mNo edit summary |
Captainmike (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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) |
: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) |
||
Revision as of 02:32, 12 February 2018
| Ten Forward → Replacement 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
02:31, February 12, 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
