Ok, clearly we need to talk about this because the same controversies keep popping up after I delete them, and I don't want to put the page in Protected mode. This page is not for every little trifling matter that amounted to a robot being seeded one place too high or too low. It goes without saying that empirical evidence (like how impressive it looked in battle and how much it impressed the people in charge of seedings) often carries more weight than the raw statistics. Remember, seedings are expectations of how well they think a robot will do, they're drafted by a human being not a computer, so if a "controversial seeding" can be explained by "X robot could reasonably be expected to finish in that place," don't add it. Here are a few I'd like to not see on htis page again.

How is Tornado's seeding controversial in Series 6? They were short two Series 5 finalists so they dipped into the ones from Series 4. Stinger only made it one battle further than Tornado in Series 5, so I don't see why only Tornado's seeding is so controversial. And who exactly are the "some" found it unfair? (Hint: don't respond with "I did")

Panic Attack was the Series 2 Grand Champion, it's not that controversial for it to be one rank above former grand finalists with virtually zero other pedigree to their name, especially when Panic Attack itself was only one battle shy of the grand final. Besides, Steg 2 and Firestorm are already mentioned as being too low so it's kind of redundant.

Diotoir in Series 4, there are only three that you can really make a strong case shouldn't have been seeded higher than it; Killerhurtz Cerberus, and Aggrobot; everyone else was a semifinalist at one point and Diotoir never was.

I'll give anyone a chance to appeal these. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 21:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe these even deserve discussion. I've immediately cut the section about Panic Attack - it deserved a high seed because of its success in Series 2. However, I agreed with the point about Steg 2 being the lowest seeded Grand Finalist so I've kept that.
I agree with you about Diotoir, so I've removed it as well. I also reviewed and removed Stinger because frankly I don't think anyone cared about seeds after Mortis. Similarly, I've removed controversy about Stinger in Series 5 for the same reason we don't complain about Panic Attack in Series 4 - Stinger had a one off fluke whilst Hypno-Disc and Razer were consistently dominant. And I have cut the discussion on Tornado in Series 6 because it may have lost in Series 5, but it absolutely dominated Extreme and given the fact that it won the entire series, I don't think anyone can call it a bad choice of seed. And finally, I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about Terrorhurtz's seeding in Series 7, I believe that its only an opinion so I've cut it.
Anyone can appeal my choices to remove information, I'm happy to allow it back in if a consensus is sufficiently satisfied that something belongs. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 22:01, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
I feel the note about Terrorhurtz is notable. If we're saying that seeds mean producer's expectations, I would find it controversial that they gave the 3rd place prediction to a robot they knew for months would be unable to compete at all. ToastUltimatum 23:55, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
I'll agree with that much, although the speculation about "making the seeds looks good" isn't well supported when they passed on SMIDSY, Raging Reality, Disc-O-Inferno etc. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 00:14, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the blurb about there being too many seeds in Series 5, because there was no better number than 24. It has to be a multiple of 12, else they can't be evenly distributed, and cutting down to 12 would mean that at least 4 semifinalists would be unseeded. And I think everyone can agree that 36 or higher is ludicrous. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 04:57, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention rediculously unbalanced. But this did seem to be the very realization we had during our redone Series 5. CrashBash (talk) 17:40, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Griffon's SeedEdit

I though that seeds were decided before qualifying robots, and by extension reserves, were decided so the seeds can skip the qualifiers, meaning Griffon's status as a reserve wouldn't have affected his seed. The Samster (talk) 17:20, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the producers weren't very impressed with the new robot, so they didn't give it a place in the series, and its seeding was given to another robot. When Reckless Endangerment pulled out, it was given a second chance, but the seedings had already been decided by then. Christophee (talk) 12:01, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Ming Dienasty Edit

Does anybody know whether the draw for the heat lineups was made before Dominator 2 pulled out? Is it possible that the draw was already made, and Dominator 2 was in the same heat as Ming Dienasty, so when Dominator 2 pulled out, the producers chose the most suitable robot from its heat to take its seeding. I haven't seen this theory put forward anywhere before, but I've always thought it was a possibility. Christophee (talk) 12:13, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

I think I've heard this theory on the wiki before, and I certainly see it as a sound one. If I'm honest, I don't know, but it would make sense, considering the number of people that disagree with the seeding. Though if this is the case, which of the others was the reserve pulled in at the last minute? Datovidny (talk) 15:15, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
Well, we know that Ceros and Metalis lost their qualifying battles, but were given discretionary places. Is it possible that one of them was originally a reserve or do we know for a fact that neither of them were? I wish I knew where all the qualifying results were taken from... Christophee (talk) 14:48, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
Come to think about it, that might have explained why there wasn't a replacement seed for Terrorhurtz, since none of the other robots had ever really achieved anything prior. CrashBash (talk) 15:07, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Datovidny, do you think the St. Agro team might know anything about this? I believe you are friends with that team, and of course, they won Ming Dienasty's heat. ToastUltimatum 15:15, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

I think you have me mixed up with another user, I believe somebody on here is friends with them, but not me. Datovidny (talk) 16:21, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
TG is our go to guy for contacting teams. I can't right now but someone else is welcome to send him a message. The discretionary places weren't usually decided on the spot, typically the teams that lost their q. battles would get a telephone call a few days later if they had been awarded one. The most likely case is that Scrapper was the reserve, as it was one of two with with no prior experience, and IMO, the worse looking. But that's just speculation, as is this "next-best" seeding theory. There's also the problem that the intended heat letters would be all scrambled up because of this change, and we don't know if that's something they could do at the last minute. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 18:52, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
Well, we know that the intended heat letters have been scrambled before, even in Series 7. Heats A and E were swapped around, and even a wallchart showing the S7 line-up didn't show this, from one story I heard. CrashBash (talk) 19:06, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, a Robot Wars newsletter I own gives bios for six seeded entrants of Series 7. One was Ming Dienasty. Another was Dominator 2. ToastUltimatum 01:52, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, more showed up later in the newsletter. The only seed without a bio was Behemoth. ToastUltimatum 01:59, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Mini Morg Edit

There's two main theories for why Mini Morg had such a high seed, you guys can decide if it's worth noting.

  1. The Morgue's heat final loss was very controversial, and many considered The Morgue to have won that heat final. This isn't like Ming 3, where the match was only just about to swing in Ming 3's favour before the match was interrupted, The Morgue basically had the full beating of Firestorm in many eyes.
  2. The producers may have wanted the two bright-yellow Welsh robots in the same heat, just as Mega Morg was paired with Panic Attack in Series 7.

Paste thoughts if you wish. ToastUltimatum 23:22, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

They're interesting theories, but not supported by enough logic to sway me. I'll admit, it was interesting that Morg and PA got put in the same heat twice, but I can't see what they'd gain from that, apart from tricking a foolish American replica master into thinking that yellow was Wales' national colour. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 00:44, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with RA2. I think we need to cut right back on speculation. If enough people say it, you start to accept it as fact and then we might as well be a fan fiction Wiki. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 03:14, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
Another theory I had which may have contributed to Mini Morg's high seeding was the teams popularity and sportsmanship. Sir Chromalot was given a seeding in Series 4 for their entertainment value, so maybe sportsmanship value was part of why Mini Morg got a surprisingly high seed. Now,this is just a theory, and I wanted to see what everyone else thought. Drop Zone mk2 (talk) 11:43, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Regular Seeds - Fixing Edit

Here's a thought. Since Toon Ganondorf bought up the issue that the "Regular Seeds" page is too long, and I do agree with him on that, we should find a way to narrow it down. Maybe we should find a way to remove the clutter of "Seeded X in Yth war" and so on because that isn't really neccessary. CrashBash (talk) 06:14, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that's been done without a consensus, not that I would've protested anyway. Datovidny (talk) 12:02, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Is this controversial enough? Edit

The main flaws with the Series 7 seeding typically involve Terrorhurtz and Ming Dienasty, but I have one other problem with it, and this is the placement of Behemoth and X-Terminator. Behemoth was seeded 10th, and X-Terminator was seeded 11th, but I think this should have been the other way around. Behemoth was a series semi-finalist in Series 2, X-Terminator was a seed in Series 4, which would justify X-Terminator the higher seeding. Behemoth fell in the second round of the Sixth Wars, X-Terminator made the heat final, so again, X-Terminator has outperformed Behemoth. X-Terminator went on to be a grand finalist in Series 7, and I'm sure the producers knew how destructive X-Terminator was going to be, and if seedings are supposed to be a list of favourites, X-Terminator would go above Behemoth. And most importantly, X-Terminator has beaten Behemoth before.

So I definitely think there was a mistake in the seeding there, but I don't see other people discussing this, so it may not be considered controversial enough to go on the article. Thoughts? ToastUltimatum 13:42, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

The main belief is that Behemoth was seeded higher partly due to reaching the final of the First World Championships, and just doing generally quite well in odd competitions since then. Behemoth was also a bit more of a household name than X-Terminator, and if X-Terminator was seeded to high, it would be a given that it would perform really well, sort of. Besides, it's just the one seed placing, so it's not really that much of a big deal if you ask me, but it was a fair point to raise. Datovidny (talk) 14:08, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
Behemoth definitely outperformed X-Terminator in Extreme Series 1, but I would say not in Extreme 2. Yes, it can beat Riptillion, but it lost to a little-heard of machine in Chompalot in the Iron Maidens in Round 2, and then lost in the first round to even more little-known and generally worse robots in CV and Infinity. X-Terminator was more impressive on its pathway to Round 2 in the Tag Team Terror, but this doesn't really matter, as it most likely isn't article-worthy. Still, should an Audited Series 7 come around, you can bet I'll change the seeds around a little. ToastUltimatum 14:43, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think this is notable enough to be mentioned on the page. There are arguments for both sides so I don't see it as a big controversy. Christophee (talk) 16:31, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on the subject on Behemoth, I'd like to remove it from the Controversy section on the Fourth Wars bit. It was a top 8 finisher in Series 2, as well as top 32 in Series 3, so this is easily enough to give it a seeding, and on top of this was second in the World Championship. Going back to that Heat Final against Pitbull Behemoth was clearly on top until the interference, so it could've been some kind of compensation, but I think on its past Behemoth deserved Top 10 minimum at this point in history. snowdog140 12:15, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I myself believe that Pitbull was winning the battle prior to the interference anyway. Behemoth deserved a seed, but surely not as high as 6, I would keep the point. After all, if something is controversial, some people agree and others don't, you're clearly one that agrees. ToastUltimatum 12:34, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Series 7 Seeds were based mainly on experience, since aside from the returning Semi-Finalists from Series 6, all the others are potential Series 7 All-Stars Competitors with the obvious exception of Storm 2.--Nononsensecapeesh (talk) 12:20, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Series 7 was XT's first time in the last eight at least, Behemoth had reached that stage five years previously. Vampireweekend4ever (talk) 21:32, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I think Philippa might have got it wrongEdit

Or maybe it was the people who organized the lineup, but I think the reason that Atomic was drawn against Hypno Disc in only round two was due to something like a breakdown in communication that either meant the people who made the lineup thought Bulldog Breed was the seeded one, or Philippa got it wrong, and it was in fact Bulldog Breed who was seeded 22, if I'm honest, the second looks more plausible. Did Atomic from series 4 really look that impressive? Impressive enough to get it a seed the next year? At least Bulldog Breed took out a top 16 seed, and were veterans from the year before, despite losing to Robopig. I honestly think that Bulldog Breed was seeded 22, and that Atomic was unseeded, the idea came to me when reorganizing the series 5 seeds, and putting the heat finalists in, Mini Morg was instantly ruled out, and so where the others that didn't come back. I ended up coming to the conclusion of not giving Kronic and Atomic seeds, and instead giving Bulldog Breed and SMIDSY one, mainly because they were around in series 3. I'm not entirely sure on this, and as it was mentioned on the show, I doubt the number 22 seeds will be changed to Bulldog Breed as it is confusing, but it could be worth a mention of some sort. RelicRaider (talk) 22:26, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Surely Philippa's word is not the only source we have for the Series 5 seedings. I know they weren't on the battle board or stats board in Series 5, but they must have been mentioned somewhere else on the show. Christophee (talk) 22:37, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Robot Wars Magazine made two full references listing Atomic as the 22nd seed. Heck, it was on their Series 5 wallchart. CrashBash (talk) 22:41, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Must've been the people organizing the lineup then. Still, I think Bulldog Breed was a more worthy candidate of a seed than Atomic based on it's series 4 performance. RelicRaider (talk) 23:31, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
It could've been seeded from a live show. SMIDSY was seeded in S5 because they volunteered to do more fights at a live show after Derek Foxwell promised them qualification. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 14:04, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Series 5 seeds Edit


See the part on the Fifth Wars.

I was reading through one of the issues of the original Robot Wars Magazine, and it menions about the Series 5 qualifiers. It explains that the top 16 robots (i.e. the 16 Semi-Finalists from Series 4 automatically qualified, and the eight other seeds were decided after the qualifiers. So presumably, 101, Behemoth, Suicidal Tendencies and Gemini all had to go through the qualifiers, just like Mini Morg, Razer, Atomic 2 and S.M.I.D.S.Y. I'll edit the Series 5 section with a bit about "Due to the reduction of seeds from 32 to 24, because Series 5 had 12 Heats instead of 16, only the Semi-Finalists from the previous series automatically qualified. The eight other seeds were decided after the qualifiers. Drop Zone mk2 (talk) 12:15, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Drastic reduction Edit

This page is so chock full of subjective opinion it barely functions as an informative article. However, I think some of the controversies are still worth noting, I just don't want it to be called a "controversy". The "success rate" part is good, but nearly everything written under "controversy" is in violation of Robot Wars Wiki:Subjective Beliefs. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 06:54, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you wrote most of that subjective opinion, so really it's your call. Not trying to have a dig, just an observation. CrashBash (talk) 15:47, August 20, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm more looking for suggestions at how to include the legitimate observations without making stuff up. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 22:54, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

More streamlining Edit

Looking through how Toon Ganondorf has set up the seeding page to improve it, it certainly feels like an improvement, but it still feels very cluttered. I'm not a big fan of all the bullet points at the end of the day, and the trivia section is not only way too big, but also pretty poorly set up - it just seems to add trivia from across each series without actually considering whether it applies to the entire run or just one series - for example, the trivia originally claimed that Bodyhammer falling in the bottom 12 of 72 made it the worst performance of any seed, but that's not correct across the ENTIRE run, because we had ten other robots fall in the first round since then, and they were in series that had 96 and 128 robots.

I'm currently looking to streamline the page set-up, in part by getting the seedings list as high up on each section as possible, trimming down the trivia section to include only actual trivia, rather than series specific statistics, and also trim down the amount of bullet points in the article itself. I've given Series 2 a shot already. CrashBash (talk) 21:45, January 14, 2020 (UTC)

I see why you’ve done it that way but I strongly disagree with the change. My way looked a little bit cluttered but was very easy to follow and clearly distinguished into met, exceeded and fell below expectations. Merging them into paragraphs makes the information less easy to find. I also don’t agree with cutting trivia just because certain users don’t find it interesting. I think the page benefits from the trivia overall. Series 2 is a very basic template and can’t be easily extrapolated for Series 4 or 5 which are a lot harder. If you recommend further changes please do them on the talk page so we can discuss them, rather than having a main page with two formats. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 06:49, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
I never said that I cut the trivia because it wasn't interesting. I clearly said that I cut the trivia because it's poorly set up, with statements unique to one series being bundled in, in some cases rather haphazardly. For example, one initial trivia point stated that "Like the Fourth Wars, the seeding process was designed so that the seeds would meet in the Heat Final", with absolutely no context at all - you'd clearly just taken that from the initial Fifth Wars section. I'm just saying that a good chunk of the so-called "trivia" would fit much better in the actual article, something that I have actively tried to encourage people do in the robot articles. This is also the reason why I had to reconvert the bullet points back into paragraphs, because your set-up doesn't easily allow for the "trivia" to be reinstated. CrashBash (talk) 07:30, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
So what you want to do to improve the article is... remove information? Erm, OK? I would like to keep the info because it's interesting? TOAST 08:17, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
Good lord, I never said that. When I did I ever say that I was removing information? Show me exactly where I said this? Oh, that's right, you can't, because I didn't. Stop having a beef with me just because I'm me - if anyone else had made this proposal, you would have been completely fine and actually listened to what they said. CrashBash (talk) 08:20, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
Crash, please understand that you are not discriminated against. No one discriminates here.
With regards to removing information, you have clearly removed something because the Recent Changes is showing (-1,410)‎ characters. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 08:38, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
TG, you deliberately singled me out in this post [1] threatening to ban me even though not only had both Toast and Diotoir added it before, but also agreed to adding it, as confirmed here [2]. Even after both Toast and Diotoir told you that you were wrong, you still refused to admit that...clearly you ARE discriminating against me, otherwise you would have either apologised or at the very least discussed this with me.
And did you actually look at the edit comparisons? You would have done if it were anyone else. You can clearly see that I removed comments from the trivia and then reinstated them into the actual article. It's not my fault that streamlining them ends up having less words than the original. CrashBash (talk) 08:49, January 15, 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you need to stop living in the past and I have asked you to stop referencing things from years/decades ago as proof that something is happening now. I'm not going into the Ironside thing again. Secondly, it is almost impossible to keep track of all the changes but I can see at least one edit where content is removed and not reinstated. Can you please elaborate on what content is removed before you remove any more, otherwise we have to revert it all and go through edit by edit, which I'm sure you don't want. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 09:07, January 15, 2020 (UTC)

TG, I was continually harrassed, and still am, by other members on other wikias that I am an admin of because of "things from years/decades ago", and when I try to say this to them, they just keep going - so you saying that feels meaningless. I wouldn't need to keep bringing it up if you had just apologised for making that mistake in the first place. And unfortunately, it is still happening now, because you told me not to make comments about you in the arena literally last month when other users made comments about other users all the time without you or anyone else having issues - Toast has even mocked you at times and you didn't bat an eyelid. More to the point, if information is being removed, then I personally don't see it as all that notable or at the very least could be slimmed down. CrashBash (talk) 09:20, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
I can't control what others do, Crash, but I sympathise with your experience because that must be very hard for you. Please believe me when I say that you are not singled out. Back to this issue, by your own admission we are having a conversation about whether you see something as notable or not. I don't believe that that should be the sole deterrent. If you have specific trivia to question its notability, let's discuss it. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 09:36, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
I've reviewed all your edits and I'm happy to support all of them except for the content you removed, which I've now reinserted. I don't mind you erasing the dot points, but it currently makes it significantly easier to follow and your changes made the point a lot harder to follow. If you'd like to continue formatting differently, I will support you, but please do not remove any more content without discussion as I think you'll find most of us are happy with the information. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 09:44, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
That's not really the issue, though. I feel that the trivia points are notable, yes, but I feel that they're better represented in the article itself, rather than as a big list at the bottom of the page. Saying things like Bodyhammer has the largest gap between proposed and actual finish, Suicidal Tendencies was the only seed to withdraw from the championship and Terrorhurtz was the only one to be disqualified before the competition took place are certainly notable, I'm not denying that. But I feel in the trivia section, they're just lost. I've always been a firm believer that if something can be included in the article itself, rather than a trivia section, it can and should be. A generalization like which seeds continually failed to win their heats is fine for a trivia section because there's nowhere else to put it. But if there is somewhere where it can be put, I just feel it looks neater there.
If there is one thing I will admit to deliberately removing, it's "controversy" claims, such as how Mortis was seeded second ahead of finalists like Bodyhammer in Series 2. It may seem weird to us, but I think we've come to accept it's not really our place to call them out on it - they probably had their reasons and it is what it is. CrashBash (talk) 09:48, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to see trivia moved from the trivia section to the relevant section if it fits in the narrative of that section. Otherwise, we could consider a mini trivia section for each section so that it is clear and identifiable. Otherwise, people won't konw where it is. At the moment I have the trivia listed chronologically, so maybe moving everything up to a mini trivia section is a better approach?
I'm also happy to support removing the controversies (I believe I removed a fair chunk of them in my rewrite anyway). The Bodyhammer point is well corrected as you've done, and the omission of Thermidor 2 I completely missed. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 09:54, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
Having seen your edits, I'm going to say right now, the claim about Series 4's seeding positions is already included in the article, so there's no need for it to be included in the trivia section - that immediately makes it redundant. The only information that is worth keeping is the bit about Suicidal Tendencies being claimed as the 31st seed in the annihilator. Even the bit about the heats being swapped to "deliberately continue the rivalry between Team Mace and Team Chaos" feels like something you would have jumped on for having no proof of this.
Also, I'm not keen on your wording of Series 2's section. Yes, the bracket does not allow for a top six, but no series had any way of distinguishing their seeding order either. By the logic of there being no way of knowing if Cassius and Chaos had met/exceeded/failed to meet their seedings had they fallen in the Round of 8, then there's no way to know that Mortis actually met/exceeded/failed to meet its own seeding in Series 4. Yeah, it made the heat final, but does that mean it finished 23rd? 19th? 30th? For all we know, Suicidal Tendencies could be considered to have finished 29th, so that would mean it exceeded it. All I'm saying is there is no way for distinguishing purposes in any series, so the bit about Series 2 feels redundant. CrashBash (talk) 09:57, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
I'm all for getting rid of the Team Mace/Team Chaos thing - I've never been a fan and I think we put it far too prominent in readers minds. Let's get rid of it from Series 4's article. I've never understood it because it only meant they met two rounds sooner - if they were serious, they'd have swapped with Wheely Big Cheese's heat.
I couldn't see where the Suicidal Tendencies 31 seed was replicated, but if you can point it to me, I'm happy for you to remove it again.
The reason for Series 2 being mentioned is that its the only series where the seeding number wasn't divisible by four (12, 24, 32, 16, all of which equate to rounds in the tournament that respective year). Series 2 had a top 8 with 6 seeds. It is impossible to tell who came 5th in Series 4 out of Tornado, Panic Attack, Wild Thing and Dominator 2, but by saying they finished in the top 8 is accurate for all four and therefore finishing 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th should be taken as "meeting" their expectations. In Series 2, however, we have a top 8 but the seeds clearly identify that a 6th finish is higher than a 7th or 8th because they didn't do a 7th or 8th seed. It has to be distinguished from the other series for that reason, they're not all on level playing ground. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 10:03, January 15, 2020 (UTC)

Every seeding section now has a "Selection" sub-category and where I feel is appropriate, trivia points have been moved into the main article. Right now, I feel it looks a bit more streamlined. CrashBash (talk) 10:38, January 15, 2020 (UTC)

Good, I'm satisfied with those changes. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 10:39, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.