Talk:Errata of Five Volume Set
From WikiPOBia
(Difference between revisions)
(→All errata?) |
(→All errata?) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| - | I've found the only the five volume set has so many blatant errors. Many of these errors are not in the original hardcover set. I own both and use the hardcover set to double check the volumes. I wouldn't want to imply that they are in every edition by incorporating this errata into the book articles themselves. [[User:Lunumbra|Lunumbra]] 11:11, 29 April 2009 (BST) | + | I've found the only the five volume set has so many blatant errors. Many of these errors are not in the original hardcover set. I own both and use the hardcover set to double check the volumes. I wouldn't want to imply that they are in every edition by incorporating this errata into the book articles themselves. Also trying to figure out the page and line references for every edition would be very difficult. [[User:Lunumbra|Lunumbra]] 11:11, 29 April 2009 (BST) |
Revision as of 10:41, 29 April 2009
All errata?
I think this could be better used as a reference for all versions instead of just the five volume set. It might also work better incorporated into the book articles themselves as opposed to separate articles for each publication. --LadyShelley 05:37, 28 April 2009 (BST)
I've found the only the five volume set has so many blatant errors. Many of these errors are not in the original hardcover set. I own both and use the hardcover set to double check the volumes. I wouldn't want to imply that they are in every edition by incorporating this errata into the book articles themselves. Also trying to figure out the page and line references for every edition would be very difficult. Lunumbra 11:11, 29 April 2009 (BST)
