55
edits
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
: Yes, I agree, and I responded in the Gloredo's talk as well. Regardless of the current status of the brand there is no reason not to include its history, which is way it is relevant... --[[User:Sethile|sethile]] 09:38, 11 December 2012 (CST) | : Yes, I agree, and I responded in the Gloredo's talk as well. Regardless of the current status of the brand there is no reason not to include its history, which is way it is relevant... --[[User:Sethile|sethile]] 09:38, 11 December 2012 (CST) | ||
:: But there are TWO gloredos apparently. I think this should be clear in the article, no ? |
edits