I was thinking of a solution such as 1 Pho nixrod says X is too circuitous and propounds nonlipogram Y 2 John bounds back with lipogram Z or similar compromising 3 harmony springs up from continuing such a dialog I still don t know particularly what you find so tortuous that you want to hang your hat on claiming it actually hurts this writing But if you want to start a sub that works I ll just go through it bit by bit with you At any points that you think my phrasing hurts this composition if you sway my thinking or if not I ll happily work toward compromising with you Such as this 1 you think fiction is too fuzzy 2a I look up fiction and find that its only particularization in that link is by wordcount which is not only said too much now but also right on a cusp amidst two subcats of fiction thus indicating against your wording with or without la 2b I accordingly propound popular fiction phrasing at that topic works favorably IMhO against such options as historical fiction and biographical fiction with two links 3 you inform us if that is a working solution to what you had said or not I just want it said upfront that as I thought I d shown if it s significant a lipogram can talk about it fully absorbably and without circumlocution But it s up to you if you think this topic is still too roundabout to satisfy you against Smith Qaqaq and many alii Thank you also for maintaining paradigmatic civility P S My nitpicking was about this topic s bottom taxonomy box linking to C LIP not its top classification box Sorry if you mistook it but that is no fault of my using lipograms similar miscommunications would occur in ordinary writing also anyway