Talk:Unnamed Humans (31st century)

Human?
Do we consider someone human if they are "mostly" human, as this unnamed person is? Technically they would just be a hybrid.--31dot 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but they seemed to emphasize the fact that he was mostly human, with traces of all these other species. It's simplest to go this route, but if necessary, something else could be arranged. --Alan 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, I just did not know which route we were taking.--31dot 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I think we should keep all the unnamed Humans from the future in one place and we already have the page "Unnamed Humans (future)", where we could list them accurately. – Tom 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps...or maybe we should move "Unnamed Humans (future)" to Unnamed Humans (25th century) for consistency with all the other centuries. The "future" disambig breaks our POV, so I think we should avoid it if at all possible. – Cleanse 08:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably should move the other article to the more specific title, rather than the ambiguous "future" title...which implies that it takes place beyond the pov timeframe that MA is written in, 32nd century or whatever, rather than before it. --Alan 13:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to sound picky, but the humans on the Unnamed Humans (future) page were from an alternate reality, so surely they could stay separate? Do you see what I mean? DaveSubspace Message 13:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet they are still unnamed humans from a specific century...--Alan 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Renamed future->25th century. -- sulfur 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)