Difference between revisions of "Talk:Simple eye"
From Conservapedia
(→Nominate for deletion: new section) |
(→Nominate for deletion) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
This "article" is just rubbish. Never mind merging it; it should be deleted, because it's simply wrong. A simple eye is NOT an eye which has just one lens; vertebrate eyes have one lens, and are far from simple. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 19:40, 25 November 2011 (EST) | This "article" is just rubbish. Never mind merging it; it should be deleted, because it's simply wrong. A simple eye is NOT an eye which has just one lens; vertebrate eyes have one lens, and are far from simple. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 19:40, 25 November 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | :Simple dosn't refer to the complexity of the eye, it refers to the number of lenses. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:53, 25 November 2011 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:53, November 26, 2011
This really doesn't warrant its own page, and would be much better off as a subsection of eye. -DrSandstone 15:21, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
- I agree. If you add it as a subsection to the eye article, I will delete these pages. --DeanStalk 15:37, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
- Deal. -DrSandstone 15:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
Nominate for deletion
This "article" is just rubbish. Never mind merging it; it should be deleted, because it's simply wrong. A simple eye is NOT an eye which has just one lens; vertebrate eyes have one lens, and are far from simple. --SamRSC 19:40, 25 November 2011 (EST)
- Simple dosn't refer to the complexity of the eye, it refers to the number of lenses. FCapra 19:53, 25 November 2011 (EST)
