" 
 So you're saying that despite the requirement that reliable sources describe the person commonly and consistently in a certain way, we're just going to do it some other way because the other way is too hard?  Is that not just the IDONTLIKEIT argument you keep accusing others of making?  I think you'll be hard-pressed to find ""year of publication"" used as a defining characteristic in reliable sources in most cases.  And now you want to change the language in the guideline to support what you want to do?  Until now you've argued that the language is clear and that it supports your position.  Maybe the categories should be sparsely categorized.  Not every novelist who's a woman is commonly and consistently discussed as a woman novelist.  Not every novelist who published in the 20th century is commonly and consistently discussed as a 20th century novelist.  Why should they be in the category?  Do you and your category wonk peers know better than the reliable sources? Why do you not want to do the work of categorizing things properly, preferring instead to change the guidelines to make it easier to complete a task which very few editors think is important?  Also, why not stick to the issue of this actual writer.  Do you have sources to support your desired categorization of her based on the guidelines as they actually exist now or do you not? If not, why don't you go start a discussion on changing the guidelines yourself? —   "