Talk:Historical

Re:Old title Historical Romance Titles

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)

Either of those sound like good solutions to me. Thanks for thinking about this.

Dusk Peterson 01:38, 13 January 2007 (PST)

No worries :-) Hopefully others will share their ideas too. Roaming27 12:33, 15 January 2007 (PST)

List/Category??

--Romancewiki 15:07, 15 January 2007 (PST) For what it's worth, I think that categories are more flexible than lists (though I do love lists). Historical or Historical Romance are fine titles, though they will eventually require sub-categories under them to capture the breadth and depth of the genres. I don't know if you're already looked at the various historical categories already in existence. Just thinking out loud as I catch up with email and other things.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a wiki list and category, I'm a bit slow here, lol. Yes, I took a peek at the already existing categories a couple of days ago, after I wrote my previous message. I'll now take a closer look and see if my brain sparks up with any ideas *grin* Roaming27 15:48, 15 January 2007 (PST)

As I'm doing some category clean-up right now, I'm going to follow the suggestion to create the new category Historical Romance and move the various sub-categories Georgian, etc under that umbrella.

At the most basic, a list is something we have to actively manage (like the Books or Authors lists, while categories are generally more flexible "tags". If I add something to the above categories, it will dynamically generate the entries. I like categories because they allow for identifying special features, such as Category:Virgin Heroes -- this generates a very specialized list for research or fun! --Romancewiki 16:10, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Okay, I will weigh in here.

• I think that the info on the page entitled "Historical Romance Titles" should be moved to the page entitled "Historical" to make it parallel with the other genre titles (reached from the Romance Genres link from the main page). That "genre" page can be used for a list or a discussion of the genre. (the page HRT can be deleted?)
• maybe we need to work on an article for each genre, describing the genre. Ha!
• The categories can be used to capture the genre for each book (if the creator remembers to add it). I have been trying to remember to add a contemporary or historical category to each book page. This will "make" the list of historical romance titles.

Sounds like some good suggestions and not any disagreement here. --Kay T 21:36, 15 January 2007 (PST)

P.S. KK that link to the link title Categories doesn't work for me.??--Kay T 21:39, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Edited out that link. Clearly I shouldn't type when I'm jetlagged. It was a link to the special page for categories. We can go either way -- make the category Historical Romance or Historical, though I think I prefer Historical Romance for capturing the titles in the category (plus, well, I'm lazy and already started moving in that direction). Historical, the page, should capture the nuances of the genre, great and small.

Yes, creating genre descriptions is on the list. I have one started somewhere in my notes. Probably I should move that one up the list. Okay just moved up said list. I'll try to tackle that project this coming weekend -- already this week is looking like a long one!

Moved it to Historical

I did a redirect of the old page to the new page Historical. I hope I did not screw anything up.--Kay T 22:04, 10 March 2007 (PST)