[dismiss]
| Welcome to SmashWiki! Log in or create an account and join the community, and don't forget to read this first! |
| Notices |
|---|
| The Skill parameter has been removed from Smasher infoboxes, and in its place are the new "Best historical ranking" and "Best tournament result" parameters. SmashWiki needs help adding these new parameters to Smasher infoboxes, refer to the guidelines here for what should be included in these new parameters. |
| When adding results to Smasher pages, include each tournament's entrant number in addition to the player's placement, and use the {{Trn}} template with the matching game specified. Please also fix old results on Smasher pages that do not abide to this standard. Refer to our Smasher article guidelines to see how results tables should be formatted. |
| Check out our project page for ongoing projects that SmashWiki needs help with. |
Talk:GEKKO
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Merge proposal[edit]
- Oppose, if articles like Fearow and Butterfree can exist, and yet be so short, how does GEKKO not qualify? I can probably understand the fish being redirected, but this? Magiciandude (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. You know what? I actually came here to bitch about the fish actaully NOT having its own article, but magiciandude makes a terrificly fantastic splendiforous point :) Kperfekt722 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The fish clause doesn't really help the cause (haha, rhymes). But it has a trophy and the fish doesn't right? If the fish does, then it deserves it's own article. But that is a different argument for another page.--Oxico (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Opposse. I oppose because of the Origin of the GEKKO. I am adding a trivia section to the article. In it will be my reason why I oppose. MarioGalaxy (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
