Difference between revisions of "Talk:Jazan"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Well, if you want to get technical, he's actually King Jazan IV of Qasala... --[[User:Macbeth|Macbeth]] 21:40, 16 Apr 2006 (CDT) | :Well, if you want to get technical, he's actually King Jazan IV of Qasala... --[[User:Macbeth|Macbeth]] 21:40, 16 Apr 2006 (CDT) | ||
*falls over laughing* yeah, that will have to be taken into consideration too, the "IV" bit. :D | <nowiki>*</nowiki>falls over laughing* yeah, that will have to be taken into consideration too, the "IV" bit. :D | ||
i forgot all about it until you mentioned it in the "Lost Desert" article (which is great btw). of course, is that credible, or do you think he was just full of hot air? In either case, seeing as Neopets hasn't made reference to him being the 4th, mayhaps we can do the same...at least for the title of the article...maybe? *ponders* --[[User:Jacob|Jacob]] 21:46, 16 Apr 2006 (CDT) | i forgot all about it until you mentioned it in the "Lost Desert" article (which is great btw). of course, is that credible, or do you think he was just full of hot air? In either case, seeing as Neopets hasn't made reference to him being the 4th, mayhaps we can do the same...at least for the title of the article...maybe? *ponders* --[[User:Jacob|Jacob]] 21:46, 16 Apr 2006 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:46, 17 April 2006
Proper Name
I'm thinking "Jazan" is more appropriate than "Prince Jazan", seeing as he isn't a prince anymore, but King (from marrying Nabile). Thoughts? --Jacob 21:32, 16 Apr 2006 (CDT)
- Well, if you want to get technical, he's actually King Jazan IV of Qasala... --Macbeth 21:40, 16 Apr 2006 (CDT)
*falls over laughing* yeah, that will have to be taken into consideration too, the "IV" bit. :D
i forgot all about it until you mentioned it in the "Lost Desert" article (which is great btw). of course, is that credible, or do you think he was just full of hot air? In either case, seeing as Neopets hasn't made reference to him being the 4th, mayhaps we can do the same...at least for the title of the article...maybe? *ponders* --Jacob 21:46, 16 Apr 2006 (CDT)