Talk:Robotix

Individual articles

So most people are probably aware that a recent installment of Spacewarp's Log described a crossover with the Robotix franchise, name-dropping various characters and concepts from the series. I'm sure that absolutely nobody, myself included, wants a repeat of the Gobots incident, so I think we should probably talk it out first - do we follow the G.I Joe/Marvel rules and give them all individual pages (under the rationale that Spacewarp, a Transformers character, interacted with them), or write one condensed article along the lines of "List of Robotix characters? (using the argument that Robotix isn't a Transformers property, just like our final verdict on the GoBots)? Grum (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2016 (EST)

Right now I'm for covering them since they were covered in a story involving a dimension-hopping Cybertronian, but a single list article could be adequate for the Robotix characters. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2016 (EST)

The GoBots verdict was less on being non-Hasbro and more about Renegade Rhetoric not sufficiently counting as Transformers fiction, no? That said, yes on a list article, especially if we can get GoBots ones to base it on up. Things like Compu-Core and Skalorr can probably keep their own pages. --Riptide (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (EST)

I would prefer full writeups like we do with everything from G.I. Joe to Marvel superheroes. Saix (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2016 (EST)

Given how little information really exists about each character, I think you could reasonably get away with having them all on two or maybe three lists. Protectons, Terrakors, and perhaps one for the Daniel Boone and it's crew. --Giggidy (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (EST)

I wrote up an article for the Daniel Boone. It includes a list of all human characters. If we do decide to go to a full suite of articles, I think everything listed here could stay, it would just need to get hyperlinked. Note that we do lose the episode-to-episode activities of what each person was doing by going to this format. --Giggidy (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2016 (EST)