Wikipedia

Talk:List of Star Trek novels/Archive 1

< Talk:List of Star Trek novels
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Rdzogschen in topic Date correction
Archive 1Archive 2

Disambiguated

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have disambiguated several blue links that were leading to the wrong articles. I used two rules:

  • Add "(Star Trek)" for links leading to articles not related to Star Trek.
  • Add "(novel)" for links leading to Star Trek -related articles that were about a character, an episode or a term. Adding "(Star Trek)" in this case would have been useless.

— JIP | Talk 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I reverted the wikilinks to the individual Titan novels, as at this point it is very unlikely that there will be individual articles for each novel when the Star Trek: Titan article is very comprehensive. Also, the Sword of Damocles link does not link to an article that is about a Star Trek novel. I don't think there is a need to have "red links" that will never be created. Newnam(talk) 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

i was writing a topic for orions hands when i got a message that my other artciles wher being deleteds, so iw as going to hold uploading till i could find out why. i dont make new pages often so i assumed there was somethign wrong with my style--Colsmeghead 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A Rock and a Hard Place (Peter David), 1990 links to a Vietnam War novel by David Sherman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.244.86.60 (talk • contribs)

it appears to be properly linked to an unabiguous article name now. Bovineone 06:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The Janus Gate (L.A. Graf)* 1: Present Tense, 2002 linbks to some cd dunno how to redrict the linkColsmeghead 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed it. In general, if that happens, edit the link to add (Star Trek novel) to the end of it. For instance, I changed [[Present Tense]] to [[Present Tense (Star Trek novel)|Present Tense]]. The "|Presnt Tense" after the article name makes it appear as "Present Tense" rather than "Present Tense (Star Trek novel)". Newnam(talk) 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Author Susan Wright's link has nothing to do with her, but with another Susan Wright.

most novels?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I put a {{fact}} tag on the sentence about "most novels based on a single fictional universe". I've heard the claim made about Doctor Who novels as well — I'm not necessarily doubting that Star Trek may have more, but it would still be good to have a citation to back that up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea about the Trek novels, but the Guinness listing for Doctor Who was more specifically for "most novels based around one character", as I recall. Given the various Trek storylines have different sets of characters, it's perfectly possible that it has more books and that both claims are correct. Angmering 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I figure the only citation you're likely to find is on a newsgroup. I asked this question a few times and the current understanding is Star Trek either physically has more books out than Doctor Who, or has more original novels than Doctor Who, if you consider that the current total output for Doctor Who includes approximately 150 novelisations, compared to maybe 2 dozen max for Star Trek. I doubt you'll find a book giving a citation of this nature. 23skidoo 03:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how you define 'novel'. You can make a case that Doc Savage has about 200 and The Shadow has about 250. Tom Swift was in the 200 or so range also. The champion is probably Perry Rhodan with over a thousand to date, although there may may some Mystery or Western series with more; Perry Mason, for instance. And what about Harlequin Romances? CFLeon 02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Titan renumbering

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I seem to recall that Titan, the publishers of the Star Trek books in the UK, renumbered the original series books. I'm pondering whether it would be worth listing this renumbering, and if so, what format to do it in (the article is long enough that just having another list seems a bad idea) Morwen - Talk 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list annotated with the Titan numbers. It is somewhat random. They appear to have started in 1987, putting out new books and also random back catalogue. Things make an awful lot more sense to me now about these books. Having Battlestations! be the book immediately before "The Rift" makes no sense at all, for example. Don't know when they stopped this series. The last I can find in this series at amazon.ca is "The Great Starship Race", Pocket #67, but Titan #52, which just about fits with my memory.

structure issues

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

i've just noticed that this article had (until I started table-ifying stuff) the books in pretty much the same structure as Voyages of the Imagination. I don't know to what extent that ordering is copyrightable- but at any rate it seems inappropriate, and I think makes my making things be chronological seem more appropriate. any suggestions as to how i should mark relaunch stuff? (or rather, non-relaunch stuff after an implied cut-off point?) Morwen - Talk 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The ordering this list uses is a logical one, so it makes sense that the book would have followed a structure similar to the one this article uses. After all, the only novels from publishers other than Pocket Books (or Wanderer, Archway, Minstrel, etc., which are all fellow imprints of Simon & Schuster, i.e. sister companies to Pocket) were from before TNG or any other series existed. This is also pretty much the order that I used when I was creating the booklists for the back of the book, back in the 2001-2004 timeframe. (That was discontinued due to the immense size... with around 30 new titles a year, or closer to 40 if you include the eBooks, the list was getting very long.) My list pre-dates this Wikipedia page, but I have no problem with the page using a similar structure as well. --Psiphiorg 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. How do you feel about me integrating the numbered and non-numbered books in chronological list as I have done? I think it gets thoroughly confusing otherwise, as the numbered books seemed to kind of peter out in 2000/1. And then there's all sorts of weird things like the first four Rihannsu books being numbered, but the last one not, and that sort of thing. But I'm open to argument on the matter.
Also it would be good to indicate hardcover-originally books. Morwen - Talk 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What you've done here is looking pretty good. It can definitely be a difficult task figuring out the optimal arrangement for the lists, but one nice thing about the web is that we can continually tweak things and don't have to be committed to one layout if something better is developed. I'm sure I'll have some ideas on improvement as the page develops, but by all means, be bold and try things out! --ΨΦorg 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding this in as a new question on the structure issue. Why is the Section 31 books for TNG and DS9 included with their respective sections, but the ones for TOS and VOY are not? I do not want to correct this before checking if there is a logic to it.

splittage

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ok, as noted on User_talk:JIP, I'm thinking that probably splitting this by "era" would be best, so having Enterprise/TOS/Vanguard books in one article, and then TNG/Voyager/DS9/Titan/IKS Gorkon/New Frontier/Stargazer books in another article, would be best. This poses a special problem for things like The Lost Era and the books featuring Spock and Kirk in the TNG era but branded under TOS, so guess those would want to be on both lists as appropriate. I will make a massive spreadsheet and then see what I can come up with. Morwen - Talk 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the above list of books, number 59 "The Disinherited" has an incorrect link. It points to a book by Jack Conroy published during the 1930's, not the Trek novel by the same title. I am unsure how to correct. --Mountaineer1984 05:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

one way to correct links of Star Trek novels is to add (Star Trek) on it: example [[The Disinherited (Star Trek)]]. --bluemask (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Voyages of Imagination

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently created the article on the Star Trek reference guide on the novels, "Voyages of Imagination". Feel more than free to expand and improve the article.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rihannsu, Books one and Two?

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking through the list and I noticed this slight jump:

No. Title Author Released Set
93 New Earth, Book Five
Thin Air 		Kristine Kathryn Rusch and Dean Wesley Smith August 2000
94 New Earth, Book Six
Challenger 		Diane Carey August 2000
95 Rihannsu, Book Three
Swordhunt 		Diane Duane October 2000
96 Rihannsu, Book Four
Honor Blade 		Diane Duane October 2000

Shouldn't Rihannsu, Books One and Two be on that list as numbers 94 and 95?cdmajava There are always possibilities... 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Books one and two are listed under #18 and #35 (as they had been published much earlier).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't they still be together as one series? or the books actually numbered that way?cdmajava There are always possibilities... 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't say for sure if they are numbered that way (although in all probability they are), because I don't own a copy, but since the list is sorted chronologically by publication date, they can't be listed together because they are just too far apart. This is not to say you are not welcome to try organizing this whole page better; it can certainly use (a lot of) improvement :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions?cdmajava There are always possibilities... 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really, sorry, although the "mini-series" section can certainly be expanded with entries such as Rihannsu. Also, sortable tables could be useful, but that's about all of the ideas I have at the moment.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by sortable tables?Cdmajava; Darn sig didnt wanna work 07:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A sortable table is a table that can be sorted by one or several columns (by title, by author, by date, etc.). See Help:Sorting for details and examples.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Next Generation covers

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know when and WHY the logo for the books was replaced with generic font? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.223.68 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It began occurring with the movie tie-in novels (such as Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, Etc.) and then was most likely changed to bring it in line with its movie counterpart titles. Most likely because the original TNG font was beginning to look a bit dated after the turn of the century. As iconic as it was, it was a very dated, very "80's" looking font and logo. But I have no clear cut answer, I'm acquaintances with Marco Palmieri though (he ran the Trek Devision during the time of the changover), so I'll ask him and see if I can get a sourced answer.--JYHASH (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeframe of novels possible WP:NOR violation

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just made a few corrections to the Pocket Books section where someone has attempted to list when certain novels take place chronologically. Several books are listed as taking place between Star Trek II and III, yet feature Spock (if you have to ask...); Black Fire likewise even though it is clearly described as occurring near the end of the 5-year mission (the TMP-era uniforms are introduced in one chapter). These errors give the impression that some Original Research/speculation is going on here. I suggest someone with a bit more knowledge of the novels, or perhaps a secondary resource that does list the chronology of each novel (I believe Pocket Books has one in its Voyages of Imagination compilation), police this information. I only fixed the ones I knew about. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hologram's Handbook

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IP edits sometimes get automatically deleted, it seems. In case it disappears, I added a missing misc. work to the list - Robert Picardo's The Hologram's Handbook, published by Simon & Schuster in 2002. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Young adult novelizations, Wanderer Books and other comments

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since there is a heading for Wanderer Books, it should include the YA novelization of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home by Peter Lerangis. I have this book, and it is from Wanderer Books (it should be noted that Wanderer Books was an imprint of Simon and Schuster, the parent company of Pocket Books.)

Checking the ISFDB, it appears that the four listed books and ST IV: The Voyage Home are the only Star Trek books from Wanderer.

I don't believe there are YA novelizations for ST V: The Final Frontier or ST VI: The Undiscovered Country. However, there ARE YA novelizations for each of the Next Generation films, all by John Vornholt. I don't have these, so I assume they are from Pocket Books instead of a juvenile imprint. I don't know if there are any YA adaptions for the 2009 film or the 2013 sequel.

On the next subject, mention should be made that the Generations paperback had a different ending from the hardcover. According to the Complete Starfleet Library, the hardcover used the film's original ending, which was reshot after the book had been printed. The paperback has the revised ending. http://www.well.com/~sjroby/lcars/1994.html#tngstg

Finally, many of the novelization links go to the film, instead of the article for the books. I don't know how Wikipedia handles things like that, whether it would be better to have a redlink that says Movie Name (book) or whether it's better to just link to the film. I thought the film pages should at least have a line or two mentioning the novelization and author, however. 68.97.202.205 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

67.191.130.139's changes

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

67.191.130.139 introduced a large scale change whereby all the unnumbered novels in each series were given sequential numbers with those that were released during the numbered eras given .1 numerations. I know of no source that supports this change. I have reverted his/her changes to the TOS section but do not currently have the time or energy to undo all of the changes. I did not want to completely revert to before these changes as I do not want to lose subsequent edits. If no one else tackles the rest of 67.191.130.139's changes in the next few days I will undo them myself. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I've removed all the erroneous numbers now. --Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Autobiography of James T. Kirk

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Autobiography of Kirk by David A. Goodman published in 2015 by Titan Books should be included in the List. 195.65.29.162 (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes by Cnemore November 27, 2016 That Were Deleted by Mattbuck

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First, Strange New Worlds 2016 is an e-book. I added that; he deleted it for some reason.

This Wikipedia page is a reference list for Star Trek Novels (as well as Short Stories). There have been numerous (possibly hundreds) of books about Star Trek including various reference books or even fictional reference books that did not contain stories. The Miscellaneous Section of the Star Trek List of Novels page has for some reason included a few of these books. These include: The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (Ira Steven Behr), July 1995 The Star Trek Cookbook (Ethan Phillips and William J Birnes), January 1999 The Hologram's Handbook (Robert Picardo, with art by Jeff Yagher), 2002 Additionally, for some reason the Miscellaneous section included books that are not miscellaneous but are listed under THe Next Generation. These include: Articles of the Federation (Keith R. A. DeCandido), May 2005 A Singular Destiny (Keith R. A. DeCandido), January 2009 Additionally the miscellaneous ection included books that are merely Omnibus volumes of DS9 books already listed in the DS9 section (if anything they should be listed in the DS9 section: Twist of Faith - DS9 "relaunch" reprint omnibus (S. D. Perry, David Weddle & Jeffrey Lang and Keith R. A. DeCandido), July 2007 These Haunted Seas - DS9 Mission Gamma reprint omnibus (David R. George III and Heather Jarman), June 2008 There have been hundreds and hundreds of Star Trek comic books. Many of these have been re-printed in "book"form (IDW constantly comes out with them). Why list just the Manga comics and not all the others? None should be listed as comics are not novels (or short stories). One volume missing of short stories (although parodies) that I had added is: Treks Not Taken which can be found here. https://www.amazon.com/Treks-Not-Taken-Vonnegut-Generation/dp/0060952768 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnemore (talk • contribs) 02:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Star Trek novels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Original Series books

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I put a citation needed tag on the statement that the Original Series novels were terminated without explanation and that the company refuses to comment. I haven't been able to find any news source to support that the books have ended or that the company refuses to comment. I also don't think that last sentence is appropriate because it suggests Wikipedia has been seeking comment which goes against the mandate to be a secondary, not primary source. 96.51.188.175 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Graphic Novels?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How come the 12 Photo-Novels that were released in 1977-1978 are described as "Graphic Novels?" That term hadn't been created yet in 1977-1978, so wouldn't the original term be sufficient? I mean, it's descriptive enough that even youngsters and Millenials will know what "Photo-Novel" means. I don't think we should rename everything every couple years just because youngsters don't want to deal with traditions or reality. HaarFager (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Article length

I'm getting the 32K warning as I add titles and author names to this article. Anyone want to suggest how best to split this into two articles? With so much crossover between series it's hard to just have separate pages for books based on TOS or DS9 or whatever, but it might be possible create a page just for the directly TOS-based books since that's the longest list. (I hope to add the remaining authors and titles after I return from a trip next week, but if anyone wants to fill in the rest of the blanks, be my guest!) 23skidoo 00:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never did get around to continuing my "project", however I think this page might look better in table format, so might try to make that change when I have a moment or two. 23skidoo 16:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you want to list the anthologies?

Since they have multiple authors, and occasionally span series, how should anthologies be listed?

a time to to

okay i've just started on time for war time for peace but i got a feeling i went into too much detail in the triva a) any suggestions b) is there a book page that is the "gold standard" ie set out properly not too much detail etc etc that i could look at to help me write better articles?

Edit war! or, what is this article about?

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

In my view, this article should remain a list of novels and novel-like works such as novelizations, anthologies, collections/omnibus, children's books, etc. I would also recommend this article not be renamed. (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Rdzogschen (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Fotonovels and the movie photocomics by Anibole should be moved to a new article. The game books are novel-like. There is an article for in-universe and tech references: List of Star Trek reference books, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:AE (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
First, "Federation: The First 150 Years" is an important work of Star Trek fiction. It tells the back-story of many of the episodes, completely fictionalized, as well as filling in gaps between episodes. It's not in any sense a real world "reference book". How about the Auto-biographies? They're not novels in the strictest sense.
I think we should err on being inclusive rather than limiting.
Cnemore (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Memory Alpha categorizes Federation : The First 150 Years as a "reference" (link) and ISFDB labels the work as "non-fiction" (link). Yes, it's a monumental work, and Goodman deserves recognition. However, the external consensus is, though it may be fictitious, it is not a novel. Rdzogschen (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, these sources are mistaken if they say the book is a real reference book or non-fiction. In my opinion, it may be the best work of Star Trek fiction ever published because it puts many of the stories from episodes in context. If not deleted, will you also be deleting the Autobiographies, as they are not fiction?Cnemore (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Memory Alpha is the largest Star Trek wiki—14 years. And, ISFDB is the largest community-maintained database of speculative fiction—24 years. To cast aspersions on their credibility is premature. Perhaps to state simply that you disagree? Furthermore, I feel strongly it is also premature to say this-way, or that-way, or else. We have to come to a consensus.
As I said below, I believe the autobiographies should remain listed as novels, and I am agreeable toward including First 150, unlike our anonymous friend. However, I hope you can understand my slight-hesitation at engaging in a potential edit-war, as I have attempted to understand your view on what is suitable for this article (as well as your personal praise for Trek writ-large!). Rdzogschen (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Autobiography books are technically in-universe reference. But they read like memoirs. Autobiographical novels? MemAlpha says they are reference books. ISFDb says novels. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:AE (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please sign your post! And, Yes. I agree the autobiographies are memoir-ish and I agree with Cnemore they are reference-ish. I say we leave them listed. Rdzogschen (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Memoirs are not novels. If we're not going to include non-novels then memoirs should not be included. But I think they should. Federation : The First 150 Years reads remarkably like the Autobiography books. The basic difference is that it's told in the third person (telling the story, for example, of what happened on Tarsus IV leading to Kodos the Executioner's edict from The Conscience of The King, rather than in the first person in The Autobiography of James T Kirk). Both are re-counting incidents from the past in story format. Cnemore (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright. Leave Autos and add the Goodman history I cut. Rdzogschen make it look pretty. (Anonymous :) ) 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:AE (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure, Friend? Rdzogschen (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Rdzogschen, since the main publication of 150 Years was by Titan, shouldn't it also be listed under Titan (besides Amazon Publishing (47North imprint) similar to the way I had it originally? (just like you separately listed the republication of Mission to Horatius and Star Trek Logs under Pocket Books)? Cnemore (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Amazon (aka 47North) published the deluxe edition. The versos (copyright page) are slightly different. Titan Books reprint says "First Titan Books edition", or something similar. Rdzogschen (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Star Wreck

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The article should be limited to officially licensed Star Trek fiction. Star Wreck is not licensed by Paramount/CBS. If this is included then books based on The Orville should be included. Cnemore (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Star Wreck is acceptable for inclusion, in my view, as it is a direct parody of Star Trek. (City-sized tea cups mounted atop the saucer section of both Enterprise-A and -D. (Saucer… get it?) *ahem* ) The Orville, on the other hand, is a parody of humanistic science fiction, in general. Rdzogschen (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Star Wreck is not licensed by the holders of Star Trek licenses (Paramount/CBS). Only licensed works should be included. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of Star Trek stories and novels that are not licensed (fan fiction). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_expanded_universe There is no basis to include Star Wreck and not other unlicensed fiction. Cnemore (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
If I recall, you added Treks Not Taken. Given your position on Wreck, what warrants Treks inclusion? Rdzogschen (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You're right. They should both be deleted. There is another parody which is licensed and should be included: Warped: An Engaging Guide to the Never-Aired 8th SeasonCnemore (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Egad! It's missing. Must correct at first opportunity. Rdzogschen (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing Novels in the Original Novels sections that are part of a grouping

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Rdzogschen, if unnumbered Film Novelizations should not be in the Original Novels sections then it would seem that should also be true of unnumbered Video Game Novelizations. For consistency, only numbered novels that are part of another grouping should be listed in the Original Novels section. Cnemore (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your past edit summary described the video game novelizations as belonging to TNG and TOS series lists. Do you now disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:83 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe I ever said that. What I did previously say was that the unnumbered film novelizations should be listed in the Original Novels sections. Rdzogschen disagreed and deleted the changes I made adding the unnumbered TOS film novelizations to the TOS Original Novels list. He argued only the numbered film novelizations should be in the Original film list. I now agree with him; limit the Original Novels list to books not in other categories (unless they were numbered). It contradicts this to list the video game novelizations in the original novels lists.Cnemore (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My prior posting on these books merely pointed out that they were not crossover novels. Cnemore (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Klingon Hamlet and Audio, Hardbound and EBooks

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Rdzogschen, The Klingon Hamlet features none of the characters of The Original Series and has nothing not do with the original series (although Hamlet is referred to as a Klingon work in Star Trek VI). If it is listed at all (the English portion is just a translation of the original Shakespeare into modern English) it should be in a separate section.

Also, we should bring back the sections on Audio books and it would be user-friendly to have ebook exclusives listed in one place like they used to be. Finally, there should be at least an asterisk next to books that were released in hard bound (like there used to be) as that is user-friendly information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnemore (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ebook exclusives are already marked with a diamond. And before that with (ebook). Marking hardback with a star is neat, but how many symbols do we need to add after each book title? How about the Greek lower-case Delta for books with a certain character? Spirals out of control fast, which is why I think Rdz scrubbed the list when he reworked it. How about a new list List of Star Trek ebooks. But then again, this is Wikipedia, not Memory Alpha—feels hyper-specific instead of being a quick resource. IMO, the list as of now is already too big and should be broken up. There are already lists for tv series novels, etc. Which Rdz has worked on, I believe. End rambling. Srinzen (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Marking the hardbacks with a * is a good idea, yes. But I too am worried about symbol creep. A new article (List of Star Trek ebooks) may be a good solution to the ebook question, but >>> Would it include all ebooks, or would it be limited to ebook exclusives? Excluding the S.C.E pubs, there are 30 exclusives. Rdzogschen (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
If we don't have a separate section, can we at least return the word "Ebook" instead of a diamond to the ebooks so people can easily see which they are? And for Hardbound, instead of another type of asterisk perhaps put "HB" in superscript next to them to identify them? Also, what's your thoughts on The Klingon Hamlet? It's not an Original Series book in any way. Cnemore (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the diamond to indicate ebook releases. Must admit I have no idea why its that important to differentiate them from others? A separate list makes more sense if you want to group them together. I'll start a draft: Draft:List of Star Trek ebooks. Srinzen (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the draft. Rdzogschen (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Stargazer

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Apologies, but Stargazer is a flagship series, and was promoted as such by Pocket Books. None of the book covers have the Star Trek: The Next Generation logo. So, let's not make arbitrary choices about where to put books based on "feelings". Also, use this page to make comments instead of the WP:ES. Thanks Wanderer0 (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Be nice! Rdzogschen (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. By the way, there is nothing arbitrary about my comment. The title page of each book says: "Based on Star Trek the Next Generation created by Gene Roddenberry." I wasn't suggesting they be put in the Original Novels section of TNG; only that this series be listed with the other TNG series. I similarly suggest that if Excelsior is listed as a separate series, that it be listed as a TOS series.Cnemore (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Stargazer is its own series, independent of The Next Generation. Excelsior: Forged in Fire was intended to be the start of a new flagship, independent of The Original Series, but sold very few copies. Similar to the disappointment of Challenger: Chainmail. Former bookseller here, and these books were never, ever, solicited as anything other than where they are placed currently. Frankly, the either-or arguments and because the title page says claims are a little mystifying.
User:Rdzogschen! you're the librarian. How did the publishing mags market these titles? Wanderer0 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Book seller here too! Forged in Fire was "something something, inspired by the film Undiscovered Country." We bought five copies and sold none. Stargazer had a lot of hype as a "brand new series!" The books sold poorly. Even with the marketing tying the series to Next Gen. We never ordered any past book three. No one asked for them. My two cents. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:55 (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Buh! Former librarian… I don't recall Gateways' promos, just the concluding anthology was hardback…pffft! My branch didn't request it, since zero patrons had checked out the other novels in the series, including Chainmail.
Forged in Fire was listed as a new Star Trek novel, no specific series credit that I recall. Simon & Schuster lists the book as part of the original series book line. Title in ProQuest is Excelsior: Forged in Fire. LoC's record is the same, but also has Portion of title: Forged in fire and Variant title: Star Trek Excelsior : forged in fire. Notice the capitalization.
Stargazer was supposed to be a brand new "flagship series" (I remember that!) about Picard's early years. No one checked them out more than once a year. * shrugs * Rdzogschen (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, interesting. Checked a distributor database: Stargazer novels entries list them as "Series: Star Trek Stargazer" and no related novels. So no marketing links to Next Gen. Forged in Fire entry lists "Series: Star Trek Excelsior". My guess is they were pushed as new series.
LibraryThing's entry lists series as Star Trek: Excelsior. And the entry for Stargazer: here. Wanderer0 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Yah. It's a pickle. I am with User:Cnemore. Forged in Fire should be listed with other TOS books. But then again it is its own series at least the bibliography shows that. Maybe add some amplifying info why its all alone? Same for Stargazer series eh? 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:55 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Signature Edition series

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Are the Signature Editions something we want to expand on? Imzadi Forever makes sense. As does Pantheon, and the McIntyre omnibus. Rdzogschen (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

They should be included. Wanderer0 (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the work. These changes should be reflected on List of Star Trek: The Next Generation novels, too. Rdzogschen (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Changes reflected. We should consider splitting the article now that the spin-offs have their own lists. Wanderer0 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Date correction

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The Enterprise list had the first original novel, By the Book, being published in January 2001, which is impossible as the series didn't debut until September; I checked and it was an obvious typo for 2002 and I made the correction accordingly. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice spot! Thanks Rdzogschen (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I added to the footnote that Amazon also lists Jan. 2 and the book itself has a 2002 copyright date. Glad to help! 50.66.121.20 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Amazon subscribes to data from Books-in-Print. So the dates shown on both platforms are usually the same. Rdzogschen (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Star_Trek_novels/Archive_1&oldid=1079019551"