Talk:GEKKO: Difference between revisions
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
MarioGalaxy (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*'''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.--[[User:Oxico|Oxico]] ([[User talk:Oxico|talk]]) 23:58, 19 August 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.--[[User:Oxico|Oxico]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MarioGalaxy|MarioGalaxy]] ([[User talk:MarioGalaxy|talk]]) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:06, August 19, 2008
Merge proposal
- 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)
