More actions
12 March 2024
3 July 2023
19 April 2023
9 March 2023
15 February 2023
Undo revision 3406524 by Epsilon the Eternal (talk) Honestly there's not a lot of precedent for them. And, no, it's not clear. We know that at certain times these people were husbands, sometimes not. Greater inferences are in violation of T:NO RW.
−83
Is it going further? I think this definiton is directly evident by the examples of husbands in the DWU. It's not like it is mentioning legal specifics or anything. Besides, there is a lot of precedent for these sorts of definitions.
+83
Undo revision 3406512 by Epsilon the Eternal (talk) I think T:NO RW needs changing as much as you. But this is in direct contradiction to it.
−83
This is a self evident decription frankly, it should be kept
+83
no edit summary
−83