Category talk:British children's writers

underused?
Should this category perhaps be revived? Category:American children's writers seems to be quite well-populated and I'm sure this one could do just as well. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Eight years later there are about 1100 in Category: American children's writers; 700 in Category: British children's writers --where it's necessary to add the English, Scottish, and Welsh because subcategories of Brit have different function than subcats of Amer. 2012-05-06, See the green census report.

British?
Why is English separate from British? Seems very arbitrary. I'm guessing there would be more objection to bringing in Welsh and Scottish, but perhaps for ease of use that should be done as well ... [2012-05-06, See the green census report]

Any thoughts?--Natcase 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it confusing (as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia) that there are categories for both British and English. As an Englishwoman myself, I incline to having English, Scottish, Welsh and NOT British, but if there are strong feelings elsewhere to have British I think Scottish and Welsh should disappear as well as English. But to me that would be like having a North American Category without separate categories for Canada, Mexico and USA - which has already appropriated American writers ... --Abbeybufo 13:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No to the latter. Compare "North American" with (a) British, (b) Scandinavian, and (c) European. However little nationalization Europe may have accomplished, especially in the UK, I know that more UKBrit identify with Europe than USAmer identify with North America, which is no more than either identify with NATO!


 * pro British. One advantage of "British" is that more research may be required to place someone there. As an "American" I am comfortable calling anyone British who is a citizen or apparently permanent resident of the UK of GB & NI.
 * Another advantage is that some Brit subjects of biographies may prefer (to use) the coarser classification, for a variety of reasons. con: On the downside, if we will call some people British and some English ultimately by reference to self identification, that will require much more research or many more people unlabeled.


 * Description v. classification. Suppose that it is reasonable, even preferable, to leave someone unlabeled in running text. (Decline to call Jenny Nimmo any of the British author, the English author, or the Welsh author in the leads of articles on her books. Give the matter more attention in her biography.) It doesn't follow, nor does it work well here, to decline listing or categorizing her books as British or English or Welsh children's literature, or fantasy novels, etc. Readers expect, with justification, that list and categories by nationality, pardon the term, are comprehensive and exhaustive.
 * We might retain the latter nature of Wikipedia lists and categories by using "British" for what has not been (and may never be) allocated to "English", "Welsh", etc. Then every British list or category should include notice that of its residual nature, and should solicit pruning by allocation to English, etc.


 * For example, this Category: British children's writers now contains 227 British biographies while its children English, Scottish, and Welsh contain 435, 37, and 19 pages (nearly all biographies, i presume). Some may be double-classed as, say, British and English.


 * For another example, Susan Cooper is called "English-born American" in the lead sentence of her biography Susan Cooper. (She has lived since 1963 emigration & marriage in the US state of Massachusetts, iiuc. This week she won a major American lifetime award, primarily for her possibly primarily Welsh fantasy novels. I must be the main author of that lead paragraph; some time later i am exploring and asking questions.)
 * She is cat in part English fantasy writers; English children's writers.
 * Her award-winning book and series The Dark is Rising is cat in part Modern Arthurian fiction, Fantasy novel series, Low fantasy novels (implies explicit setting in our real world, iiuc), British fantasy novels, English fantasy novels, Welsh fantasy novels, Novels set in Buckinghamshire


 * Susan Cooper makes a good example and a bad one, in both respects because the issue of UK national devolution is mixed with the issue whether books in general, or realistic fiction in particular, should be classified [other than by language] by nationality of its author (English or American?); by location (one of these set in Buckinghamshire, England; three? out of five in Wales); by literary origin (all of these British in a pre-Anglo sense).
 * --P64 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For more information about the current state of affairs around here, visit the top level of this hierarchy and travel downward. At each stop, see English, Scottish, and Welsh subcategories (among other subcats in different dimensions).
 * Category: British literature
 * British fiction, British illustrators, British children's literature
 * British fantasy, British novels, British science fiction; — British children's writers
 * British fantasy writers, British fantasy novels
 * I feel certain that this approach breaks down elsewhere, where "Britain" and the UK cannot be blamed. But it must be worse here. --P64 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing
No Michael Rosen? Fewwords (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Three years later Michael Rosen is one of the 455 "English children's writers". See above.
 * For what it's worth he is also an English atheist, Jewish novelist, British republican, and British person of this and that descent. --P64 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)