Talk:New Constantinople (starbase)

We have to work out a naming convention for all the bases. This way works for now. Just something to keep in mind. --Dundradal 12:04, 28 August 2012 (CDT)

Do we really need the qualifier "New Constantinople (starbase)" on these entries? I mean, it's not like someone's going to be confusing them with New Constantinople, lead designer on CyberMage. Bob 15:28, 28 August 2012 (CDT)

• Well, that's probably true. Thing is, the wiki will need to have some way of distinguishing entries when an object we want to have an article about (say a planet or base) shares the name of another object with a seperate article (like the name of a system). This sort of thing happens a number of times in Gemini - you've got Perry, New Constantinople, New Detroit, Oxford, Nitir, Palan, Rygannon...and those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. Now, Perry, New Constantinople, New Detroit and Oxford should be the only ones we really have to worry about anytime soon. For those, I believe that setting a disambiguation qualifier term in parentheses is how it's done on most major wikis (including Wikipedia), so I personally see no reason to deviate from that convention. In the case of New Constantinople, all I was really trying to do was get rid of a redlink and get a few useful bits from the Privateer documentation up. --Capi3101 22:24, 28 August 2012 (CDT)

Ah, yeah, that's true. For some reason it slipped my mind that the system New Constantinople is in was also called "New Constantinople". Bob 08:42, 29 August 2012 (CDT)

As Capi mentioned, this is one of the things we need to work out. There are a fair number of names that overlap. Adding qualifiers makes it easier to organize and we can always just have the hot links direct to the proper one. Ex: [New Constantinople|New Constantinople (System)] or however we figure out. --Dundradal 09:01, 29 August 2012 (CDT)