Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You

READ MORE

Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
(created question)
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
   
 
We create articles for replacement vessels (each of the new versions of the ''[[Enterprise]]'', for example) and we have an article for each version of the [[Deep Space 9]] station/[[starbase]]. Should we have separate articles for other replacement starbases? A recent ''[[Star Trek: Discovery]]'' episode mentioned a few destroyed bases, ones which have existing entries here at Memory Beta? --[[User:Lenonn|Lenonn]] ([[User talk:Lenonn|talk]]) 00:33, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
 
We create articles for replacement vessels (each of the new versions of the ''[[Enterprise]]'', for example) and we have an article for each version of the [[Deep Space 9]] station/[[starbase]]. Should we have separate articles for other replacement starbases? A recent ''[[Star Trek: Discovery]]'' episode mentioned a few destroyed bases, ones which have existing entries here at Memory Beta? --[[User:Lenonn|Lenonn]] ([[User talk:Lenonn|talk]]) 00:33, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
  +
:For those facilities where we do have concrete evidence that they were at some point destroyed, like DS9, yes we would need separate articles for each incarnation. - [[User:Bell'Orso|Bell'Orso]] ([[User talk:Bell'Orso|talk]]) 02:41, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
  +
  +
::Deep Space 9 is a singular facility, so its being sequeled is understandably a new article, however some other bases have been established as complexes (with both space stations and planetary facilities), there for the destruction of part or rebuilding a planetary base in the same location, or even in a new location, can be considered the same base -- unless it happends to be a 'hero' base like DS9 or Vanguard '''''[[user:captainmike|captainmike]]''''' [[file:wiki-wordmark.png|69px]] 02:31, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:32, 12 February 2018

Ten ForwardReplacement facilities (Reply | Watch)
MAJOR SPOILERS
WARNING! This article contains MAJOR spoilers for the recently released episode The War Without, The War Within. Caution is advised.

We create articles for replacement vessels (each of the new versions of the Enterprise, for example) and we have an article for each version of the Deep Space 9 station/starbase. Should we have separate articles for other replacement starbases? A recent Star Trek: Discovery episode mentioned a few destroyed bases, ones which have existing entries here at Memory Beta? --Lenonn (talk) 00:33, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

For those facilities where we do have concrete evidence that they were at some point destroyed, like DS9, yes we would need separate articles for each incarnation. - Bell'Orso (talk) 02:41, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
Deep Space 9 is a singular facility, so its being sequeled is understandably a new article, however some other bases have been established as complexes (with both space stations and planetary facilities), there for the destruction of part or rebuilding a planetary base in the same location, or even in a new location, can be considered the same base -- unless it happends to be a 'hero' base like DS9 or Vanguard captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 02:31, February 12, 2018 (UTC)