Why is Romance showing as a defunct imprint? I see that there are books listed until July, but is that imprint being discontinued at that time? If so, maybe we need to mention that on the Harlequin Romance page. --Kay T 12:25, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
As far as I'm aware, after January 2007 or so the Silhouette Romance line merged with the Harlequin Romance line, so now the Silhouette Romance line is defunct (at least, on the Harlequin website I looked up Silhouette Romance and the only books listed there were from January 2007). But Harlequin Romance isn't defunct, which would explain why you're seeing books listed in that line.--Laura V 15:48, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
- Laura, that fits with what I saw also. Maybe someone moved the Harlequin "Romance" link to defunct (at the bottom of the page) instead of the Silhouette "Romance" link. --Kay T 17:05, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
- Originally, the plan was to cut both Harlequin and Silhouette Romance lines and create a new imprint. It seemed like a strange idea at the time, and clearly someone thought better of losing the flagship imprint, so to speak. Maybe that was the source of confusion (I had to go back to my blog archives as I knew I'd written something or other on this topic).--Romancewiki 17:44, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
changes I made
I created a new section on this page with the lines/imprints that are on the Harlequin website and which do not appear under either the Harlequin or Silhouette, e.g., Red Dress, etc. I am not sure if I used the right terminology for these (I think they are all imprints? Lines?).
I also moved the "defunct" imprints under their main headings because it is so confusing to be in the "Harlequin" section and not find a line because it was at the bottom of the page as being defunct. Hope this is okay, and I have it more or less correct. --Kay T 16:52, 13 June 2007 (PDT)