Talk:DiSilveron Manor: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:You're right, it's definitely not a TODO. I'm thinking, though, that it's really not a stub either. The article is reasonably complete, unless there is a lot more information about the manor about which I haven't even heard rumors (contrast with part 1 of the [[Dwarven Timeline]], which I've never seen but which I do at least know exists). Should the stub tag be removed? --[[User:Basselope|Basselope]] 03:34, 7 December 2007 (CST) |
:You're right, it's definitely not a TODO. I'm thinking, though, that it's really not a stub either. The article is reasonably complete, unless there is a lot more information about the manor about which I haven't even heard rumors (contrast with part 1 of the [[Dwarven Timeline]], which I've never seen but which I do at least know exists). Should the stub tag be removed? --[[User:Basselope|Basselope]] 03:34, 7 December 2007 (CST) |
||
Added a little bit of modern trivia to it, such as the reason for it closing. [[User:Reene|Reene]] 12:46, 7 December 2007 (CST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:46, 7 December 2007
This article was in the soon to be deleted TODO category, from back in 2006. I added it to stubs in case someone wanted to add something else to it.--Naeya (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (CST)
- You're right, it's definitely not a TODO. I'm thinking, though, that it's really not a stub either. The article is reasonably complete, unless there is a lot more information about the manor about which I haven't even heard rumors (contrast with part 1 of the Dwarven Timeline, which I've never seen but which I do at least know exists). Should the stub tag be removed? --Basselope 03:34, 7 December 2007 (CST)
Added a little bit of modern trivia to it, such as the reason for it closing. Reene 12:46, 7 December 2007 (CST)