Difference between revisions of "Talk:Historical"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Dusk - thanks for replying) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::Either of those sound like good solutions to me. Thanks for thinking about this. <p>[[User:Dusk Peterson|Dusk Peterson]] 01:38, 13 January 2007 (PST) | :::Either of those sound like good solutions to me. Thanks for thinking about this. <p>[[User:Dusk Peterson|Dusk Peterson]] 01:38, 13 January 2007 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::No worries :-) Hopefully others will share their ideas too. [[User:Roaming27|Roaming27]] 12:33, 15 January 2007 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 20:33, 15 January 2007
This is the only genre category that is defined as devoted to titles rather than to all aspects of the genre. Should it perhaps be renamed Historical Romance?
Dusk Peterson 03:06, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
- I agree, it should be renamed Historical Romance. The list would be way too long if it was titles only. Maybe a selected list of bestselling titles could be included. Roaming27 23:34, 10 January 2007 (PST)
- I have created an historical genre article (nothing in it yet).
I suggest that this Historical Romance Titles article could either be a list or category and split into two, for titles and authors. Roaming27 00:33, 13 January 2007 (PST)
- I have created an historical genre article (nothing in it yet).
- Either of those sound like good solutions to me. Thanks for thinking about this.
Dusk Peterson 01:38, 13 January 2007 (PST)
- Either of those sound like good solutions to me. Thanks for thinking about this.
- No worries :-) Hopefully others will share their ideas too. Roaming27 12:33, 15 January 2007 (PST)
