The information we have right now on Alpha Centauri is incredibly scattered and confusing. We've got several different links, including Alpha Centauri, Alpha Centauri colony, Alpha Centauris III, IV, and V. It's a challenge to make heads or tails of the information we have. We also have some unacknowledged contradictions in information -- The Buried Age seems to imply that Alpha Centauri is a Human colony in a system that once had sentient life but did not anymore. Meanwhile, the ENT novel Kobayashi Maru and Articles of the Federation both rather firmly establish that the Alpha Centauri colony became a state independent of United Earth prior to the founding of the United Federation of Planets, so the colony article is a misnomer if it's calling it all a colony still. Can we get a consensus on a better way to organize all this? -- Sci 00:11 11 FEB 2009 UTC

There's no way to meld it all into one article. Decipher and LUG place a native race on Alpha Centauri IV. The Worlds of the Federation places a human Preserver-transplant species on Alpha Centauri VII. There's Centaurus from older TOS novels which is a Earth or UFP colony. The Reeves-Stevenses mention native Centaurans in Prime Directive, but in Federation, Zefram Cochrane lands on Alpha Centauri B II, which is uninhabited and becomes Earth's first extrasolar colony. And then, of course, there's Franz Joseph's Alpha Centauri Concordium of Planets, which suggests multiple inhabited worlds in that trinary system. And that's without even bringing Proxima Centauri into it. The only way to reconcile all these different ideas about Alpha Centauri, without favoring one over another, is to acknowledge that there are several inhabited worlds in the system, including those with indigenous Centaurans, and human colonists. Frankly, I don't see a problem with that. --TimPendragon 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)