Talk:Related Articles:Explosion future

Split or include?

So, should we split the Dark Future for Post-explosion Future and Post-infection Future, or should we include the new dark future in with this one? Personally, I wouldn't mind making the original dark future as Post-explosion future.--Bob (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

• Well, the Explosion Dark Furure was prevented, therefore in a different timeline. The infection Dark Future is in the current timeline, so it shouldn't be fitted in with the old one. Why do timelines have to be so confusing :P --Felixdakat 04:28, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
  • I definitely think we should have two seperate articles. For example, Future Angela needs to be added, but not to this page, as she wasn't in the explosion-future. I think we should have something like Related Articles:Post-Explosion and Related Articles:Post-Infection, for clarification. --  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  03:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
    • I'm gonna mock this up in a sandbox in a bit, and see where it goes from there.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  08:53, 9 November 2007 (EST)
      • User:Lost Soul/Related Articles:Post-Explosion and User:Lost Soul/Related Articles:Post-Infection. I'm not sure about this one... the second one seems rather bare, but that could be me missing obvious things off. Any input?--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  09:57, 9 November 2007 (EST)
        • Why don't you combine them? I think Dark Future is really about the possible futures in general that everybody must work to avoid. I don't see any problem with combining them, especially when the most recent future was only shown for a fraction of an episode. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)