Talk:Mutated Chia

From NeoDex
Revision as of 17:09, 30 September 2007 by Jacob (talk | contribs) (reply)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Florg[edit]

The Mutated Chia is a battledome opponent from a long time before Florg, of Feed Florg fame, was introduced. They are not the same character. --Macbeth 15:06, 19 Apr 2007 (CDT)

It can be assumed the "Mutated Chia" of the battledome is the same as Florg, because there are no other famous mutant chias. Also, there isn't enough data to support they are seperate characters. would be simpler at this time to combine the 2, and if they should be found to be 2 totally different Chias, then they could be seperated. and if it's in terms of release dates, look at the example of Kastraliss, who was released before there was ever a Hissi. And on them having different names, Galgarroth was known by a different name as well before they finalized it. --Jacob 15:15, 19 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Florg and Mutated Chia are still seperate articles. Does that mean they are going to stay that way? I think the two are the same character and that the articles should be merged. DreamingLady 21:24, 5 Jul 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to support that Florg is the Mutated Chia any more than any other Mutant Chia is the Mutatated Chia. The Mutated Chia is a really, really old, retired Battledome opponent. Florg is a fairly recent character in a flash game. --Macbeth 23:40, 5 Jul 2007 (UTC)
You do realize this makes it diffucult to note the difference between "Mutated Chia" and "Florg" in terms of the caption competitions, right? :S It just seems so confusing to have them seperate. Perhap they can be written in such a way to speak of each other, by their similarities and differences? --Jacob 00:28, 7 Jul 2007 (UTC)
It could just as easily be /a/ mutated chia in an caption competition, really. Unless it explicitly shows it, say, consuming Petpets. --Macbeth 15:31, 7 Jul 2007 (UTC)

After a recent edit I placed the merge template back on the article (was it on there before?). Thought it would be a good time to start conversation on this again. --Jacob 17:09, 30 Sep 2007 (UTC)