Difference between revisions of "Talk:Battle Thrall"
m |
Fyzixfighter (talk | contribs) (why I just reverted) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Agreed. The list on the Hierarchy page is more detailed, at any rate. I'm going to remove this list. -[[User:Fadookie|Fadookie]] 02:17, 24 Oct 2004 (CEST) | Agreed. The list on the Hierarchy page is more detailed, at any rate. I'm going to remove this list. -[[User:Fadookie|Fadookie]] 02:17, 24 Oct 2004 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Quick not here - I just rolled back a copy edit by 24.23.42.237, who changed fallow to fellow. Since I used the rollback, I wasn't able to put a descriptive edit summary - sorry. So here it is: fallow is correct in this sentence as it is a reference to the slave species that are imprisoned under a slave-shield, which are often referred to as "fallow slaves" as opposed to the un-imprisoned slaves called battle thralls. Make sense? --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 14:45, 7 February 2006 (CET) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:45, 7 February 2006
This was already on the Hierarchy page. Best not to duplicate information like that I think, but I'll let you be the judge of how to handle that. Mmrnmhrm 22:18, 22 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Agreed. The list on the Hierarchy page is more detailed, at any rate. I'm going to remove this list. -Fadookie 02:17, 24 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Quick not here - I just rolled back a copy edit by 24.23.42.237, who changed fallow to fellow. Since I used the rollback, I wasn't able to put a descriptive edit summary - sorry. So here it is: fallow is correct in this sentence as it is a reference to the slave species that are imprisoned under a slave-shield, which are often referred to as "fallow slaves" as opposed to the un-imprisoned slaves called battle thralls. Make sense? --Fyzixfighter 14:45, 7 February 2006 (CET)