Talk:Players: Difference between revisions
From Unforgotten Realms Wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Rob in topic General discussion
Normalize legacy talk signatures for DiscussionTools |
Clean legacy archive discussion formatting |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Consolidated discussion notice | {{Consolidated discussion notice | ||
|sources= | |sources= | ||
* [ | * [{{fullurl:Talk:Players/Archive 1|redirect=no}} Talk:Players/Archive 1] | ||
}} | }} | ||
<!-- /URWIKI_DISCUSSION_CONSOLIDATION_NOTICE --> | <!-- /URWIKI_DISCUSSION_CONSOLIDATION_NOTICE --> | ||
<!-- URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Players/Archive 1 --> | <!-- URWIKI_CONSOLIDATED_SOURCE: Talk:Players/Archive 1 --> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 10: | ||
<!-- Recovered from restored XML revision 7284 (2015-06-25T12:36:44Z). --> | <!-- Recovered from restored XML revision 7284 (2015-06-25T12:36:44Z). --> | ||
== General discussion == | |||
* I was thinking that the list of guests should be in a table format, stating what campaigns they appeared in and in that campaign what characters they played as --[[User:Red Rath|Red Rath]] ([[User talk:Red Rath|talk]]) 09:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | * I was thinking that the list of guests should be in a table format, stating what campaigns they appeared in and in that campaign what characters they played as --[[User:Red Rath|Red Rath]] ([[User talk:Red Rath|talk]]) 09:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:53, 28 April 2026
Legacy discussion notice: This talk page was consolidated from restored legacy discussion pages for compatability with DiscussionTools.
Source pages:
General discussion
- I was thinking that the list of guests should be in a table format, stating what campaigns they appeared in and in that campaign what characters they played as --Red Rath (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to separate guests based on if they are in or not in the Buffalo Wizards. Rob (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
