Talk:Sandstar

This may be up for debate, but I think that this articles should be incorporated in the entry for Katapesh (city) and not have its own entry. What do others think? --brandingopportunity 14:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid of the case where references to Sandstar is made (for example in historical articles for this period). Normally someone would know and make all these references as

See also: Badawi

and the reader will read within the lines of Katapesh (city) that its old name is Sandstar. Also, we have to take into account that eventually another article has to be made for Sandstar (the city and its history). In the time/space domain, it is a different city. :) --Dmeta 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it a different city, though? When writing an article on the history of New York City, you wouldn't write a separate article on New Amsterdam, nor would Constantinople and Istanbul have different articles. Whichever is the current name of the city should be the primary article, mentioning in the history section about past names and transitions the city has had over the centuries. Any older names should be made into redirect pages leading people to the current article. If Sandstar was completely different from the current city in so many ways that it can't be incorporated into the main Katapesh article, then yes, it should then have its own article, but at this point the article is not long enough to justify that. -- yoda8myhead 15:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Could you make it an auto redirect Mark ? I could check and change manually the references to Sandstar.--Dmeta 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can make a redirect by making the first text in an article's code #REDIRECT [[Katapesh (city)]] or using the "move" feature at the top (though this only works if the page you're redirecting to is empty. I'll redirect this one. Be sure to mention Sandstar in the history section of the main article. --yoda8myhead 04:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)