Talk:Monsterous: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Sounds good to me. --[[User:Charles RB|Charles RB]] ([[User talk:Charles RB|talk]]) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (GMT) | ::Sounds good to me. --[[User:Charles RB|Charles RB]] ([[User talk:Charles RB|talk]]) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (GMT) | ||
:::Even that seems unnecessary. A simple list of components with a brief personality description, like we do for combiner teams pages, seems to be all that's warranted. One collective fiction section can describe their individual activities in the single battle. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely|talk]]) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | :::Even that seems unnecessary. A simple list of components with a brief personality description, like we do for combiner teams pages, seems to be all that's warranted. One collective fiction section can describe their individual activities in the single battle. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely|talk]]) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | ||
::::I'm fine with either. --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron|talk]]) 16:49, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | |||
:::::Merge seems like a good idea. --[[User:Giggidy|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy|talk]]) 18:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:08, 26 October 2015
Spelling
[edit]Given that the actual name of the combiner was "Monsterous" (see the packaging picture here http://counter-x.net/gobots/reviews/combiners/monsterous.html) and this was also the spelling used in CyKill's post on 16 October when he gave us the origin of these characters, shouldn't we move this page to Monsterous?--Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2015 (EDT)
Merging Monsterous
[edit]Idea keeps coming up, so: should we mergee Monsterous' components into this single Monsterous page? There's not much to each 'Predacon' and it seems like a lot of people are in favour of condensing it. --Charles RB (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (GMT)
- In this case, I think that would be a good idea. Monsterous's component parts only have a narrative importance because of their relationship to Monsterous. "Related characters" section at the bottom of the page? --Ascendron (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
- Sounds good to me. --Charles RB (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (GMT)
- Even that seems unnecessary. A simple list of components with a brief personality description, like we do for combiner teams pages, seems to be all that's warranted. One collective fiction section can describe their individual activities in the single battle. - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
- Sounds good to me. --Charles RB (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (GMT)
