stephenie meyer. I hope others agree upon why she shouldn't be on this list. LOL. :)
Amanda Filipacchi wrote a New York Times column [ [1]] discussing how Wikipedia editors had removed women from the list and relegated them to the sub-category of "Female American novelists." It would be worth clarifying on this page, when such removals would be valid or invalid.
Is there any criterion for what example novel is used? It seems rather random. Light in August rather than The Sound and the Fury for Faulkner? Washington Square rather than Portrait of a Lady for James? The article itself provides no guidelines for what novel is listed; hell, it doesn't even mention that example novels are listed. john k ( talk) 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We should include all novelists we have articles on. There is clearly a demand for a comprehesive, all-inclusive list of American novelsits. We should make this clear. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I just realized that considering this probably only has at best a sixth of the articles it really should have, and yet it is already really long, it probably should be split. I think the best way to split it would be by letter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since I've made a lot of changes to this page recently, I thought I should describe what I've done, and open up the discussion about who does and doesn't belong on this list. The MoS ( WP:MOS) in fact demands that every list have "membership criteria" ( WP:LIST); of course, it also says that the criteria should be "clear, neutral, and unambiguous", which, when it comes to deciding whether or not a writer is "notable", means we're in the territory of the impossible--but here goes.
As I said, these categories cover nearly all the writers on the list--but not all. Especially younger writers: Is their body of work substantial enough? Well respected and reviewed enough? I'm sure I included some writers that many others would not, and left off writers that others would have included. For my part, I tried to be more inclusive than exclusive. My thinking was that if this list started as something substantial (that is, after replacing the raggedy, hit-or-miss list that this used to be), it could, with some pruning here and some additions there, grow in the right direction.
They all don't yet, of course, but I'd like to see all that red turned to blue (and, as they like to say here, "You can help!"). I think every writer on the list deserves an entry. Not every title does--but certainly each could have a separate section on the writer's page that the title link could point to.
One other thing: I decided when I started working on the page to give each author one representative title, and to make that the limit, just to help people identify the author. When I began, many authors had 2, 3, or more--and many had none. If an author has more than one noteworthy title, then that author probably already has a page, and the curious can go there to find the other titles.
Anyway, that's what I did and why I did it. I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I left out or underexplained. Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? Or just go edit the list--that's what it's there for, eh? ShelfSkewed 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd try putting in columns, since this is such a long page to scroll through, and columns would, obviously, cut the length about in half. But does it make it look too cluttered, or too hard to read? Comments? -- ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I delete Stephenie meyer. I hope others agree upon why she shouldn't be on this list. LOL. :)
Amanda Filipacchi wrote a New York Times column [ [1]] discussing how Wikipedia editors had removed women from the list and relegated them to the sub-category of "Female American novelists." It would be worth clarifying on this page, when such removals would be valid or invalid.
Is there any criterion for what example novel is used? It seems rather random. Light in August rather than The Sound and the Fury for Faulkner? Washington Square rather than Portrait of a Lady for James? The article itself provides no guidelines for what novel is listed; hell, it doesn't even mention that example novels are listed. john k ( talk) 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We should include all novelists we have articles on. There is clearly a demand for a comprehesive, all-inclusive list of American novelsits. We should make this clear. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I just realized that considering this probably only has at best a sixth of the articles it really should have, and yet it is already really long, it probably should be split. I think the best way to split it would be by letter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)