9,294
edits
Forum:20th/21st century individuals: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::So we couldn't classify any of the kids in ''Human Nature'' to be 19th century individuals, as we don't have definite proof of that, we have inferred proof by way of logical extrapolation based on their age and the year in which they appear. But I'm just wondering if that's a too narrow perspective? | :::So we couldn't classify any of the kids in ''Human Nature'' to be 19th century individuals, as we don't have definite proof of that, we have inferred proof by way of logical extrapolation based on their age and the year in which they appear. But I'm just wondering if that's a too narrow perspective? | ||
:::Just to throw an idea out there (as I do) would it be of use to have '1990s individuals' all the way back to '1900s individuals' as sub-categories of 20th century individuals or would that be making a category ''more'' complicated than it needs to be? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 15:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC) | :::Just to throw an idea out there (as I do) would it be of use to have '1990s individuals' all the way back to '1900s individuals' as sub-categories of 20th century individuals or would that be making a category ''more'' complicated than it needs to be? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 15:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::It could be useful and interesting to group people by decade, but UNIT dating might make that a bit of a headache. [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] 17:26, May 14, 2010 (UTC) | |||
