Wikipedia

Talk:List of Star Trek novels/Archive 2

< Talk:List of Star Trek novels
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Fostrdv in topic Error on page
Archive 1Archive 2

Imprints

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Pocket Books in an imprint of the Gallery Books Group, which is owned by Simon & Schuster. As per Books In Print and Simon & Schuster (startrekbooks.com), the imprint for the most recent Star Trek publications remains Pocket Books/Star Trek. This has been true for more than twenty years, if my memory serves. However, the badging a book receives is based on a number of factors such as location or date of printing. That said, I am confused as to why the distinction must be made between Pocket and Gallery. I believe @Rdzogschen's solution was appropriate: List all of Simon & Schuster's imprints known to have published Star Trek titles. It's quite easy to forget Simon is a massive publishing conglomerate with hundreds of brands and imprints under its belt. Fostrdv (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the Pocket Books/Star Trek imprint is how Simon & Schuster distinguishes Trek publications from all others published by Pocket (now Gallery). You're right about location and badging. Rdzogschen (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Curious thing. Done some digging and have I have found no sources that indicate why Simon has Trek pubs cataloged this way. Suppose it falls to whichever editing group is handling a particular edition to see through publication, etc., and grouping them all under a common imprint makes sense. Especially if the licensing agreement says such-and-such should be done. Some novels are listed in B.I.P. as Gallery or Atria, but the copies I have are badged with the Pocket kangaroo. A few are badged one way with different details on the verso. Grouping them all under Simon & Schuster for this article is still the best way to go (edited). IMO. Fostrdv (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
There should be a sentence explaining the use of the Gallery name on current releases, not just listing Gallery as another imprint with Aladdin, Paula Wiseman, Minstrel, etc. which to my knowledge have never published Star Trek fiction and therefore shouldn't be mentioned at all (as this page is only Star Trek fiction, not other books). Fostrdv, are you saying you've seen Discovery books or the new TNG novel Available Light that have the Pocket/Kangaroo symbol? The Discovery books I have and Available Light which I already saw at Barnes & Noble have the Gallery logo. Cnemore (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Publisher catalogs the novels as imprinted by Pocket Books/Star Trek, and that's that. The logo on the cover, or the name of the imprint on the copyright page, aren't really that important. The book title, series and book numbers, pub date, and ISBNs are what most readers after. Looks like the section was renamed to Simon & Schuster, and that's good enough for me. Wanderer0 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Warped

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Title Author(s) ISFDB LibraryThing Worldcat Date Known editions
Deep Space Nine: Warped K. W. Jeter 9261 43433 317866094 March 1995 0-671-87252-4 (hb)
0-671-52120-9 (audio)
April 1996 0-671-56781-0 (pb)
January 1999 0-671-04504-0 (audio)
September 22, 2000 0-7434-2078-0 (ebook)
The Next Generation: Warped Mike McMahan 1899041 16466493 924744718 October 13, 2015 978-1-4767-7905-8 (pb)
978-1-4767-7906-5 (ebook)

Table of sources for the Warped titles. (Let's avoid the edit warring!) Rdzogschen (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You got dates on these ? Fostrdv (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I fancied it up for ya'. Hopee this helps. Rdzogschen (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Clarification: My earlier edits were due to the ambiguity of the footnote that said "similarly titled books include....". This implied that there were other books that had similar titles to the current book, which I assumed would only list the other books so I read that to say the current book had a similar name to itself; that's why I edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnemore (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like LibraryThing and OCLC members don't catalog McMahan's Warped as par tof the TNG book line. Hey ALexander. Librarian this for us! Wanderer0 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Librarians rarely consider series, unless there is a volume/book number. Warped is part of the Next Gen book line (publisher's series, technically), but not a novel. Its satire/parody. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I have a copy. Satire (not that funny, etc.). I ask because I believe it should be in the Other licensed works section. But the TNG logo is pretty specific. Should stay wher eit is. Wanderer0 (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not part of the TNG book line which is why it was taken out of the TNG "Original Novels" section. But it is TNG fiction published by Simon & Schuster so it should be listed. Cnemore (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Split proposal

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

I propose the The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise, sections be split. The articles for each list of novels are complete: List of Star Trek: The Next Generation novels, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine novels, List of Star Trek: Voyager novels, and List of Star Trek: Enterprise novels. This would reduce overlap, and shrink the size of the article considerably. Rdzogschen (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion did not reach a consensus on the proposal. However, the editors agreed to continue improving the structure and content of the article, as well as other linked articles. Rdzogschen (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would amend to include a List of Star Trek crossover novels to catch everything from Invasion! and Day of Honor to the series published after the relaunch such as Destiny and The Fall. Wanderer0 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A good idea, but we'd have to agree on what a crossover is? Rdzogschen (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I may be in the minority but I think there should remain a page called "List of Star Trek Novels" that includes all the series.Cnemore (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no single Trek book series. Fostrdv (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
By splitting the article, emphasis can be placed on specific things like formats, series connections, and potentially longer synopses of various miniseries and crossover series. Rdzogschen (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
After giving this some thought, I now agree with @Cnemore. There should be a master list of Trek novels (and novel-ish works). So, I've changed my vote to Opposed, but this is conditional. I propose moving the miniseries summaries and details about the various links to the spin-off lists, and condensing the various tables. Fostrdv (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The master list idea does have its appeal. Rdzogschen (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's a proposed compromise. Change the format of the current List of Star Trek Novels ("Main Page") so that under Simon & Schuster the first sub-section is "Novels Based On TV Shows and Movies". It would then list the TV shows and Kelvin Timeline and have a paragraph about them and then a link to the page for that show. The rest of the books including Crossovers would remain on the Main Page. That would be a clean and easy way of doing it. I could support the inevitable change if it's done in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnemore (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I most certainly do not support altering the organization of this article. It's organized by date, the multifarious miniseries are broken out to avoid confusion, and novels are duplicated where it is sensible to do so. My quibble is the article's length, not its content. Fostrdv (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that series should be listed by date; the issue is how groups are organized. Having all the TV series listed in one main group would be clean and user-friendly, especially if it's for the purpose of having links to other pages. But my preference is still to have all books listed on the Main Page.
Keeping a master list. Sure! But we should avoid busting up and reorganizing this article any more. Its well organized and readable comapred to the state it was in before @Rdzogschen and @Cnemore started editing more frequently. Before then it was dormant and hideous. SO thank you both! BUT!!!! Let's do some condensing here and and expanding on the spinoff lists if a hard-split is proving uncomfortable. Change my vote from Boldly Support to just Support for a split then. :-) Wanderer0 (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I would actually prefer that the Main Page not be broken up since I don't see the problem with having a long article; there are lots of books! (unless there's some limit Wikipedia sets that it's approaching). Having them in one place is beneficial.
@Cnemore:: Remember to sign your posts. ;-] Per your question, you can see the parser profile by: (1) Using a desktop browser, click on the edit tab at the top of the article, and switch to source edit if you're not already, (2) Click on [ Show preview ] button, (3) Scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the "Parser profile data" menu. The article is well below Wikipedia's limits, for now. Rdzogschen (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. (BTW I realized I forgot my signature right after I hit the Publish Changes button). Cnemore (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the Table of Contents to include the sub-sections and individual series. The purpose of a Table of Contents, especially in a large article where there is no index, is to easily find things. Someone looking for a specific series (such as: Double Helix, as an example) shouldn't have to look through dozens of "pages" of text. By the way, thank you for combining the SCE Omnibus editions as one list. Cnemore (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sidenote: The ToC does not appear on mobile devices (And, removed {{TOC Limit}}). Fostrdv (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The list is so long it takes centuries to scroll through regardless of browser or platform. . . The TOC Limit was copied over from a sandbox draft. Apologies. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Cnemore (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Image of Most Recent Novel

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The image of the most recent novel is nice to have, especially as long as someone like Rdzogschen is willing to keep it up to date. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with deleting the images of other recent books. By the way I like the look of the Key and Info Box at the top as they're currently displayed. Cnemore (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The higher-ups put a stop to it. Deemed the cover images violated this-or-that. The covers were replaced with the series logos. Fostrdv (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
ThanksCnemore (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The Continuing Mission exception

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The Continuing Mission being included on this list is justified. I have seen this book shelved alongside all other Trek fiction in bookstores. And I have been to a number of libraries where it was also shelved alongside other The Next Generation novels. Fostrdv (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorted with the novels? Gasp! Librarians NEVER make that mistake. Double gasp! That said, I agree with you. The Continuing Mission should remain for completeness sake. I would move it to the bottom of the article with the sundries, and note the frequency its found alongside other Trek fict. Rdzogschen (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, I thought it was a novel the first time I saw it back in 1997 -- in a library. If the non-novel things are split I can support removing it form this list. Fostrdv (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yah sure. I think the non-novel books lend themselves to inflating the list. Rdzogschen (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with making a note or reference to it. But to include a non-fiction book as part of a list of fiction books means this is no longer a list of fiction books. There are countless other non-fiction books that often appear next to the novels (at Barnes and Noble, for example). Shall we include all the Starship books? All the Map books? All the other reference books that talk about some aspect of the shows?
Keep a note or reference to it but don't create confusion by listing it as though it were a work of fiction, which is what this page is about.Cnemore (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I *think we should be absolutely clear on this: the fictional / in-universe references, fiction excerpt collections, in-universe memoirs; in-universe retrospectives, journals, cookbooks, and guides; parodies (licensed or not); gamebooks, puzzle books, picture books; and assorted other tie-ins, do not belong on this *either as they are not novels. So if all those other "novels" remain on the list, then I believe (strongly) the Reeves-Stevens reference you've excised twice should also remain, duly noted that it is not fiction and *its often *shelved with Trek fiction at bookstores and libraries. Wanderer0 (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
You have a point. We've included a number of works which are not novels. I believe they should be split to a new list. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Split proposal for non-novel content

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I propose spinning off (splitting) fictional works into a new list to include: picture books, gamebooks, fictional references, and guidebooks--all works which are not novels. This split would include approximately 35-40 works, and would allow for the inclusion of other works we've refrained from including to this list. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion resulted in the list being split--with fictional works moved to List of Star Trek fictional works
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A draft can be found here: Draft:List of Star Trek fictional works. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The draft looks great! What about the Autobiography series? Wanderer0 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The Goodman bios are novels, IMHO. Rdzogschen (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
They read more as fictional references, but I have no problem with leaving them with the novels. Wanderer0 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Memory Alpha lists them as refs. LoC catalogs them under Fictional autobiographies subject heading. Fostrdv (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
You're both right. Adding now. Rdzogschen (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume, then, that The Continuing Mission wouldn't be on either list since it's not a novel or other fiction? Certainly frequently appearing next to other fiction doesn't make it something that it isn't (if that were the standard then we should do a survey of book stores and libraries to see what books are found next to the novels. Also most of the books on this new second list should be on the novel list simply because they appeared next to novels on shelves).
Also---we've been through all this before; I believe that only licensed works should be included and not Star Wreck etc. Cnemore (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Friend! You're the one who added Star Wreck to the main novel list. Fostrdv (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
What a strange argument to make… Ah well… I have proposed the split to do away with the issue of inflating the list to include The Continuing Mission (reference), or Federation (fictional reference), the Random House pop-up books, Star Trek Cats picture books, travel guides from Insight Editions, etc. All above and more are not novels. I understand your desire for a master list. However, we already have 850+ individual items cataloged with dates and book numbers, 50+ duplicated items, 140+ subject headings. A trim is absolutely necessary. Rdzogschen (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
A couple of things. I was not the one who suggested Star Wrecks be included on the list (it was Rdzogschen). In fact, there was a discussion in March on this Notes page in which I argued it should be removed and Rdzogschen argued it be included.
Also, as to Rdzogschen's last comment, I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was not opposing the idea to split. In fact, I support it, but only if non-fiction works (such as Continuing Missions) are not included on either list. I think the confusion came from: One of my arguments that non-fiction books not be included, is that if a book being close to another book in a library or book store were considered, then all of these other non-novel fiction books would be considered novels for that reason alone (which obviously doesn't make sense). But I never said or meant that I was advocating against the split.Cnemore (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Opened a discussion on the draft's talk page. (here) Fostrdv (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Quarantine

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I note there are two novels called Quarantine; perhaps a footnote should be added.Cnemore (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoa! Good catch. Rdzogschen (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing Next Generation Books

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These 3 books by John Jackson Miller need to be added to the Next Generation section. Star Trek: Prey: Hell's Heart (Pocket Books, 2016) Star Trek: Prey: The Jackal's Trick (Pocket Books, 2016) Star Trek: Prey: The Hall of Heroes (Pocket Books, 2016) Thanks 198.147.202.122 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

They are here. Rdzogschen (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Short Fiction Anthologies

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I deleted the edit of November 20 pending discussion. That edit took all of the short fiction anthologies from the series they were in and listed them only in a separate section of Short Fiction. So "The Sky's the Limit" is no longer listed under The Next Generation; "No Limits" no longer listed under "New Frontier" etc. I don't have a problem with a section on Short Fiction (just as I once argued there should be a section for E-book exclusives), but the Short Fiction collections should be listed in the series they're from.Cnemore (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Omnibus editions and anthologies belong in their own group, IMHO. So I agree with the work Wanderer0 has already done on the series lists (here, here, and here). Looks like Rdzogschen moved most of the omnibus back to their original positions. Fostrdv (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Omnibii and anthologies should be clustered or spun-off into their own lists. Wanderer0 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with the edit made by Rdzogschen where the short story anthologies are listed within each series, rather than just having one list of all short fiction anthologies.
By the way, I think Enterprise Logs should be in the Crossover section since that's what it is-- a crossover collection.Cnemore (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the anthologies and omnibii (as you say) should be sorted with each other. But I have hesitated to do such a thing, since there is no efficient way to do so without reorganizing the entire list. Rdzogschen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

2020 publishing date

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to the Covid-19 event, have the 2020 release dates (both upcoming and recent, i.e. March-April) been checked to confirm they are still current? There's one listed for mid-April that I assume is delayed now. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Release dates for announced novels have not changed. Rdzogschen (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Error on page

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In the section "Titan Books (1987–present)"/"Star Trek reprints (1987–1993)" starting on item 2929 Dreadnought! Diane Carey November 1989 1-85286-211-4, the ISBN section has an error: "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." This continues for the rest of the article. Can someone more knowledgeable than I fix this? Tpbrownec (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a server error. It will resolve itself before the end of the day. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
It's continuing or recurring as of 9 Apr 2021; I suggest that there might be a connection to the sheer size of the page - perhaps it should be broken into multiple pages? 206.212.133.30 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
As above-- This is a server issue, and thousands of other pages suffer the same errors regardless of size. Fostrdv (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Star_Trek_novels/Archive_2&oldid=1133047853"