Talk:Dragon King: The Fighting Game
Could someone put a space between the : and The? Forbidden7
20:40, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Is this necessary
I know this was the original idea for Super Smash Bros, but do we really need a whole article to this? Especially since so little is actually known about it. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
- I think so. Nobody seems to oppose. Forbidden7
21:11, 16 July 2011 (EDT) - Oppose, original Smash Bros. idea is certainly worth noting. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 21:25, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
- I think it's relevant, and should at least be merged with SSB if it can't have its own article. Blue Ninjakoopa(Talk) 21:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
- I think its better as its own article, and are these opposes opposing deleting the article? Forbidden7 21:57, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
I think this is a important article to have as it's important to the series' history. Toomai Glittershine 
The Metroid 22:01, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
- Thank you Toomai. Besides, this has more info on DK:TFG than beta elements. Forbidden7 22:03, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
My edit
Why was it unnecessary?--PSIWolf (T • C • E) 12:05, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
- The fact that it was released in 1999 is not relevant to DK:TFG. Simple as that. Blindcolours ZoOm! 12:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Um
There should a reason why the game was unfinished. Marioisawesome118 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2011 (EST) 
- There is. It turned into Super Smash Bros.. Toast
ltimatum
15:22, 25 December 2011 (EST)
Um, Toast, why did revert my signature? Marioisawesome118 (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2011 (EST)
- I did no such thing. Toast ltimatum 15:36, 25 December 2011 (EST)
- Never Mind.>_> Marioisawesome118 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2011 (EST)
- Never Mind.>_> Marioisawesome118 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2011 (EST)
User:BlindColours, why do you keep reverting User:Marioisawesome118's edit? You both would do well to read SW:1RV, especially BlindColours, as you've been blocked for violating it in the past. As to the content of Marioisawesome118's edit, the information that there was only one stage completed cannot be found anywhere else in the article; thus, it is relevant. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 17:23, 29 December 2011 (EST)
- Why do you seem so concerned about SW:1RV? It's a policy yes, but you don't need to get so upset about it. BlindColours
17:34, 29 December 2011 (EST)
Why do you seem so concerned about SW:1RV?
SmashWiki's policies are guidelines for our conduct here. Your disregard for these guidelines reveals a disregard for the Wiki itself.
It's a policy yes, but you don't need to get so upset about it.
I'm concerned because you have blatantly violated SW:1RV multiple times, not limited to this and the time you were blocked. Seriously - if you haven't actually done so (and even if you have), (re)read SW:1RV. Your behavior is enough to merit administrator action, and also sets a poor example for newer users (e.g. Marioisawesome118). Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (EST)
- I have no disregard for the wiki or its guidelines (despite me breaking them very few times), thank you very much. If you believe admin action should be taken for a minor edit war, you're clearly not thinking right (I got blocked along with PSIWolf for a big, stupid, edit war). And Marioisawesome isn't new. BlindColours 17:55, 29 December 2011 (EST)
- I have no disregard for the wiki or its guidelines (despite me breaking them very few times), thank you very much. If you believe admin action should be taken for a minor edit war, you're clearly not thinking right (I got blocked along with PSIWolf for a big, stupid, edit war). And Marioisawesome isn't new. BlindColours
