Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mutates"
Supermorff (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I also agree. -[[User:Greg Bishansky|GregX]] 13:21, 21 August 2008 (CDT) | :I also agree. -[[User:Greg Bishansky|GregX]] 13:21, 21 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Nice one, Matt. It looks superb! -- [[User:Supermorff|Supermorff]] 10:59, 20 December 2008 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 08:59, 20 December 2008
Okay, all along I've been against the idea of Mutate refering to only the first four mutates and Clones refering to only the first five clones. And Louse is why. Mutates and Clones are not proper names for certain selective groups, they are adjectives describing a certain form or whatnot. When a character called the first four mutates "The mutates", they only said that because they were the only ones known to exist at the time. Same with the clones. We had Wolf before and now we have even more mutates. Mutates should be a page about the process in particular, citing the mutagenic formula and whatever and providing a list of ALL the mutates. Clones should be the same way. Information regarding individual mutates and clones can be provided in their individual entries, at Labyrinth Clan or wherever else is appropriate. As it is, these pages are redundant anyway. Meanwhile, we need a page discussing mutate-ing and cloning. What say you all? -- Matt 20:39, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
- Agreed. ----Gweisman 03:54, 21 August 2008 (CDT)
- I also agree. -GregX 13:21, 21 August 2008 (CDT)
- Nice one, Matt. It looks superb! -- Supermorff 10:59, 20 December 2008 (CST)
