Talk:Arantar: Difference between revisions

From Tolkien Gateway
No edit summary
m (Bot Message: signature to template)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
I can find no reference to [[Arantar]] dying in the year III 445; every single reference I have states that he died in III 435. I think this is just an error which has been (almost) consistently implemented throughout this wiki, however, I just want to make sure that this is simply a genuine error and that I'm really not "missing something". — [[User:Mith|Mith]] 20:33, 9 December 2006 (EST)
I can find no reference to [[Arantar]] dying in the year III 445; every single reference I have states that he died in III 435. I think this is just an error which has been (almost) consistently implemented throughout this wiki, however, I just want to make sure that this is simply a genuine error and that I'm really not "missing something". — {{User:Mith/sig}} 20:33, 9 December 2006 (EST)


:Ebakunin (I think) did a redo of this article some months ago.  When he did so, he must have accidentally changed 435 to 445, as the original has the former date.  If you look at the history of the article and compare changes you will see this is correct. --[[User:Narfil Palùrfalas|Narfil Palùrfalas]] 20:39, 9 December 2006 (EST)
:Ebakunin (I think) did a redo of this article some months ago.  When he did so, he must have accidentally changed 435 to 445, as the original has the former date.  If you look at the history of the article and compare changes you will see this is correct. --[[User:Narfil Palùrfalas|Narfil Palùrfalas]] 20:39, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Latest revision as of 14:37, 1 September 2010

I can find no reference to Arantar dying in the year III 445; every single reference I have states that he died in III 435. I think this is just an error which has been (almost) consistently implemented throughout this wiki, however, I just want to make sure that this is simply a genuine error and that I'm really not "missing something". — Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:33, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Ebakunin (I think) did a redo of this article some months ago. When he did so, he must have accidentally changed 435 to 445, as the original has the former date. If you look at the history of the article and compare changes you will see this is correct. --Narfil Palùrfalas 20:39, 9 December 2006 (EST)