Difference between revisions of "Talk:Labyrinth Clan"
Demonskrye (talk | contribs) |
Supermorff (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
If we count the mutates as members of the current Labyrinth Clan, should we list Fang as a former member? Or since the clones weren't there when he took off, was he never considered part of a clan? -- [[User:Demonskrye|Demonskrye]] 14:57, 18 April 2008 (CDT) | If we count the mutates as members of the current Labyrinth Clan, should we list Fang as a former member? Or since the clones weren't there when he took off, was he never considered part of a clan? -- [[User:Demonskrye|Demonskrye]] 14:57, 18 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think he was a part of the clan, if briefly. Mention him if you like. -- [[User:Supermorff|Supermorff]] 14:12, 19 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:12, 19 April 2008
This may be a bogus idea, it's really more of a question.
We separate this clan into Mutates and Gargoyle members, right? Well, what about separating gargoyle and beast members of other clans? A gargoyle clan with beasts in it is still a gargoyle clan (unlike the way we categorize Labyrinth clan right now). But in the future, when they get a Beast (or we see the clan's future in Timedancer) where will we list beast members? Surely not in the "gargoyle members" part.
This isn't an actual suggestion that I think should be implemented, more something rhetorical to ponder. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 22:49, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- I think this is a pretty good idea, but I have one worry about it. We already have several clans that have subsections for former, current and future members, if we divide that up further I fear it'll get really disorganized since in some cases you'll have former beast members, former gargoyle members, current beast members, current gargoyle members, future beast members and future gargoyle members. And maybe one day we'll even add former, current and future HUMAN members That is a lot of sections and sometimes less is more.
- I suppose that while I like the idea a lot, unless a better suggestion on format comes along, we should stay as is. Afterall, Greg W has said that while everyone knows that beasts and gargs are different species they also see the beasts just as much as members of the clan as the rest, might as well keep them all together. --Matt 11:42, 27 December 2007 (CST)
- I agree. For now, leave as is. I also think that gargoyles and mutates are separated in this article not only because they are different species, but because they have formed distinct groups within the clan: they joined the clan at different times and (as "Masque" and "Bash" indicate) they act separately from each other. -- Supermorff 11:48, 27 December 2007 (CST)
If we count the mutates as members of the current Labyrinth Clan, should we list Fang as a former member? Or since the clones weren't there when he took off, was he never considered part of a clan? -- Demonskrye 14:57, 18 April 2008 (CDT)
- I think he was a part of the clan, if briefly. Mention him if you like. -- Supermorff 14:12, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
