Talk:Clone number 3370318: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
New page: Do we really need the noname-designation templates for these clones? I mean, even though they're just numbers, couldn't they be considered official, "real" names? -~~~~ |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Do we really need the noname-designation templates for these clones? I mean, even though they're just numbers, couldn't they be considered official, "real" names? -[[User:Mazenoise|Mazenoise]] 10:09, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | Do we really need the noname-designation templates for these clones? I mean, even though they're just numbers, couldn't they be considered official, "real" names? -[[User:Mazenoise|Mazenoise]] 10:09, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Presumably all the clones also have a number. Some also have actual names. "Clone number 3370318" is pretty much the definition of a "designation." - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:20, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
Him being clone #3370318 probably doesn't mean there are at least 3,370,138 clones, right? Just had to ask. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:49, 22 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:49, 23 September 2009
Do we really need the noname-designation templates for these clones? I mean, even though they're just numbers, couldn't they be considered official, "real" names? -Mazenoise 10:09, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
- Presumably all the clones also have a number. Some also have actual names. "Clone number 3370318" is pretty much the definition of a "designation." - Starfield 10:20, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
Him being clone #3370318 probably doesn't mean there are at least 3,370,138 clones, right? Just had to ask. - Starfield 21:49, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
