Talk:Giant Bowser: Difference between revisions
m (→Oppose) |
(→Oppose) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Stay! Per both! | #{{User|Reddragon19k}} Stay! Per both! | ||
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all. Giant Bowser has more appearences than Giant Donkey Kong and Giant Kirby. | #{{User|Tails777}} Per all. Giant Bowser has more appearences than Giant Donkey Kong and Giant Kirby. | ||
#{{User|SWFlasg}} Per Tails777. | |||
===Comments=== | ===Comments=== | ||
I should probably state that I'm not talking about [[Giga Bowser]] (who is obviously a separate entity). I only did up this proposal, because a similar one was done for Giant Kirby (which passed), along with Giant Donkey Kong (which seems likely to pass). I would think the same reactions would be applied to Giant Bowser too. {{User:M&SG/sig}} 09:54, 20 March 2011 (EDT) | I should probably state that I'm not talking about [[Giga Bowser]] (who is obviously a separate entity). I only did up this proposal, because a similar one was done for Giant Kirby (which passed), along with Giant Donkey Kong (which seems likely to pass). I would think the same reactions would be applied to Giant Bowser too. {{User:M&SG/sig}} 09:54, 20 March 2011 (EDT) | ||
:That sounds reasonable. I should agree with you on this. I think you're right, we do need to merge this. {{User:Kaptain K. Rool/sig}} | :That sounds reasonable. I should agree with you on this. I think you're right, we do need to merge this. {{User:Kaptain K. Rool/sig}} | ||
Revision as of 13:30, March 20, 2011
Is this article's title conjectural? I know the SSBM deal makes it at least part conjecture... YELLOWYOSHI398
Did you say "Part Conjecture"?
I am Confused 22:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Um... Merge with Bowser??? Max2 (talk)
I definitly say merge...... - Ultimatetoad
Yeah, merging it with Bowser would make a lot of sense. Keep the screenshot though :P - My Bloody Valentine
If it's a conjectural form, then it should be merged. 
15:16, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
- I'd have to disagee with the merge. Hope I'm not becoming A Link to the Past.
Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back!
I'd say merge. But then again, we do have Giant Baby Bowser.Knife (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
I request a merge with Bowser! My Bloody Valentine
My opinion here is the same as in the Giant DK article. Besides, Giant Bowser is a boss in Melee and in New Super Mario Bros. So we should keep it. And I'm not saying this just because I wrote this article. --Xeze 07:19, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I'd say merge. Maybe a proposal is in order? HyperToad@Giant Bowser
Merge Giant Bowser to Bowser
|
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, February 1, 2025, 19:04 GMT
I really don't see any reason to separate Giant Bowser from Bowser, since the two are clearly one and the same.
Proposer: M&SG (talk)
Deadline: April 5, 2011 23:59 GMT
Support
Oppose
- Yoshidude99 (talk) They are different so this should stay.
- Kaptain K. Rool (talk) Per Yoshidude99.
- Reddragon19k (talk) Stay! Per both!
- Tails777 (talk) Per all. Giant Bowser has more appearences than Giant Donkey Kong and Giant Kirby.
- SWFlasg (talk) Per Tails777.
Comments
I should probably state that I'm not talking about Giga Bowser (who is obviously a separate entity). I only did up this proposal, because a similar one was done for Giant Kirby (which passed), along with Giant Donkey Kong (which seems likely to pass). I would think the same reactions would be applied to Giant Bowser too. 
M&SG (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
- That sounds reasonable. I should agree with you on this. I think you're right, we do need to merge this.
Kaptain K. Rool 
