Imzadi calls the Guardian of Forever's planet, simply, "Forever World". I don't know where "Gateway" came from. --Seventy 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me dig out my copies of "The Yesterday Saga". It might come from there.--Turtletrekker 21:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Yesterday's Son and it's sequel, Time for Yesterday used the designation Gateway.--Turtletrekker 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Seventy 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We should be careful adding info about the Guardian... Harlan Ellison might sue us. (-; --Turtletrekker 22:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What are we using?Edit

Are we not using "Online timeline" to describe events that occured to the Online version of Miral Paris whom we have already established is quite different from the Destiny Miral Paris? If so, perhaps changing the title of the section would have been a better edit rather than DELETING INFORMATION. I was just having this discussion with Capt Mike, and he made his opinion VERY clear that it was not acceptable to remove information. – AT2Howell 14:18, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

There is no obvious inherent contradiction between the Destiny Miral Paris and the Online Miral Paris. At least, none that I can see. Yes, there was a Borg invasion/etc. She was listed in the death rolls, along with B'Elanna, but both were discovered to be still alive. In 2409, she's still alive, and went back in time. What's the contradiction here? For all we know, STO will retcon the Borg "incident" somehow. -- sulfur 14:23, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

No, we have ESTABLISHED that they are two VERY different people. There is an "Online Miral Paris" and a "Destiny Miral Paris". You must have missed this conversation. Mike was sure they were the same person somehow. 8of5 and I explained that they were quite different. We won, Online stands. – AT2Howell 14:28, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

I see the conversation on Talk:Miral Paris (link to it next time, it's a nice courtesy so that others reading don't have to go hunting for stuff). Also, there is no "won" or "lost" on a wiki. There is consensus. I see the conversation now, but I've still not come across anything that outright states that she could not have gone to that planet in 2409 and visited the Guardian of Forever. Yes, some of the stuff in her own article is definitely different, but there's no obvious contradiction in this case. If we're going to treat her as different people completely, then every mention of her should be different, or else we should consider splitting her article into her two persona. -- sulfur 14:32, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

We have also discussed that, and it may happen as more info on her is created. Sorry about not linking to the discussion, I forgot you weren't in on it. Once two seperate characters are created by the Online/Destiny split, they must be treated as such. To pretend they are the same in places and different in others just makes for a mutilated storyline. – AT2Howell 14:37, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

AT2Howell, I think you might have missed the point of that last conversation.

The mentions of the different continuities is supposed to be reserved for cases where there are two divergent paths for things.

The Guardian was present in 2409, and there is no other continuity that says the Guardian wasn't there in 2409, is there? -- Captain MKB 15:03, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Which Miral was kidnapped? Since they are two different people, you should be able to answer this. Did they open a magic portal in the online universe, pull the destiny Miral through, then take her to the Guardian of forver? That would be an interesting story. If not, then this is the Online Miral we are talking about, and abosolutly not the Destiny Miral. Get it? – AT2Howell 15:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't get it. While there is a divergence of Miral's history in the 2380s, in the 2400s there is only the one Miral. Until the novels get to the 2400s and describe a different history for Miral, I'd say there's just the one Miral in the 2400s on Gateway. -- Captain MKB 15:19, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Before I walk away from this one as well, tell me something. In your mind, is there any way at all that the Miral noted in the paragraph we are discussing is the same as the Miral from the Destiny universe. Now, true, we can go your way and omit data, pretending on this article that they are the same, but don't you feel that little ting of responsibility that says "how about you be a little more clear here"? Maybe not. Maybe I'm the only one that likes informative databases to be informative. Crazy me, 'disrupting' the wiki. I've got other stuff to add. That is, of course, until the data becomes too precise and someone feels the need to cloud it up a bit. – AT2Howell 15:24, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

If anyone reading this article was curious about Miral in any way, they could click the link and read about how the 2409 Miral is derived from the continuity of STO. As it stands now, there is no information about Destiny Miral living in the year 2409. Since 2409 Destiny Miral is pretty much non-existent, having never been referenced in any Star Trek source, why do we have to restructure the article based on her? -- Captain MKB 15:42, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't have any information from the Destiny timeline, that's why we don't need a header, irrespective of the two divergent histories for Miral. Remember the Destiny and Online timelines are both continuations of the prime timeline they originate from, neither is alternate to the prime, both are the prime, so when we don't have to reconcile those two timelines we don't need to label them. That is the case here, the last reference before the Online one is in 2374, years before the divergence. --8of5 15:47, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. – AT2Howell 16:03, September 13, 2010 (UTC)