Talk:Historical
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)
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 (see this page: link title Categories. Just thinking out loud as I catch up with email and other things.
