Talk:Monsterous: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Charles RB (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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. --[[User:Charles RB|Charles RB]] ([[User talk:Charles RB|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (GMT) | 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. --[[User:Charles RB|Charles RB]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron|talk]]) 16:10, 26 October 2015 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 20:10, 26 October 2015
Spelling
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
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)
