Talk:List of Harlequin Romance novels

Size split?
 Support split  - Article is over 300 kB, and should be split by decade (within reason). Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I could do a decade split, but I was considering year ones that cover the books in a templated format. As over 80 books have been released each year for many years this may be the best option to cover them. By decade would still result in blocks of about 800 books and when you add in release, ISBN and short summaries they would be still excessively long. I was thinking 100 words or so on each book. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the size, I can see a split done 1949-1969, 1970-1989, 1990-2009 and 2010 to present. I think these division would be a more reasonable size than by decade. Liz  Read! Talk! 14:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My tuppence worth, how would splitting by author sound, change this articles title to "list of harlequin novel authors" only adding limited fields, such as, quantity of books, first and last or latest release date. Then a brief history of each author, writing style, awards etc and a more detailed listing as per above on separate articles. Romance or car fixing etc will all then fit naturally within the articles scope, and each would be more manageable, navigable etc. Closer to thru-pence worth maybe? The Original Filfi (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I got another batch of the books at home now, and the more unusual entries are very uncommon and represent less than .5% of the books released and most were done so in close order. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, correction to my last post the title I should of suggested was "list of Harlequin authors" omitting "novel", as Harlequin are still releasing books this list will just continue to grow, any existing romance novel article could be merged into the authors article(s), unless particularly notable, any other notable information on the author or other published work not on the Harlequin brand can also be placed on the same article. Keeping some works under a "false" title and splitting into 20 year period and then possibly 10 year periods as the list and completeness grows seems cumbersome from a upkeep, searching and page loading point of view. Also I note the current listing does not seem to fit the general approach in Lists_of_authors and the related pages and lists associated. As a slightly different approach we could follow the above and also build a category to list authors associated to harlequin, not sure there is an easy fix that will meet all criteria though. Good luck and kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since many of the books are not stand-alone notable, the best thing is to split them off by year and make little summaries and details for each one - those lists will not change and are quite easy to complete in comparison. The author could have links to the books if need be, but organization is a top priority. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)