Talk:Bell Kritter: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 16: Line 16:
#{{User|YoshiKong}} Per policy.
#{{User|YoshiKong}} Per policy.
#{{User|Coooool123}} Per Yoshikong. Plus, do we really need yet another tiny article, wasting space? MERGE POWER!!!
#{{User|Coooool123}} Per Yoshikong. Plus, do we really need yet another tiny article, wasting space? MERGE POWER!!!
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Why does this even have an article in the first place when it can be easily merged into Kritter?


====Oppose====
====Oppose====


====Comments?====
====Comments?====

Revision as of 00:09, October 6, 2012

Question.svg This talk page or section has a conflict or a question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

Is there anything that separates these Kritters from other Kritters? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Nope, they shouldn't have an article. Fawfulfury65

They seem to be characters, but extremely minor characters. I agree, this article probably shouldn't stand alone.--Knife (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge this article with Kritter#Donkey Kong 64

Proposal.svg This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Saturday, April 27, 2024, 06:10 GMT

As discussed above, this article concerns a minor subject which is subordinated from a greater species. I stand by the policy at MarioWiki:Minor NPCs, which describes that conjectural-named, minor characters should be merged with their relevant species.

Proposer: YoshiKong (talk)
Deadline: October 17 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. YoshiKong (talk) Per policy.
  2. Coooool123 (talk) Per Yoshikong. Plus, do we really need yet another tiny article, wasting space? MERGE POWER!!!
  3. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Why does this even have an article in the first place when it can be easily merged into Kritter?

Oppose

Comments?