1617:) has decided to become a single-purpose account for essentially replicating the standard Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregates from film articles onto book articles. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there is a similar utility with review aggregates for literary works, both in theory and through the examples in practice. Ratings and scores are naturally not even a fixture of literary criticism. These additions seem to be particularly uninformative to readers. They have very little encyclopedic value as they communicate nothing to the substance of the reviewers' critiques. Film reviews are far greater in number and better aggregated, and thus more informative and perhaps better suited to those articles. The aggregator sites themself are also far more prominent in their respective community, with film critics and audiences widely recognising and participating in their existence.
1793:
and aggregates in turn helped to provide a general window than showing five reviews without any clear demonstration and rather random blurbs sometimes can do. Not to say they are as big, but rather, they help to fill a void of RT or MC in some ways you could say. Many books just have a few reviews by publications on the reception page but that doesn't give a detailed or general idea of reception as, by comparison, a magazine that specializes in collecting and aggregating book reviews and telling you a general critical summary which could possibly do more than showing two reviews. I find it problematic the lack of reception on pages and showing of what some thought. While aggregates are not perfect and are just a possible recommendation window, they provide more possibly than the sometimes simple and shallow three reviews rather than a easy showing of multiple publications.
1509:
and the man shot him back. The work was read in the 1990s or very early 2000s. The piece appeared no later than the 1990s (probably earlier). I also remember that the guy was doing something enthusiastically on the computer: at first he typed without looking at the screen, but the message on the computer monitor made him do his work more slowly and carefully. The phrases went something like this. The message on the computer screen made him work more carefully. Behind the desk stood a man with a gun in his hand. The guy had never seen a real gun, except in the movies, but he knew immediately what it was. The guy's hand dropped mechanically to the Enter button, and the same second the black muzzle of the gun burst into flames, ending his life.
1965:
simply just recommendation and the sources like aggregates are to show some peoples takes in a more all together and sometimes summarized manner that can not be, sometimes, on Wiki as possibly clearly as the size can be overloading (like with Book Marks and over eighty reviews for one book that would be hard to show). I think, in that way, they can be good in conveying what mainstream critics thought of something without having to do research or anything, like RT, and work for Wiki in showing reception. For instance, Bookmarks provides usually a paragraph summary, from what I've checked, that's detailed and seems helpful in getting the idea of general reception of press while showing what the press it shows individually thought.
1946:), of which I might add are not colossal in number. And in the articles Themashup created, there are no sections on plot, characters, style, themes, background, publication history etc. Just that something called "Book Marks" says the book "received "rave" reviews based on five critic reviews, with four being "rave" and one being "positive"." I can confidently say I know absolutely nothing of value about these books. As an aside, I abhor the implication that reception sections are even as important as the time spent on this discussion would suggest.
1777:. And in that discussion, which voiced a fairly standard concern about problematic edits, the immediate response from Themashup was to urge that they "not use a strong and problematic attitude" and that they found them "rude and talking down to me and felt it could've been expressed better". So to preempt any concerns, allow me to make it clear that this discussion is a response to content that was added to Knowledge (XXG) and is an examination of its encyclopedic vaule. It is not a judgment about your character, integrity, or good faith.
1984:
every reception section with these subpar aggregate websites imparts a level of legitimacy I do not believe any of these websites have established. Not even Book Marks. Comparing the traffic and reputation of Book Marks to Rotten
Tomatoes or Metacritic, Book Marks is virtually unknown. I might add, journalistic statements unto critical and public consensus predates the existence of these websites. It is false to assume because there is no literary Rotten Tomatoes that we are rendered incapable of reflecting critical assessment.
1117:
1749:
better than any amount of "A++" or whatever guff the meta-sites now choose to fluff up their material with. There is no need whatsoever for such rubbish in any article that contains proper reviews; at best, it's a dreadful cheap stop-gap for articles where decent reviews haven't yet been published or are thought to be too much like hard work to discover and summarize: but that is, frankly, the work of editing
Knowledge (XXG).
179:
1384:
46:
95:
77:
1056:
105:
1649:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1629:
2097:
1942:
determine some illusory "overall reception" in the style of ratings/scores which are the norm in the world of film, music and video games but not in literature is scarcely as substantive as parsing and summarising reviews from major publications/critics (aka "professional reviewers or influential opinion-makers"
1921:
reception.) I prefer a retrospective source that can survey the individual reviews and explicitly state “When X book came out, it was widely praised.” In the absence of such a source I prefer to enumerate major reviews individually or just focus on awards. Of course, this is a personal attitude which
1879:
With Book Marks they show the publication name and the author of each thoughts on the book and
Bookmarks does the same and seems to focus on the mainstream press with a good amount reflecting in a manner of sometimes scoring system that seems there to just help get an idea of what press thought then.
1796:
Book Marks, for instance on one book, showed eighty reviews from mainstream publications which likely would be impossible to show each one, based on guidelines, on wiki and this provides a more simple and clear idea of the reception page. Bookmarks, by comparison, provides sometimes less but instead
1792:
Gotcha. I think, yes, film reviews can be ever-expanding so aggregates are needed, with literary I think there is a purpose to for general examination. So many wikis, in regards to books, lack any to no general idea of clear reception and rather are general statements sometimes not backed by sources
1508:
Looking for one book. I only remember the beginning of the piece. Some guy found a derelict computer, sat down at it and started doing something, and then he saw a man with a gun walk up to the desk, they looked at each other in silence for a while, then the guy mechanically pressed the Enter button
1983:
aggregate websites. If this issue were confined to Book Marks I may have never started this discussion. But your zealous edits appear to me more an effort to substitute for something which which does not and likely will not ever exist: a literary aggregator that rises to the level of RT. Top-lining
1964:
I see that but I think that sources like
Bookmarks and Book Marks aren't really needed to declare "good" or "bad" as much as just general pictures of what some people think about a book. In turn, it's just kind of reflecting that just like how reception reflects what some think about a book. It is
1916:
I think this is getting off topic, but I don’t think anything at that link contradicts what I mean here. What I mean is that a review is rarely a good source for a statement like “The book was widely praised.” I see reviews as roughly similar to the case where a historian’s book is secondary about
1818:
My own slightly crotchety view is that book reviews are secondary sources about a book, but they are primary sources about its reception; I think we should use reviews to write sections on style, themes, etc, but avoid comment on whether people loved or hated the book until an RS actually gives us
1748:
An editor has now seen fit, twice, to try to force a trashy aggregation text that says nothing beyond a
Facebook-worthy "like", when the article already has multiple, reliably-cited, independent reviews that actually state chapter and verse of what different sources think of the book. They are far
1995:
Good idea but I just dont feel like doing all that right now. Prob gonna forget about this soon. Only use wiki anyway now to add stuff missing to help scholars or inform people from misinfo I see or whatever so theres some correct info out there. But the work that goes into it isnt for me. If you
2001:
I would add that your example of 80 reviews for one book is an extreme and rare instance representative of just about 0% of your edits so I would not cite it as why these aggregates are necessary and useful. You are also implying all 80 of those publications/reviewers are notable enough to even
1987:
The passion and stamina you have shown on this project of yours feels sorely misplaced. Stating that we should avoid having to "work for Wiki in showing reception" is the wrong attitude. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Not surrender our duty of probing reliable sources to some substandard
1941:
And in the absence of such a source, scouring the internet for obscure aggregate websites or a slightly better website which still very few people use does not improve the readers' understanding of the subject in my estimation. Perhaps this leaves me in a minority, but desperately attempting to
1624:
Themashup's edits often include websites which aggregate very few reviews, but also add a website which is now defunct, as well as introduce several extraneous references. I also find it inappropriate, and have expressed as such, that they are incorporting ratings templates
722:
823:
1298:, there was a thumbs-up and no objections, except... I've now read the first book and really liked it, so I don't want to read the spoilery plot summary of the second one! Would someone here be willing to help out and execute this merge so I can stay spoiler-free?
1917:
the historical topic but primary about the author’s own experiences: most reviews are secondary about the book but primary about reviews of the book. (After all, most reviewers don’t even know what the other reviews will say, so they can’t possibly discuss the
717:
815:
1403:
almost 9 years later, I do not believe this meets the notability guidelines for a book. Although the author is often discussed and interviewed, this pen name and novel has not been covered as far as I can tell except by a few
294:
1716:
285:
919:
734:
1042:
782:
806:
188:
914:
847:
729:
547:
2068:
of these sources in the cited articles has problems of execution. Better prose writing, and a more thorough incorporation of available information, would make the additions more clearly improvements.
1815:
review aggregator is able to address this problem. I don't think it's an encyclopedia's job to declare a book "good" or "bad", so there's no need to turn prose analysis into a score out of five stars.
883:
794:
1811:
Hm. I agree that book reception sections can often be unhelpfully narrow, perhaps quoting snippets of praise but not giving an overview sense of the book's reception. I disagree strongly that any
777:
629:
398:
835:
770:
686:
535:
1001:
871:
801:
437:
907:
842:
710:
542:
424:
1865:
Indeed, the response to a narrow or one-sided use of book reviews must not be to add an uninformative and wordless aggregate number cobbled together from an unspecified group of reviews.
878:
789:
490:
450:
1033:
895:
859:
698:
624:
393:
830:
765:
758:
681:
530:
996:
866:
583:
432:
902:
746:
705:
419:
372:
485:
445:
385:
890:
854:
693:
559:
1130:
753:
641:
571:
578:
478:
277:
741:
665:
595:
523:
411:
367:
1754:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1026:
616:
380:
1996:
want to you can, but im just too lazy to do so which is weird since i could write so much but not 2 sentences but 2 sentences just that idea just bores me. Vibes.
1560:
Since the DOAWK task force is defunt, I'm asking here, are the individual books notable? I think that the books are notable, but I also need community consensus.
319:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
554:
360:
307:
265:
653:
636:
566:
511:
348:
343:
1692:
467:
272:
253:
1833:
660:
590:
518:
406:
1019:
611:
314:
1448:
355:
302:
260:
2047:
1489:
use ISBN and OCLC of a
British edition published in 2006? It would be more sensibile to use OCLC of the first edition by Doubleday, wouldn't it?--
648:
506:
2043:
is so widely used across film articles.) After a simple sentence more detail from individuals reviews can be freely added, quoted, or otherwise.
1988:
aggregator websites. I would implore you to create and contribute full-fledged articles which encompass their subjects. But when confronted with
1757:
concerning a defunct aggregate website which
Themashup was introducing into many literary articles. The discussion included the participation of
1676:
248:
2039:
are AFAIK reliable sources, and it's useful for readers to get a quick summary of notable reviews of a book. (Lost here is that there's reasons
1840:
an actual secondary source analyzing the book's reception. These would be quite nice to use as sources, though the way that source was used as
1700:
2132:
2127:
2137:
1653:) in running text. These edits of theirs have accelerated immensely as of late, including the creation of several stub articles of books
138:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the
1656:
1907:. They're discussed in the final sentence of that paragraph, and it includes a footnote that explains when they'd be a primary source.
1696:
989:
1452:
965:
195:
1712:
940:
1979:
In your crusade to fill this "void" you believe exists, I have witnessed you add a plethora of weak (also defunct) and even non-
1762:
1614:
977:
236:
214:
118:
82:
57:
1279:
1440:
1395:
1373:
1062:
1733:. This is unencylopedic behavior and substance which I do not believe we should welcome or encourage on literary articles.
1729:
in which the only content are these aggregates and the articles expanded no further. A rather obnoxious interpretation of
1668:
984:
1444:
1741:
1704:
1363:
960:
2007:
1951:
1823:
sources about their reception and accordingly don't need much in the reception section. You can see my recent article
1782:
1231:
935:
1797:
gives a critical summary followed with a more (out of 5) idea of critical reception that is just for recommendation.
2046:
If you'd like a more sweeping prohibition of these sorts of sentences/sources, I'd suggest starting a discussion at
17:
1680:
972:
953:
1880:
They are not perfect, but can be great in getting a general idea which can be missing in a couple reviews shown.
1250:
1243:
1210:
1588:
1744:, as it is related to the same additions by Themashup and I do not wish to repeat their sentiments as my own:
63:
1870:
1664:
1351:
2003:
1947:
1778:
1565:
1514:
1427:
1295:
331:
1904:
1456:
1672:
1660:
947:
1529:
1073:
2064:
Yes, the more I look at these, the more I think Book Marks especially is OK and even helpful; but the
1724:
1720:
1621:
is perhaps the more reliable site but, again, its addition is not of great utility in my estimation.
1262:
1966:
1881:
1798:
1604:
2023:
I'm not sure these edits can be described as "unencyclopedic". Like, I don't particularly love how
1970:
1885:
1842:
1802:
1708:
1688:
1608:
1584:
1866:
1737:
1684:
1344:
1340:
1216:
1730:
1580:
1553:
2108:
2078:
1932:
1856:
1583:. For a book, receiving at least two reviews would usually be sufficient to count as notable.
1576:
1562:
1542:
1510:
1464:
1423:
1391:
1377:
1328:
1308:
1291:
1283:
1214:
326:
1758:
1494:
1359:
1318:
I've now read the whole series, haha, so I can perform the merge myself -- matter resolved.
1212:
1116:
2051:
1410:
2113:
2082:
2058:
2011:
1974:
1955:
1936:
1911:
1889:
1874:
1860:
1806:
1786:
1592:
1569:
1546:
1518:
1498:
1468:
1367:
1332:
1312:
1287:
1254:
1989:
1980:
1922:
is certainly shaped by the fact that I usually write about books that are 250 years old.
1770:
926:
672:
602:
497:
457:
1409:
While all constructive contributions to
Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be
1352:
Talk:You Like It Darker § Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker
178:
2121:
2055:
1908:
1766:
110:
2069:
1923:
1898:
1847:
1774:
1533:
1460:
1319:
1299:
2104:
2090:
1825:
1490:
1355:
135:
1943:
104:
100:
94:
76:
1832:
It looks like Book Marks sometimes has a prose "critical summary" (as seen
1525:
1433:
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing
204:
2096:
131:
127:
1717:
The Source of Self-Regard: Selected Essays, Speeches, and
Meditations
123:
1485:
1475:
1753:
I will also mention an earlier discussion from 6 months ago at
1755:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive 18#IDreamBooks
1350:
There is currently a discussion regarding a proposed merge at
1217:
1110:
1050:
173:
39:
26:
1618:
227:
208:
2095:
1382:
122:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
2107:
that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
2024:
1451:
process can result in deletion without discussion, and
1102:
1095:
1088:
1081:
471:
291:
1416:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
2031:, as it's too wordy for what it's trying to say. But
1603:
As I am sure some of you are aware, an editor named
18:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum
2054:. Anything here will be seen as a local consensus.
1819:that overview. Most contemporary books do not have
1249:It would be really helpful to get more opinions
1746:
56:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1626:
1993:
1225:This page has archives. Sections older than
1027:
8:
2105:Talk:Godric#Requested move 12 September 2024
2091:Talk:Godric#Requested move 12 September 2024
1693:Last Stories (Trevor short story collection)
2048:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Novels
1846:does not strike me as the most effective.
1244:Requested move Nineteen Eighty-Four → 1984
1034:
1020:
71:
2103:There is a requested move discussion at
1992:you introduced, you already confessed:
1422:notice, but please explain why in your
1012:
144:to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
73:
1701:The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher
1235:when more than 5 sections are present.
718:CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force
1736:I will reproduce a comment posted by
1524:I think you will have more luck with
7:
1677:Fire in the Blood (NĂ©mirovsky novel)
45:
43:
1657:Changing My Mind: Occasional Essays
1628:
62:It is of interest to the following
1697:Giving Up the Ghost (Mantel novel)
1411:deleted for any of several reasons
1398:because of the following concern:
150:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Novels
25:
1903:Reviews are secondary sources by
1599:Unencyclopedic review aggregation
1579:: The relevant guideline here is
1526:Reddit's "What's that book" forum
1290:all to a combined series article
1229:may be automatically archived by
1063:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Books
116:This page is within the scope of
1905:Knowledge (XXG)'s own definition
1647:
1642:
1637:
1632:
1627:
1278:A while ago, I proposed merging
1115:
1054:
394:Char. Article (pattern template)
177:
103:
93:
75:
44:
1829:to see what I mean by all this.
915:Diary of a Wimpy Kid task force
730:Chronicles of Narnia task force
2114:17:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
1669:Companion Piece (Smith novel)
1280:Draft:The Outskirter's Secret
816:Napoleonic fiction work group
778:His Dark Materials task force
433:NovelSeries infobox (pattern)
420:Short Story infobox (pattern)
2133:NA-importance novel articles
2128:Project-Class novel articles
1742:Talk:The Years (Ernaux book)
1705:Some Trick: Thirteen Stories
2138:WikiProject Novels articles
2083:03:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
2059:02:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
2012:06:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1975:01:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1956:05:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1937:03:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1912:02:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1890:01:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1875:00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1861:00:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1807:22:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1787:22:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1713:The Magician (TĂłibĂn novel)
1593:13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1570:11:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1547:19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1455:allows discussion to reach
1436:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
1419:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
1333:19:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
802:Military fiction task force
446:Character infobox (pattern)
286:Current or Recent Elections
153:Template:WikiProject Novels
2154:
1681:Lying Under the Apple Tree
1447:exist. In particular, the
1071:
843:Science fiction task force
543:Disputed book cover images
381:Article (pattern template)
141:general Project discussion
1519:22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
1499:22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1469:19:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1441:proposed deletion process
1313:05:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
929:
879:Sword of Truth task force
790:Lemony Snicket task force
675:
605:
500:
460:
337:
230:
88:
70:
33:Skip to table of contents
1836:, at the bottom), which
1368:16:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1242:More opinions needed at
468:General discussion forum
315:Announcements (template)
32:
1665:The Embassy of Cambodia
1428:the article's talk page
831:Rick Riordan task force
766:Harry Potter task force
682:19th century task force
625:Assessment Top priority
531:Disputed novel articles
2100:
1998:
1751:
1407:
1387:
1232:Lowercase sigmabot III
867:Short story task force
407:Book infobox (pattern)
2099:
1673:All Our Worldly Goods
1661:The Wife of Willesden
1453:articles for deletion
1400:
1396:proposed for deletion
1386:
903:Roald Dahl task force
706:Australian task force
2029:sentence was phrased
1725:Summer (Smith novel)
1721:The Origin of Others
1504:Looking for one book
985:Infobox Novel series
486:Novel categorization
461:Current discussions
338:Article information
190:a WikiProject Report
1843:Cheating at Canasta
1709:Long Island (novel)
1689:Cheating at Canasta
961:Infobox Short story
891:Twilight task force
855:Shannara task force
694:39 Clues task force
2101:
2089:Requested move at
2002:include in prose.
1763:GrĂĄbergs GrĂĄa SĂĄng
1685:The Hill Bachelors
1445:deletion processes
1388:
1345:You Like It Darker
1341:Finn (short story)
1339:Proposed merge of
1274:Help with a merge?
754:Fantasy task force
579:Infobox Incomplete
215:WikiProject Novels
185:WikiProject Novels
119:WikiProject Novels
58:content assessment
2075:
1990:original research
1929:
1853:
1539:
1392:Justinian (novel)
1378:Justinian (novel)
1374:Proposed deletion
1325:
1305:
1292:Steerswoman books
1284:Rosemary Kirstein
1239:
1238:
1068:
1067:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1007:
1006:
973:Infobox character
925:
924:
671:
670:
601:
600:
519:Maintenance lists
501:Work in progress
496:
495:
456:
455:
327:Literature Portal
222:
221:
203:
202:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
38:
37:
16:(Redirected from
2145:
2111:
2073:
2072:
1927:
1926:
1902:
1851:
1850:
1728:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1568:
1537:
1536:
1438:
1437:
1421:
1420:
1385:
1323:
1322:
1303:
1302:
1296:On the talk page
1269:
1260:
1234:
1218:
1119:
1111:
1105:
1098:
1091:
1084:
1058:
1057:
1051:
1036:
1029:
1022:
1016:
927:
742:Crime task force
673:
603:
498:
458:
368:Style guidelines
231:The WikiProject
228:
209:
205:
199:on January 2010.
187:was featured in
181:
174:
158:
157:
154:
151:
148:
113:
108:
107:
97:
90:
89:
79:
72:
49:
48:
47:
40:
27:
21:
2153:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2118:
2117:
2109:
2094:
2070:
2041:Rotten Tomatoes
2037:Complete Review
2027:Complete Review
1924:
1896:
1848:
1654:
1648:
1643:
1638:
1633:
1601:
1561:
1558:
1534:
1506:
1481:
1479:: ISBN and OCLC
1449:speedy deletion
1435:
1434:
1418:
1417:
1383:
1381:
1348:
1320:
1300:
1288:The Steerswoman
1276:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1230:
1219:
1213:
1124:
1109:
1108:
1101:
1094:
1087:
1080:
1076:
1055:
1040:
1014:
555:Articles needed
475:
297:
218:
155:
152:
149:
146:
145:
109:
102:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2151:
2149:
2141:
2140:
2135:
2130:
2120:
2119:
2093:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
1999:
1985:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1830:
1816:
1794:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1585:ARandomName123
1557:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1505:
1502:
1480:
1472:
1459:for deletion.
1439:will stop the
1380:
1371:
1347:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1275:
1272:
1246:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1211:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1172:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1114:
1107:
1106:
1099:
1092:
1085:
1077:
1072:
1066:
1065:
1059:
1047:
1046:
1039:
1038:
1031:
1024:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1004:
999:
993:
992:
987:
981:
980:
975:
969:
968:
963:
957:
956:
951:
944:
943:
938:
936:Project banner
932:
931:
923:
922:
917:
911:
910:
905:
899:
898:
893:
887:
886:
881:
875:
874:
869:
863:
862:
857:
851:
850:
845:
839:
838:
833:
827:
826:
821:
820:
819:
810:
809:
804:
798:
797:
792:
786:
785:
780:
774:
773:
768:
762:
761:
756:
750:
749:
744:
738:
737:
732:
726:
725:
720:
714:
713:
708:
702:
701:
696:
690:
689:
684:
678:
677:
669:
668:
663:
657:
656:
651:
645:
644:
639:
633:
632:
627:
620:
619:
614:
608:
607:
599:
598:
593:
587:
586:
581:
575:
574:
569:
567:Infobox needed
563:
562:
557:
551:
550:
545:
539:
538:
533:
527:
526:
521:
515:
514:
509:
507:Main work list
503:
502:
494:
493:
488:
482:
481:
476:
466:
463:
462:
454:
453:
448:
441:
440:
435:
428:
427:
422:
415:
414:
409:
402:
401:
396:
389:
388:
383:
376:
375:
370:
364:
363:
358:
352:
351:
346:
340:
339:
335:
334:
329:
323:
322:
317:
311:
310:
305:
299:
298:
290:
288:
281:
280:
275:
269:
268:
263:
257:
256:
251:
245:
244:
239:
233:
232:
224:
223:
220:
219:
212:
201:
200:
182:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
161:
159:
156:novel articles
115:
114:
98:
86:
85:
80:
68:
67:
61:
50:
36:
35:
30:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2150:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2125:
2123:
2116:
2115:
2112:
2106:
2098:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2067:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2044:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2028:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2000:
1997:
1991:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1963:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1920:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1910:
1906:
1900:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1867:Chiswick Chap
1864:
1863:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1845:
1844:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1828:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1750:
1745:
1743:
1739:
1738:Chiswick Chap
1734:
1732:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1622:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1564:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1503:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1431:
1429:
1425:
1414:
1412:
1406:
1405:
1399:
1397:
1393:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1369:
1365:
1364:contributions
1361:
1357:
1353:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1273:
1271:
1270:
1267:
1261:
1259:
1252:
1245:
1241:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1112:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1070:
1064:
1060:
1053:
1052:
1044:
1037:
1032:
1030:
1025:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1011:
1010:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
994:
991:
988:
986:
983:
982:
979:
976:
974:
971:
970:
967:
964:
962:
959:
958:
955:
952:
949:
946:
945:
942:
939:
937:
934:
933:
928:
921:
918:
916:
913:
912:
909:
906:
904:
901:
900:
897:
894:
892:
889:
888:
885:
882:
880:
877:
876:
873:
870:
868:
865:
864:
861:
858:
856:
853:
852:
849:
846:
844:
841:
840:
837:
834:
832:
829:
828:
825:
822:
817:
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
805:
803:
800:
799:
796:
793:
791:
788:
787:
784:
781:
779:
776:
775:
772:
769:
767:
764:
763:
760:
757:
755:
752:
751:
748:
745:
743:
740:
739:
736:
733:
731:
728:
727:
724:
721:
719:
716:
715:
712:
709:
707:
704:
703:
700:
697:
695:
692:
691:
688:
685:
683:
680:
679:
674:
667:
664:
662:
659:
658:
655:
652:
650:
647:
646:
643:
640:
638:
637:Collaboration
635:
634:
631:
628:
626:
622:
621:
618:
615:
613:
610:
609:
604:
597:
594:
592:
589:
588:
585:
582:
580:
577:
576:
573:
570:
568:
565:
564:
561:
558:
556:
553:
552:
549:
546:
544:
541:
540:
537:
534:
532:
529:
528:
525:
522:
520:
517:
516:
513:
510:
508:
505:
504:
499:
492:
489:
487:
484:
483:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
459:
452:
449:
447:
443:
442:
439:
436:
434:
430:
429:
426:
423:
421:
417:
416:
413:
410:
408:
404:
403:
400:
397:
395:
391:
390:
387:
384:
382:
378:
377:
374:
371:
369:
366:
365:
362:
359:
357:
354:
353:
350:
347:
345:
344:Popular Pages
342:
341:
336:
333:
330:
328:
325:
324:
321:
318:
316:
313:
312:
309:
306:
304:
301:
300:
296:
293:
289:
287:
283:
282:
279:
276:
274:
271:
270:
267:
264:
262:
259:
258:
255:
252:
250:
247:
246:
243:
240:
238:
235:
234:
229:
226:
225:
217:
216:
211:
210:
207:
206:
198:
197:
192:
191:
186:
183:
180:
176:
175:
160:
143:
142:
137:
136:short stories
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:
112:
111:Novels portal
106:
101:
99:
96:
92:
91:
87:
84:
81:
78:
74:
69:
65:
59:
55:
51:
42:
41:
34:
31:
29:
28:
19:
2102:
2065:
2045:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2026:
2022:
1994:
1918:
1841:
1837:
1824:
1820:
1812:
1752:
1747:
1735:
1623:
1611:
1602:
1577:TheNuggeteer
1559:
1511:Vyacheslav84
1507:
1484:
1482:
1474:
1443:, but other
1432:
1424:edit summary
1415:
1408:
1402:
1401:
1390:The article
1389:
1349:
1277:
1265:
1257:
1248:
1226:
1129:
1121:
1069:
950:(protected)
948:Infobox Book
676:Task forces
606:Departments
591:New articles
273:Coordinators
241:
237:Project page
213:
194:
189:
184:
140:
139:
117:
64:WikiProjects
54:project page
53:
1826:Siren Queen
1759:Sweetpool50
1530:WP:NOTFORUM
1528:. See also
1015:This box:
661:Peer review
2122:Categories
2033:Book Marks
1944:MOS:NOVELS
1619:Book Marks
1556:Notability
1258:PermStrump
1253:. Thanks!
1061:See also:
930:Templates
818:(military)
612:Assessment
132:novelettes
1967:Themashup
1882:Themashup
1821:secondary
1813:numerical
1799:Themashup
1771:Willondon
1605:Themashup
1563:🍗TheNugg
1483:Why does
1457:consensus
1394:has been
1096:WT:NOVELS
1074:Shortcuts
997:Userboxes
356:Resources
303:JobCentre
261:Guestbook
1767:Poirot09
1731:WP:NBOOK
1615:contribs
1581:WP:NBOOK
1554:WP:DOAWK
1122:Archives
1089:WT:NOVEL
649:Outreach
196:Signpost
128:novellas
2110:ASUKITE
1919:overall
1899:LEvalyn
1775:LEvalyn
1566:eteer🍗
1461:Gnisacc
1227:90 days
1043:changes
249:Members
193:in the
2052:WP:RSN
1491:Carnby
1426:or on
1404:blogs.
1356:voorts
1286:, and
1103:WT:NOV
147:Novels
124:novels
83:Novels
60:scale.
1981:WP:RS
1343:into
1131:Index
1082:WT:NV
52:This
2079:talk
2035:and
2025:the
2008:talk
2004:Οἶδα
1971:talk
1952:talk
1948:Οἶδα
1933:talk
1886:talk
1871:talk
1857:talk
1834:here
1803:talk
1783:talk
1779:Οἶδα
1773:and
1609:talk
1589:talk
1543:talk
1515:talk
1495:talk
1486:Ubik
1476:Ubik
1465:talk
1360:talk
1329:talk
1309:talk
1266:talk
1251:here
1035:edit
1028:talk
1021:view
1002:talk
990:talk
978:talk
966:talk
954:talk
941:talk
920:talk
908:talk
896:talk
884:talk
872:talk
860:talk
848:talk
836:talk
824:talk
807:talk
795:talk
783:talk
771:talk
759:talk
747:talk
735:talk
723:talk
711:talk
699:talk
687:talk
666:talk
654:talk
642:talk
630:talk
617:talk
596:talk
584:talk
572:talk
560:talk
548:talk
536:talk
524:talk
512:talk
491:talk
479:talk
451:talk
438:talk
425:talk
412:talk
399:talk
386:talk
373:talk
361:talk
349:talk
332:talk
320:talk
308:talk
295:talk
278:talk
266:talk
254:talk
242:talk
134:and
2071:~ L
2066:use
1925:~ L
1849:~ L
1740:at
1591:)
1535:~ L
1376:of
1321:~ L
1301:~ L
2124::
2081:)
2074:🌸
2056:Ed
2010:)
1973:)
1954:)
1935:)
1928:🌸
1909:Ed
1888:)
1873:)
1859:)
1852:🌸
1838:is
1805:)
1785:)
1769:,
1765:,
1761:,
1723:,
1719:,
1715:,
1711:,
1707:,
1703:,
1699:,
1695:,
1691:,
1687:,
1683:,
1679:,
1675:,
1671:,
1667:,
1663:,
1659:,
1545:)
1538:🌸
1532:.
1517:)
1497:)
1467:)
1430:.
1413:.
1366:)
1354:.
1331:)
1324:🌸
1311:)
1304:🌸
1294:.
1282:,
1202:18
1200:,
1198:17
1196:,
1194:16
1192:,
1190:15
1188:,
1186:14
1184:,
1182:13
1180:,
1178:12
1176:,
1174:11
1170:10
1168:,
1164:,
1160:,
1156:,
1152:,
1148:,
1144:,
1140:,
1136:,
1041:•
623:→
444:→
431:→
418:→
405:→
392:→
379:→
284:→
130:,
126:,
2077:(
2050:/
2006:(
1969:(
1950:(
1931:(
1901::
1897:@
1884:(
1869:(
1855:(
1801:(
1781:(
1727:)
1655:(
1625:(
1612:·
1607:(
1587:(
1575:@
1541:(
1513:(
1493:(
1463:(
1362:/
1358:(
1327:(
1307:(
1268:)
1264:(
1256:—
1166:9
1162:8
1158:7
1154:6
1150:5
1146:4
1142:3
1138:2
1134:1
474:)
472:+
470:(
292:+
66::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
