Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the WikiProject assessment department "Top-Important" page belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. It is used as a basis for those trying to agree the "Top" priority or importance of existing articles.

In other words a forum to discuss agreement on which Novel articles should "Always" be present in representations of this on-line encyclopedia. See also the WP:1.0 and WP:0.5 WikiProjects.

N.b. Please bear in mind that the aim is not to assess the relative qualities of the novels themselves, but to determine how important (of what priority) it is the have an article about the subject in this on-line encyclopedia or any variant outtake from it. (see the WP:1.0 and WP:0.5 rationales.) It is not about literary merit, but how much expectation would the average encyclopedia reader have of finding the novel article present.

Please keep to starting the entry with emboldened class names (i.e. "Top", "High", "Mid" or "Low") only so it is clear for those following and so that the rating is clear regardless of where the entries are moved, (promote etc. are relative terms in this context).

Current Top-important items

[edit]

n.b. please list strictly alphabetically

Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 10:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 09:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 7 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 10:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 7 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Summary status ( 6 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 09:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 13:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

discovery today

  • Top - Would enhance Wikipedia's reputation as a serious world encyclopedia. Mandel 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 10:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting comment that, about 95% of the world's population I should imagine. Many won't have heard of a novel let alone this one. Still highly importance work though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase then. Of all the people interested in literature, who hasn't heard of this novel? Errabee 09:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 10:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 10:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 10:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 7 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 07:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 09:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 18:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 7 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 18:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 7 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 18:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 5 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 18:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for inclusion

[edit]

n.b. please list strictly alphabetically

Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Top - Third in the Modern Library list of top 100 novels in English of the 20th century. Widely read, by people who don't have time to read Ulysses (University survey classes, for instance). john k 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • High - There's a literary argument for making this top-important, but I especially dislike the argument that it should attain that importance because it is "set". By that criterion, Hard Times would be top-important, and it just isn't. I'd recommend holding off on giving this one top-importance but keep it on the candidates list and reconsider further down the line. --Sordel 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that being widely assigned in classes is not a sole criterion. Hard Times is "set" because it's the only one of Dickens' mature novels that is reasonably short (and possibly the shortest of all his novels?). The length issue is partly true of Portrait, but Portrait is also widely recognized as a major work in its own right, unlike Hard Times. john k 21:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top - Mandel 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top - User:Wikimol|Wikimol]] 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Summary status ( 3 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Summary status ( 2 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 09:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And see what I said about MotOE below while you're about it, please. --Sordel 17:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

n.b. this is not the work by H.G. Wells

Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary Status (1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Top - Won the booker prize (1981), the booker of booker (1993), and then the best of the booker prize (2008), amongst many other significant awards. it is also regarded as iconic in post-colonial literature, and is the first and most critically accliamed novel form an indian author to achieve mainstream popularity. Percival500 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much objectivity on Christie, because I'm working on her now, so I'm not going to give a vote as such. It's worth noting that her three most important Poirot novels are Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, the last of which is so important in detective fiction (due to the furore regarding its twist ending) that it's perhaps the nearest top-importance of the bunch. Personally, I'd rather that Christie herself gained top-importance because And Then There Were None is massively influential (it virtually invented the stalk 'n' slash genre) but is not a Poirot novel. Christie is listed as the most widely published novelist of all time, so I would have thought that top-importance in some form is mandatory (accusations of "hack" notwithstanding!). Over to you. --Sordel 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Top - Another masterpiece from Russia's Golden Age of Literature (19th century). User:Errabee
Question to Errabee - is what John below says true or is this better known - regarded in Russia in which cas should the Top stand. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an English encyclopedia. Knownness in the English-speaking world should generally be the main criteria, especially for languages like Russian and French where English-speakers are familiar with many works originally in the language. john k 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can't now find it is did see a wikipedia main page that discuss just this issue of geographical relevance and indicated that this is not the case. i.e. significance / notability; transcends language / natinoality / culture etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, compared with the 5 major novels (Eugene Onegin, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov) everything else from the 19th century is clearly second rank. After those novels come Dead Souls and Fathers and Sons. I would rate Oblomov at least equal to the rest of the novels written by Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, some of which would merit a Top rating as well (e.g. The Idiot, The Gambler or The Death of Ivan Ilyich), and some other works like A Hero of Our Time. I would certainly be surprised not to find Oblomov in an encyclopedia. Errabee 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • High - Oblomov is clearly in the second rank of Russian 19th century novels, and is not widely read (at least in English). john k 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top - Though this is an English-language encyclopedia, it is our obligation to introduce what is considered a great world novel. Knownness in the English-speaking world is not a criteria, given the fact some novels are under-translated. Oblomov is not just an important novel, it may be the best novel description of a superfluous man in Russian literature. Mandel 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • High - The criteria should be: 1) it's famous in its own language 2) it's well known in the rest of the world. Fails to meet second criteria. --Wikimol 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2.5 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 4 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 18:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Top - Not that well known in English, but it's the most important Italian novel of the 19th century, and perhaps the most important Italian novel period. john k 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top - I totally agree. john k contradicts himself ;) (it's not known in the English-speaking world!) The most important Italian novel and one of her best works, after La commedia. Mandel 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 6 for | 10 against) Top class - as at 08:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still strongly opposed to this having top-importance. A top-important article should be one that one would anticipate retaining top-importance for a century to come. I agree that DVC deserves an entry, and like many mid/high novels it has one, but surely top-importance for this is absurdly generous? --Sordel 11:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My heart says agree with you, but my head says otherwise!. Why "for a century to come" by the way. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Century to come" is just criterion to cover the same idea expressed by "must be in an encyclopedia" or "should eternally be in an encyclopedia". It's true that we can't foresee the future value ascribed to DVC - it might be this generation's Ulysses (well no, probably not) - but when a novel has only been popular for five years (or however long it is) one is surely entitled to say: "I'd be mighty surprised to see this included in a printed encyclopedia even in twenty years". --Sordel 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about the "printed" but this isn't a printed. And it (wikipedia) will change as times change. I would be surprised to see it in in 10 years time, but at present it is a "must". Shame to say! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 0 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 12:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
But they are novellas :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Top - One of the great German language novels of the last century. Various critics have put it alongside Ulysses and In Search of Lost Time as one of the novels of the century.
  • High - It's an unfinished novel, and I can speak from personal experience when I say that even those who put it on their bookshelves don't read it. I agree that it is considered to be a masterpiece, but there are plenty of masterpieces rated high. --Sordel 07:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top - A very great, though little read novel. Mandel 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top - Hey, I've read it. Well, most of it: I got bogged down in the third volume. Italo Calvino gives it high praise. -- llywrch 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 21:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Top - not sure about English, but certainly world novel, at the same time famous and influential. Best known and possibly best from Eco. (see also the interwikis... contemporary encyclopedia should not miss thiss one) --Wikimol 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  • High - I remember hearing it was the most famous book no one had read a few years ago, and, if no one read it, it ain't that important. Also, personally, I think it's probably too new to really qualify. Badbilltucker 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • High - I read it years ago; it's the DaVinci Code of the 1980s. While a very strong and well-written book, it just isn't the quality & influence of (to pick examples from different genres) The Big Sleep, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, or The Stranger. -- llywrch 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 18:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't see why, we have all numbers of examples of articles of top importance in there own arena. The English speaking world should be sufficient. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very well known in the UK, but not necessarily outside it. Mandel 121.6.49.48 10:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status (1 for | 0 against) Top Class - as at 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Top - Arguabely Virginia Woolf's most significant novel. Many elements of her previous work are present in The Waves, making this a prime example of modernism, feminism and experimental fiction. Percival500 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Your description is almost self contradictory - "Children's classics"! almost ensures inclusion surely. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Children's books then. Mandel 121.6.49.48 10:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 2 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 1 for | 0 against) Top class - as at 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. [1] This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.

Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. [2] This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.

Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. [3] This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.

Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. [4] This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.

Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. [5] This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.

Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. [6] This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.

Novels previously assigned Top-importance but now reassigned

[edit]

This list is now so large it is normally "shrunk" - use the "Show" on the right hand side to expand it.

Top-important (now reassigned)

Novels previously assigned Top-importance but now reassigned

[edit]

n.b. please list strictly alphabetically

Summary status ( 4 for | 5 against) Top class - as at 12:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 16:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It got demoted to Mid-importance. Errabee 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rerate to high.
  • Top. I disagree with john k. Criteria should not be made on knowability but on how influential or important the novel is. This is an English-language world encyclopedia. If a book is little known in the English-speaking world but important and highly regarded elsewhere, all the more it should be promoted. Mandel 07:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC
Summary status ( 0 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Rated as High as a compromise - can't see this as a Top yet myself either :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 0 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Rated as Medium based on concensus :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 0 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mid - While there are classic children's novels that justify Top and High importance, I wouldn't think of this as one of them. --Sordel 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • High or Mid - One of an enormous series of children's books I've never heard of. Doesn't seem comparable to Moby-Dick or Crime and Punishment
  • Mid - Agree with Sordel and john k.
Summary status ( 0 for | 6 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I know of no idea of queue here - or even of the real benefit for one. However if that is what we want, we should get on with those titles you mention. They should all be Top in my view. Even Famous Five as they have had hugh impact on readership particulary in the 20th Century. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, as an American, I'd never heard of this book until I came upon it in the top category. Some children's classics, I suspect, are strongly centered in a single country, and this would appear to be among them. Perhaps I'm wrong, and this is popular outside of Britain, but I'd be interested to see some evidence of that. Beyond that, I largely agree with Sordel - I think an informal "queue" makes a fair degree of sense - basically, starting from a small list of indisputable great novels (Anna Karenina, Don Quixote, Ulysses, and so forth), and gradually building up by putting in books that are of comparable importance to those already on the list. Otherwise we get into a lot of these problems of commensurability. john k 18:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to Top. I agree with Kevinalewis. Probably the best known of this series, all of which have stood the test of time and should be represented in some form. The other novels mentioned by Sordel are also worthy of consideration, but the fact that they have not been considered up until now is not a sufficient reason to downgrade this one. Silverthorn 11:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 1 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak rerate as high. Yet another Dickens novel; don't get me wrong, I love Dickens but too much is too much. Errabee 12:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rerate as high. Whilst Dickens is undoubtedly an important author, I do not believe that justifies rating all of his novels as top. This one I do not believe is of sufficient significance in it's own right to justify the top rating. Silverthorn 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rerate as high. The only argument for keeping is that this was arguably his debut (ok, so technically Sketches came first).--Ibis3 21:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rerate as high. It's not much read, has no major film and is thought to be minor in terms of actual literary value. With so many candidates for top-importance in Dickens's oeuvre, this is one that really could be relegated. --Sordel 07:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 0 for | 6 against) Top class - as at 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)