Talk:Skyquake (SG): Difference between revisions

From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
:Considering all three of the corpses were rendered in monochrome... I'd say it's a reach. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 14:26, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
:Considering all three of the corpses were rendered in monochrome... I'd say it's a reach. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 14:26, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::For the time being, is it necessary for the SG dead tube guys to have individual pages?  They are each vastly less significant to the stories in which they appear than, say, [[Martin and Roland]], or [[Chak and Una]].--[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 15:34, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::For the time being, is it necessary for the SG dead tube guys to have individual pages?  They are each vastly less significant to the stories in which they appear than, say, [[Martin and Roland]], or [[Chak and Una]].--[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 15:34, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Is there a compelling reason NOT to? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:39, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:39, 17 April 2009

Would his "visual representation" simply be a repurposed Machine Wars Starscream? Given the original Skyquake's colors were so blinding, it'd make sense for his polar opposite counterpart to have very dull colors. --Detour 07:43, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Considering all three of the corpses were rendered in monochrome... I'd say it's a reach. --M Sipher 14:26, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
For the time being, is it necessary for the SG dead tube guys to have individual pages? They are each vastly less significant to the stories in which they appear than, say, Martin and Roland, or Chak and Una.--Thylacine 2000 15:34, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
Is there a compelling reason NOT to? --M Sipher 15:39, 17 April 2009 (EDT)