Difference between revisions of "Talk:Soul Gem"

m (Talk:Soul gem moved to Talk:Soul Gem: Grammar Change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
I don't want to sound negative, but this page isn't very informative.... --[[User:Merion|Merion]] 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 
I don't want to sound negative, but this page isn't very informative.... --[[User:Merion|Merion]] 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 
+
: That's because I can't find any info on Soul Gems.  I thought creating a blank page would encourage someone to contribute information if they have any.  Thanks for pointing that out tho captain obvious.  :) - Jexner
 
+
: Creating a page with a little information is better than none at all. The idea is someone with info on Soul Gems will come along and fill in more. - [[User:JC the Builder|JC the Builder]] 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That's because I can't find any info on Soul Gems.  I thought creating a blank page would encourage someone to contribute information if they have any.  Thanks for pointing that out tho captain obvious.  :)
+
: Added information form research on various site forums, other sources say that the gem can be used to damage the primeval lich? 200hp of damage? Not included because it needs confirmation -[[User:Savaric|Savaric]] 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:26, 22 November 2009

I don't want to sound negative, but this page isn't very informative.... --Merion 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because I can't find any info on Soul Gems. I thought creating a blank page would encourage someone to contribute information if they have any. Thanks for pointing that out tho captain obvious.  :) - Jexner
Creating a page with a little information is better than none at all. The idea is someone with info on Soul Gems will come along and fill in more. - JC the Builder 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Added information form research on various site forums, other sources say that the gem can be used to damage the primeval lich? 200hp of damage? Not included because it needs confirmation -Savaric 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)