Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Formerly Human Characters"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::I'm not entirely sure we need this category, but it's not doing any harm so I don't feel that strongly either way. | ::I'm not entirely sure we need this category, but it's not doing any harm so I don't feel that strongly either way. | ||
::As for the terminology... I see what you mean about 'characters' being ''specific'' people, but I think more broadly we can talk about all Bruces as | ::As for the terminology... I see what you mean about 'characters' being ''specific'' people, but I think more broadly we can talk about all Bruces as 'characters'. --[[User:Macbeth|Macbeth]] 04:44, 10 August 2011 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:44, 10 August 2011
Restrictions?[edit]
Are these strictly named characters? Because I think the Bruce and Kau started out as being human looking... -Cath 19:28, 9 August 2011 (CDT)
- I find it strange this category exists at all, lol! I vote yes to include Neopets, since they are characters, and I'm all for more Macy Gray. But I wonder at the usefulness of this category. - Vee 00:12, 10 August 2011 (CDT)
- I'm not entirely sure we need this category, but it's not doing any harm so I don't feel that strongly either way.
- As for the terminology... I see what you mean about 'characters' being specific people, but I think more broadly we can talk about all Bruces as 'characters'. --Macbeth 04:44, 10 August 2011 (CDT)