Talk:Errata of Five Volume Set
From WikiPOBia
(Difference between revisions)
LadyShelley (Talk | contribs) |
(→All errata?) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== All errata? == | == 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. --[[User:LadyShelley|LadyShelley]] 05:37, 28 April 2009 (BST) | 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. --[[User:LadyShelley|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. [[User:Lunumbra|Lunumbra]] 11:11, 29 April 2009 (BST) | ||
Revision as of 10:11, 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. Lunumbra 11:11, 29 April 2009 (BST)
