Talk:Swordbird

A lot of trade created puffery here, I think. "There is no current motion picture of this work." is an unnecessary statement. All the reviews are unlinked and/or vague -"staff of Barnes & Noble". And why is Barnes & Noble's website linked? Aredbeardeddwarf 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken out the statement above and the Barnes and Noble link.Aredbeardeddwarf 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=50596 is the forum thread that inspired the "Controversy" section. I think that it is of note, and the section should be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.236 (talk) 20:26, May 3, 2007 (UTC)

Forums are not a reliable source. And you're still not allowed to vandalize the page. As anyone can clearly see when looking through this page's history, a bunch of IPs have been inserting nonsense into the page, or even replacing the entire article with it, and it is pretty obvious you're part of said effort. I guess you really want that quote in, whether it is by vandalizing, or meat/sockpupetting, or blank-replacing, but I'm sorry, not going to happen. --Codemonkey 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, no, you're a different ip! Talking about puppets. --Codemonkey 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Turnatt" or "Turnadonatt"?

The article apparently calls the main villain both "Turnatt" and "Turnadonatt", which is it? Also, the line "Swordbird tells of the quest for violence of the birds" does not sound correct. I don't have the book so I can't correct these problems. -- HiEv 10:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Turnatt, and the line you spoke of is incorrect, and as I have the book, I have changed it. --Soren 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard luck. 82.2.135.213 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)