Talk:Humanoid Figure

His Name
Is "Future Guy" the best name we can come up with for this character? (Was this name used by the production team? If so, it probably ought to me mentioned in the article — otherwise it just looks like a fan nickname, like calling T'Pol "Polly".)  --Josiah Rowe 22:31, 6 Feb 2005 (CET)
 * The script for just refers to him as 'Humanoid Figure'.-Rebelstrike2005 22:51, 6 Feb 2005 (CET)
 * C'mon.. Future Guy is the best name ever. --Bible Blues 05:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The term is the nickname given to the character by the production staff, I believe. Either that or it originated within fan circles and was adapted by the staff. Anyways, the scripts only refer to him as "Humanoid figure", while dialogue also labels him as "Mysterious benefactor from the future" or some derivative of that. If "Future Guy" doesn't stick, perhaps "Suliban benefactor" or something? Or maybe a page for Unnamed future people? --From Andoria with Love 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Future Guy is kind of too informal, but is a pretty good name. I (being a Data fan)also wanted to ask: how come it never dawned on the writers to make Future Guy a future version of Lore or Arik Soong? This would certainly account for the fact that Future Guy did not want Earth to be destroyed by the Xindi, because it may effect his past.
 * Lore I can understand, but not Arik. Remember, the Future Guy was attempting to prevent Enterprise from completing its mission of exploration and likely the founding of the Federation. As a man of science who is attempting to better humankind, I doubt he would go to such extremes. As for Lore, while he's more believable, it's also not likely since he was dismantled. Not that that would preclude his being reassembled by the 31st century, but... yeah. :P --From Andoria with Love 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Necro
I know this conversation is old, but c'mon, can't we move this article to "humanoid figure?" I realize that "Future Guy" was a name used by production staff, but it's just so damned unencyclopedic, and "humanoid figure" was actually used in the scripts. -Angry Future Romulan 02:29, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Have to agree. Since (I believe) no name was given in canon, we should use what the script called him as the article's title. "Future Guy" could remain as a redirect.--31dot 02:43, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

If nobody raises any serious objections in the next couple of days, I'm gonna go ahead and move it. -Angry Future Romulan 16:37, January 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * We do have a pretty explicit statement in our policies here - stating that, as long as this "Future Guy" term was used by the production staff, it can be used as the article title. At the very least, I'd like to see some more ruckus than just necro'ing a four year old discussion for two days, before moving this article off of a title it has had for years. -- Cid Highwind 17:03, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it used by production staff in a script? If it wasn't then it is merely a nickname used by the writers, and while such information is valid article content, it should not be the source of an article name.--31dot 17:23, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "humanoid figure," which was used much more often in actual scripts, would take precedence over a fan-created name which the producers adopted simply for ease-of-use. -Angry Future Romulan 17:25, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * If Trek staff referred to this character as "John Q. Public" or an actual name not given in a script, then I could live with that as the source, but "Future Guy" is equally as vague as "Humanoid Figure".--31dot 17:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if "Future Guy" was actually used in a script or not. If not, then I believe our policy states we would use "Humanoid figure" (correct me if I'm wrong). But even if it was, I believe that "Humanoid figure" was used more often. -Angry Future Romulan 18:11, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're going to move it to "humanoid figure", then it should join one of the "unnamed" articles, as "humanoid figure" is totally useless as an article name. -- sulfur 19:15, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already a redirect from the unnamed humanoid article in question, since he's the only guy in that century. - 20:45, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

All good points, I guess. I just think the name is too informal for an article title. -Angry Future Romulan 19:59, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that if we change this name, we'll basically be the only people on the internet not calling this character "future guy". I realize that might not be a popular position to take, but we didn't originate this name and it has become ubiquitous whether we like it or not. It isn't actually incorrect or inaccurate, either. Many could make comparisons to spatial torpedo, but in that case it is a genuinely inaccurate title that Memory Alpha seems to have originated. "Future Guy" isn't our invention. Do we really want to be the only ones refusing to use the common name that's just as accurate and descriptive as anything else being proposed? --OuroborosCobra talk 22:11, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * MA/en would not be the only place where the man is named different. MA/de did this a year ago already. We left a redirect to the new title and we decided for "Befehlshaber der Cabal" translated "Cabal leader" or "Cabal commander". Simple reason "Future Guy" is just a name created by Fans and not mentioned in the script or any other relevant place.--Tobi72 00:10, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of changing the name. It sounds casual and made up - like something someone in an American Pie movie would make up to refer to that "dude from the future or something. Du-Eh-hahahaha" Especially the "guy" part. Why guy? Anyway, I have never heard this before in context of Star Trek or anywhere else for that matter and when I first saw this in the feed I thought it was someone's username or a comic book of sorts until I realized that it is actually the official name given to the mysterious man from the future in Enterprise. I would name it something like "unknown alien from the future" or so. Short of "future dude" any name other than what it currently is would be good. – Distantlycharmed 00:38, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, why not something like "Cabal Informant" or "Anonymous Cabal Informant/Benefactor"? – Distantlycharmed 02:47, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to not invent a term ourselves(as Cobra said, at least we did not invent FG) when we have one from the script or could move it to an Unnamed article, but I could live with "cabal leader" if neccesary.--31dot 11:17, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * So we need to move it away from "Future Guy" because that term is "made up" - but then move it to "Cabal Informant" which is not only made up as well, but also made up by us instead of the bigger Trek community and on top of that never used by some official source? I hope I'm not the only one who sees the backwards logic here?
 * Obviously, a new title should be better[*] and not just "different but wrong[*] in the same way as the other" ([*] right/wrong used in a purely subjective way here). Also, seeing how we've had this article title for years now and how it is used virtually everywhere else, it's absolutely necessary that at least a redirect stays behind if this move suggestion will go anywhere. -- Cid Highwind 12:08, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * As to leaving FG as a redirect, I said as much on January 1st. :) --31dot 12:10, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, of course... I just thought I'd stress the difference between "could" and "absolutely must, because not doing it would be insane" a little. ;) -- Cid Highwind 13:58, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * So really... the only suitable names for this guy are "Future Guy" or "Humanoid figure". The second is a stupid (and utterly useless) name, and if we insist on moving this, it should be merged into the unnamed character page under "Humanoid figure".  Also, people keep commenting that "Future Guy" was never used, but as the article states:
 * This name became so popular that by the end of ENT's second season Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were referring to him as Future Guy in interviews, as did Paramount's press release for "The Expanse".
 * Sure, it was coined by a fan, but it has become the ubiquitous name for the character, even among the production staff. So, the simple and short question here is:
 * Leave at "Future Guy", because that's what the production staff called him and that's what he's known as, or
 * Merge into the correct unnamed person page, since he was never named.
 * All of the other names suggested are just bad fanon names. -- sulfur 15:23, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously Berman and Braga didn't know what to name him, it was probably irrelevant at the time and so for lack of a real name they had to refer to him as something - so they casually picked future guy. The "guy" in there should be a clue that this term wasn't coined by them to be used officially to refer to this character. Now if that is the only name trek folks know him by (this is the first time I ever heard of it), then for lack of a better option it should just stay as it is. Yes it sucks and is ridiculous, but I dont see the point of changing it now. – Distantlycharmed 16:18, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * So... the moral is... maybe we should read the article before going off on big discussions? :) -- sulfur 16:55, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh i did read the article and comments and everything but wasnt quiet convinced. Google search also wasnt too obvious or conclusive at first and i still think Future Guy is unprofessional, no matter what Berman and Braga called it at the moment on a whim. But, upon reading some of these obscure forums (I dont know what a reliable Star Trek outlet is really - I dont go ot forums), I realized that it might make more sense to just keep this terrible name as - for better or worse - it seems to be stuck with fans. – Distantlycharmed 17:02, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I read the article as well, but made the initial suggestion just because I thought "humanoid figure" was more technical and appropriate, having actually been used in the script and all. But it seems the community consensus is leaning toward keeping the article as is. Poop. -Angry Future Romulan 17:23, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I see Cobra mentioned the spatial torpedo article. I've started a discussion on the talk page there, and would love to see the same level of attention paid to it as this one. Its been bugging me for quite some time now, and think it needs to be addressed. -Angry Future Romulan 17:25, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like we should have the page at the Unnamed humanoids (28th century), with in universe links though a "humanoid figure" redirect and real world links using the Future Guy redirect. Simple. - 18:58, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's easily the worst suggestion so far. The "unnamed X" list articles exist because they were considered to be a necessity preferable to having dozens of single-sentence articles with descriptive titles. They do not exist because it's a totally cool thing to list all unnamed people from one or another century on a single page. Additionally, in this case, the list would consist of a single item, and that item would come with 5KB of content. I don't see how moving this content to a disfigured list article would solve anything. -- Cid Highwind 19:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1:Disfigured? 2: This character doesn't really have a name that's not a "descriptive title," so how is this not "preferable" to a dangerously close real world production title or a semi-in universe title that's all but useless? - 19:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. As in "not being formatted as one would expect a list article to be - because the list contains a single item, and that item has more content (including section headers) as is typical", and 2. because even if the "Future Guy" title is not possible for whatever reasons, the nearly useless title would still be better than the completely useless one that we'd get if we moved this content to a page that is called "Unnamed humanoids" - and, unless we made that list article even more different from all other list articles we have, wouldn't the character still need a title to be used as section header? -- Cid Highwind 20:19, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. When I necro'd this discussion (btw, thanks for teaching me a new word, Cid!), the last thing I expected was to raise the possibility that he could be moved to a list article. All respect to Archduk, I agree that he should have his own page, for all the reasons Cobra mentioned, and for the much simpler reason that the character was pretty important, and deserves his own page. -Angry Future Romulan 20:43, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I still vehemently oppose this idea that being on an unnamed what-have-you list article somehow lessens an unnamed character, I don't think there would be confusion over what "name" to use as a section header, since we seem to only have two options without just making something up, and there seems to be a problem with the one we use now. Not that we shouldn't come to some consensus over which one to use of course. I also seem to remember that some list articles have subsections, so I don't think that's really going to break the mold so badly that madness erupts from the interweb tubes so badly that MA readers start thinking was the best episode ever broadcast. ;) That said, "Future Guy" sounds just as encyclopedic as "seemingly inconsistent motivation blurry bad guy from the future", although the latter at least narrows down which guy from the future we're talking about. While not using the common name might seem weird to the rest of the fan base, it's not like the production nickname is really the best choice with MA's POV, regardless of where this article may end up. -  10:04, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that "Future Guy" is the wrong title for this article aswell. If "Humanoid figure" was used in the script, then I think that's what we should be using. Perhaps we could rename it "Humanoid figure (28th century)" ? -- TrekFan TALK 03:57, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Necro 2
Now that he's at "humanoid figure" (a far more useless term than "future guy"), this is also the wrong name for him. He should be moved to an "unnamed persons" list. "humanoid figure" means absolutely nothing. To anyone. -- sulfur 12:21, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Further followup. He is "Humanoid Figure" in the scripts. If we're going to use that term, it must be capitalized.
 * Silik, in his fifties, has the same dappled skin as the
 * Suliban we briefly saw at Broken Bow. He's a high-ranking
 * member of the Suliban Cabal. The Humanoid Figure who faces
 * him is a male of indeterminate age; we can barely make out
 * his appearance or his words.

The first time he appears, he is noted as "HUMANOID FIGURE", every other time, he is "Humanoid Figure". -- sulfur 12:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first part, but as Cid said, that's "the worst suggestion so far", so I'm not going to hold my breath on it happening.
 * As for the second, if the whole point was to move this to something other than Future Guy because it's unencyclopedic, it seems silly to me to then go capitalize the descriptive term just because of how the scrips are written in relation to characters. - 13:14, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with sulfur on both counts - first, I have to say I was more than a little surprised seeing that the above discussion was considered to be "consensus enough" to move an article with a well-established title to some crappy name that is useless for everyone. Second, I don't see the capitalization of the new title being discussed anywhere in the above discussion, so stating that to be consensus is really weird. On top of that, reading the first sentence of the changed article, with its lower-case capitalization, should make it obvious to everyone why that just sucks. -- Cid Highwind 13:15, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I said that it would be the worst of all. But I think I also made pretty clear that it would be the logical conclusion of giving this article a "non-title" in the first place. "humanoid figure" (LC descriptive title) is about as bad as it can get as far as "being a title" is concerned - so the next step will be an eventual merge with some list article. -- Cid Highwind 13:17, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Since there's a lot to respond to there, I'll just do this as simply as possible:
 * , specifically the "mitigation of minority objections." Everyone else is doing it isn't a reason for us to as well. There are plenty of examples for that, none of which I think we need to go into. Consensus is not equal to unanimous, and there is no established "amount" of consensus needed. Also, there is only one known name in the scripts, so we should go with that first per the established order.
 * The reasoning mentioned for the name change was that we should use the most encyclopedic name possible, and that certainly implies, at the very least, that we should do the most encyclopedic thing possible as well, which in this case would be to use the lowercase spelling, because encyclopedias tend to use proper English. I don't know of a Star Trek script where the characters aren't capitalized, so that isn't a black and white issue, it could simply be a script format thing, and everyone above was using the lowercase spelling, hence the written consensus at th time was just that.
 * Does it suck, yes. Was this sucky writing, yes. Is the page currently at a completely useless non-title, the consensus, or the majority at the very least, disagrees.
 * That said, it would be nice to hear from the rest of folks who participated in this discussion for any clarifications, denouncements, approval, or accusations. - 14:16, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * "..or at least the majority" is a good thing to bring up at this point. Did you actually do the math - because I became curious enough to just check who favored what in the above section. I found 3 people clearly favoring "HF" (one of which just tagged on his opinion to the end and wasn't really part of the discussion), and 3 people clearly favoring "FG" (one of which changed his opionion from HF to FG during the discussion). Additionally, there were 2 people leaning one way or the other without their opinion becoming totally clear. Giving those last two the benefit of the doubt, it's still 4:4 for or against a page move - that is not even a majority, much less a clear consensus. -- Cid Highwind 14:28, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I kinda feel like I should weigh in here, since I'm the one who necro'd the discussion in the first place. But honestly, I think all of the points for and against the move have already been made. I've always been of the opinion that an unnamed character, if he/she is clearly very important to plot, should be given his/her own page, with the title used in the script (that's the X-Files fan in me coming out. "Smoking Man," anyone?). Anyway, right now it comes down to an issue of consensus and policy. While I feel that the article is properly placed now, I will yield to consensus. -Angry Future Romulan 14:51, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * So, as far as just the capitalization subdiscussion is concerned, would you, too, favor "Humanoid Figure" ("Smoking Man") over "humanoid figure" ("smoking man")? -- Cid Highwind 15:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. Probably Humanoid Figure, since, although it's a descriptive title, is as good as his name. After all, we have Sphere Builder which, although not actually the name of their species, is used as a proper noun (which it should be, in my opinion, as the characters used the term as such). -Angry Future Romulan 15:38, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. Since most of the lower-case variants of the name were mentioned by you, I guess that clears up at least the part concerning "consensus for LC, or not". I will move the article to "Humanoid Figure" for the time being, then, and we can continue the discussion here. -- Cid Highwind 15:41, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * [edit conflicts] RE:Cid - Since this wasn't straight up vote, I went with the "fuzzy math" of a consensus:
 * First, I didn't count DC on either side, because her reasoning for the switch was the external sites only. She maintained the point that FG was a more terrible name even at the end, and that was the reasoning for the change in the first place. I also didn't count the original discussion or Eyes Only below per se either, but I did take the history of the FG name being questioned into account. Tobi72 didn't really take a side, except to mitigate Cobra's point. So that put the HF count at 4, with me for a list first, as you have, but left only three for FG, even though I considered sulfur be more list article than FG. The minority never seem to directly addressed the original point of the discussion, which was that FG seems unencyclopedic compared to HF, so it wasn't mitigated. Saying HF is useless doesn't address that point, it just show that both choices are with faults, since both choices are considered useless. 31dot's point that FG and HF are "equally as vague" is valid, and no one had answered his or Blair2000's question "Was [FG] used by production staff in a script?" either. That made my pro point totals:
 * HF
 * More encyclopedic
 * Script name
 * MA policy (script trumps interviews and press)
 * FG
 * Long standing name

Both names are pretty useless, so I went with the majority opinion that FG was unencyclopedic by comparison backed by the history of the FG name coming into question as well as our "order of sources" and the script. - 15:52, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would favor the current capitalization, since it refers to a specific person. Reading Archduk's thought process, I have to agree with his conclusions.--31dot 19:49, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Necro 3
What the heck? Why did people change the name of this page to some generic designation that no-one outside of this page uses? EVERYBODY uses the name Future Guy. It's become his title. "Humanoid figure" is AT BEST a description, and a poor excuse for a title. Why don't we keep the name of the page the same as the term that people use in the search engine to find him?

Honestly, this change just makes no sense. Grevlin2112 01:01, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple and in the background section of the article. Maybe you should read it first before moving pages. Tom 01:10, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also suggest that you read the above discussion to understand why it was decided that way. 31dot 01:13, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I see some people arbitrarily deciding to change the title to a moniker that nobody uses with no consideration for how the character is actually referred to in the community, apparently because it doesn't "sound right". Okay, fine. My friends and I don't like the term Quantum torpedo because it's nonsensical jargon with no reason behind the designation. Should we go take over the talk page until we can form a 'consensus' to change the name to 'nonsensical jargon torpedo'? We'd have about as much reason to as the motivation for changing this page title.Grevlin2112 02:15, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * You personally can call things whatever you wish; that's irrelevant on this site. As a canon encyclopedia our job is to have our references be as close to canon as possible. If you would actually read the above discussion(especially the post by Archduk3 immediately above this section) you would see that we went with the term used in the script, which trumps nicknames and fan terms, which is what "Future Guy" is.  It was never used in canon, nor in a script. 31dot 09:15, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Retain you indent, don't arbitrarily assume we use the same poorly though out indentation system that other people do. Also, do not disrupt Memory Alpha to prove a point, this will be your only warning. Have a nice day. - 12:11, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Necro 4
Tempest in a teapot.. Given that the "script name" is apparently "humanoid figure" - it should be called "Humanoid Figure". But apparently not many people know that - I wasn't aware of either name. So why not change the title to "Humanoid Figure In Enterprise Commonly Called Future Guy" - in order to differentiate this "Humanoid Figure" from any other "humanoid figures" (not capitalization) that might be floating around (the Aldean Progenitors/whatever, the "The Chase" Progenitors, etc, etc). Seriously, leave the title as "Humanoid Figure", and then since most everyone looking for this page would probably type in "Future Guy", make a redirect. And put in a sentence, if it isn't there already, saying something to the effect of, "Lots of people - including the producers apparently - informally refer to this person as "Future Guy". Or, if someone here happens to personally now Bacula, Braga, or someone else on the Enterprise production team, ask them!  Better yet, if someone can actually dig up a script somewhere that says "Future Guy" - (maybe) even as a handwritten note - then calling him (her? it?) "Future Guy" would be canon (maybe - does MA have a policy about handwritten notes on scripts?) Simple.. Jswitte (talk) 19:24, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * We already note that he was referred to as "Future Guy" in the press- and Future Guy is already a redirect. A handwritten note would be good Background information, but one written note would not override the several scripts. 31dot (talk) 00:32, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

An Idea
Could he be a Changeling or a Vorta?– Korora 19:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I got the feeling he was human. Can someone answer me a question. If this guy is from the 29th century, why can't he travel through time? I mean, they had time ships by the 26th century. --66.79.167.108 08:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumedly, not everyone has timeships, just like not everyone has warp ships in the 24th century. In fact, that is a pretty good argument against him being human. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, never thought of it that way.but then again, I do recall USS Voyager and Aeon being stolen at least once (I'm only up to season 3) by races less advanced then their makers. And we have no idea who made the Timeship that was used in A Matter of Time. Just food for thought anyway :D --66.79.167.108 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea - maybe it was Braxton, gone crazy (again..) and out for his final revenge on the timeline. Jswitte (talk) 19:34, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Image Display
What is wrong with the first image in this article? The thumbnail is not displaying properly. — Greg ( talk ) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most likely an issue on your end as it has happened to me a few times but works fine when I check it later or restart the browser. It's working fine for me right now. Morder 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It happens to various images all over the site at certain times. It's another bug in the system, one which had been plaguing us for some time now. Just refresh the page (possibly more than once) and it should be fine. --From Andoria with Love 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fan speculation

 * Fan speculation as to his identity varies wildly, from being a Romulan, a version of Captain Braxton, Vosk, Annorax, an older version of Daniels, and Spock.

I removed the above fan speculation. Where would the speculation end? The Future Guy could just as easily be a changeling, Mirror Kirk, Mirror Spock, Mirror Archer, Soval, Data, Ducane, an EMH or other hologram, a trapped Q, an insane Tuvok, Nero, or a time-displaced. The possibilities are endless. Who's to say some are more possible than others? No one can say, plus this list is not really citable and... above all else... who cares what fans are speculating? --From Andoria with Love 12:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the reference to Bill Nye should be in the article- of course he would want to tamper with the timeline....;) Just kidding. --31dot 12:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain I remember Future Guy's initial appearances having him look like he could be wearing a Romulan military uniform (with the distinctive shoulder pads). 75.76.213.106 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if that is what the actor was wearing(it could have just been something with shoulder pads), Rick Berman and others have said that no backstory or identity was ever developed for the character, so I think it is unlikely this character was intended to be a Romulan. Certainly, such speculation should not be in the article.--31dot 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Guy?
Wait... this is actually what he was called on the show? Is this correct? – Watching...listening... 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you check with the first post on this discussion? --Alan 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just did. You have got to be kidding me. Berman and Bragga were more idea-bankrupt than I thought.– Watching...listening... 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He was originally "Humanoid figure". Future Guy is a fan nickname that caught on and the producers adopted. As I understand it, anyway...--Golden Monkey 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Century of origin?
An anon went through and changed all references to the 29th century to the 28th century. Which is correct? -- sulfur 18:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 28th, according to Daniels. From : "You're in the 31st century, Captain, or what's left of it". From : "The people the Suliban were working for came from about three hundred years ago". --TribbleFurSuit 20:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Aiding Archer and humanity?
Why does Future Guy reveal to Archer that it was the Xindi that attacked Earth? Can anyone make sense of this for me please? --Brumagnus 08:34, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the Temporal Cold War article, and kinda this one, the Sphere Builders (who aided the Xindi) were a seperate faction from Future Guy (who aided the Suliban Cabal), Daniels (who aided Enterprise), and the Na'kuhl (who aided the Nazis). What's good for the Sphere Builders (crippling the planet Earth in 2153) is not necessarily good for Future Guy (who didn't care much for Archer and tried to prevent Klingon contact, but otherwise didn't seem to mind Earth for some reason). There are at least four different factions all vying for temporal supremacy, so Future Guy made the tactical decision that Archer was the only one able to get rid of the Sphere Builder threat to his goal.--Tim Thomason 14:29, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick and concise answer!--Brumagnus 20:43, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Lack of origin citation
" Given the character is from the future, fans began referring to him as "Future Guy" (The name was originally a sarcastic one coined by Chuck Sonnenburg, who runs the popular SF Debris website which, among other things, reviews Star Trek episodes and movies)"

I've a strong recollection that this is nonsense, and there's no citation. He was been named Future Guy on the TrekBBS and various other places literally as soon as Broken Bow had aired, and long before any post-air review. Can we get a citation for this blatant website plug or what? 92.2.236.239 00:10, March 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * A link to a citation would be helpful. Additionally, (to the above poster) if you can provide evidence to support your claim, that can be used as well.31dot 01:24, March 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * In part 3 of his re-review of Broken Bow, Chuck says that he named the character two weeks after broadcast, so I imagine that he wasn't the first. But on the other hand, he's fairly popular (a prominent member of the alt.trek.vs.starwars newsgroup, and a founding member of stardestroyer.net) and may have helped to spread the use of the name. Hope that helps!

109.76.14.191 14:21, May 27, 2013 (UTC)