Talk:Dark Fawful

Content from the old Dark Fawful (2nd Form) talk page was moved here:

Just wondering, where does Fawful say he'll be back? I can't find anything in game that says he will be back. As a matter of fact, he says himself that he will dissapear forever. I'm just wondering, because this is seriously confusing me. MALAKKazoo 01:33, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

He doesn't. That was added by a user back before the game was out in English. Evidently, that user misinterpreted the dialog or was guessing at what was being said. 14:34, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

Ah, alright. I was just wondering, as i've seen a few people say the same thing in a few places I go to, and it didn't really make sense. - MALAKKazoo 22:24, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

Merge with Fawful
Ok, is there really any reason to keep this as it's own article? For 1) That's not the official name. It's official name is still Dark Fawful, even in this form. That brings us to point 2) It's basically another form of Fawful. Regular Dark Fawful doesn't have it's own article because it doesn't need one, because it's just another form of Fawful. So is there really any reason to keep this as it's own article?
 * I think you've got a point there. Merging them might be a good idea. And in case they ought to stay sepparate nevertheless, maybe this article could be moved to Dark Fawful (the official name) and the information from the actual Fawful article about his dark form should be added there. - 01:02, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, if it must be separate than a Dark Fawful article would probably be best, but having it like this just makes no sense to me.

Well, let's get some other opinions about it first by making a poll. - 15:38, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Change something: Create Dark Fawful and move all DF content there

 * 1) - I think it would be an acceptable compromise.
 * 2) - Per Edofenrir. Now that I think about it, Bowletta got her own article, and she's just Cackletta in Bowser's body, so I think a Dark Fawful article would be fair.
 * 3) - I see no problem with a merge, either. As with the Feature/Unfeature nomination pages, this is going to need at least two more votes after this one before the merging could be done.
 * 4) - Oh boy, I've been wanting to do this for ages, but thought I'd get punnished or something for doing it. Merging both Dark Fawful characters into a "Dark Fawful" page would be an appropiate idea. I'M IN!
 * 5) - It seems wrong to have Dark Fawful (2nd Form) but not Dark Fawful. The old title was too conjectural though.
 * 6) Dark Bowser has his own article,  so shall Dark Fawful and his 2nd form!!! I HAVE FURY!!!!

Don't change anything: Keep everything separate


Old talk page ends here

After-Merge
Ok, the merge is done. Now I'll try to do what is left to do (editing the two original articles). Please check this article for possible mistakes, for it is likely that I made some. - 15:52, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

Dark Star Core...
I know you just made the Dark Fawful page and all, but I think we should move the information about Dark Star Core (since that is the real final boss name, not Dark Fawful or Dark Fawful Bug), into its own page. I'm asking it on here, so I don't get in trouble trying myself. So, may I move the Dark Star Core information to it's own page?


 * No, too little information. It's easier and of more convenience.--
 * Isn't the Dark Star Core just a part of Dark Fawful? I don't know since I didn't play the game, but if so, that would be the same as making an article about Neosquid. - 23:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 * For one Edofenrir, Neosquid is just part of Exor, Dark Star Core is different from Dark Fawful. And, Gamefreak75, the information is enough to have it's own information, it's not to short (look at enemies in M&L: BiS, and tell me DSC is too short to have it's own information). All I'm saying is to have DSC to have it's own article, because Dark Fawful and Dark Star Core are not the same thing.