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)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.