Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Star Trek (IDW ongoing)

38,241pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Issues Edit

One thing that might need to be figured out is - if the series has no issue titles (as seems to be the norm for IDW releases now), what title should they be given? The Official Movie Adaptation already covers "Star Trek, Issue 1", etc. (unless we move those somewhere else). -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:59, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

If there are no titles, I'd suggest simply "Star Trek Ongoing, Issue 1", etc. Best to "wait and see" though, as most of their ongoing titles do have individual issue titles (GI Joe, Transformers, Doctor Who, etc). -- sulfur 15:08, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
A bit late to this party, but do we need to included "Ongoing" in the titles? Isn't that both implicit and eventually going to be out of date? Wouldn't "Star Trek, Issue 1 (IDW)" be better, though it seems the issues are/could be named after the episodes they are re-imagining. - Archduk3 13:54, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
There's no win in "Star Trek, Issue 1 (IDW)" as opposed to having "Ongoing" in the title. And the movie adaptation was also by IDW and also called "Star Trek, Issue 1". Are we going to rename those to "Star Trek, Issue 1 (IDW movie adaptation)"? Ongoing is just fine for this series. -- 13:56, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
Since "The Official Motion Picture Adaptation" was on those covers, using something like what you suggested for the other series actually sounds like a good idea to me. "Star Trek (comic)" is also unused, a la Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (comic). - Archduk3 14:37, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
The intent is to make things simple to find. Having insanely longer titles doesn't do that. At all. The current titles are simple and accurate. -- sulfur 15:01, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that the tile won't always be accurate, and replacing the word "ongoing" with (comic) in one title or with (film) in another is hardly creating "insanely longer titles" since both of those are less characters, not more. Also, I was under the impression that "ongoing" was only used because we using a "wait and see" approach. If the episode title continues to be used like it is in issue 3, are we not going to start using them in the page tile because that would be "insanely longer" than what we use now? - Archduk3 21:41, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Archduk in that changing the title of the adaptation makes sense; I would suggest to "comic", though I think "IDW movie adaptation" would work too, as it was actually on the cover. It's length is not relevant if it was actually used on the work.--31dot 21:57, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
The movie adaptation was titled "Star Trek". It had "The movie adaptation" on the cover, but the copyright title was just "Star Trek". For issue 3 (and likely 4) of the ongoing series, the cover has an issue title on it, so it's likely that they should be renamed to that. -- sulfur 00:08, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Redux Edit

I'm still not convinced that "ongoing" is the best disambiguation we could be using here. Using "(IDW series)" and "(IDW miniseries)" for Star Trek: Ongoing, Issue 1 and Star Trek, Issue 1 respectively is more instantly identifiable to me, especially since the miniseries shouldn't have the natural title since both are "Star Trek, Issue 1" and I think it's fair to say that the series issue is more predominant now. Changing those to disambiguation pages would be my suggestion. There is no conflict with the series pages either since the miniseries already uses Star Trek: The Official Motion Picture Adaptation as its title. There are only six issues of the miniseries, and only four issues here are "unnamed", so we're only talking about 10 issues in total that would have to be moved.

Either way, regardless of how my suggestions fair, I don't think we should be capitalizing the disambiguation like it's part of the actual title unless it actually is. - Archduk3 00:50, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

I dislike your second choice. I'd be more inclined to "(IDW movie adaptation)" or such. Miniseries doesn't seem appropriate to me. -- sulfur (talk) 01:19, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
I'm also going to post this link (to IDW's catalogue) here without further comment: http://www.idwpublishing.com/product/star-trek-ongoing-35/ -- sulfur (talk) 01:20, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Any of the disambiguations suggested for the miniseries are fine with me.

After checking the catalog, I'm not seeing ongoing on anything after #24 except for the one you linked to, though it is retained in the web address until the issue right after the one you linked to, and based on your comments above, what the copyright title is would be most telling. It would also seem that we should add the missing colon after Trek if we keep these with ongoing in the title, and move this page to Star Trek: Ongoing. There's also this, which is another option. Consistency of the page names is the goal I'm going for here, and if we don't need a disambiguation for that, even better. - Archduk3 01:57, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

The series "adopted" the "Five Year Mission" tag around issue 40 or so, as this is now (apparently) the lead-in to Star Trek XIII, which is to take place during the "five year mission". I can check some of the copyright titles later today, to see what they say. I just don't have them handy at the moment. -- sulfur (talk) 10:18, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
Issue 1: "Star Trk #1. September 2011. First Printing."
Issue 36: "Star Trek #36. August 2014. First Printing."
Issue 42: "Star Trek #42. February 2015. First Printing."
So, their copyright terms it as just "Star Trek" (with the exception of the typo in issue 1), but their advertising material (etc) all terms it as "Star Trek: Ongoing", other than the "After Darkness", "Khitomer Conflict", "Q Gambit", and now "Five-Year Mission" segments. With it only affecting a small handful of the "ongoing" issues, I prefer to leave the movie adaptation as is, and perhaps reconsider changing the names on issues 1, 2, 14, and 24 of the ongoing series. -- sulfur (talk) 13:00, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Memory Beta seems to be using simply "Star Trek (IDW)" as a disambiguation... not that we have to coordinate with them, but it's nice and clean if and when we can. Amazon (and some other retailers) are still using the "Ongoing" tag in their titles, again fwiw. -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:54, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

I demand that we use Star Trk! ;p

Seriously though, I think using Star Trek: Ongoing for the page names might be the best option, at least for now, so long as we explain our rational here while listing the other "known by" names.

Regarding the miniseries pages, they, at the very least, need disambiguations on the page, if not in the title, though I would still prefer the latter.

Memory Beta is weird, and smells funny. ;p I don't think, anymore, that we should follow suit in this case. - Archduk3 21:55, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

MadEdit

The Return of the Archons, Part 2 and The Truth about Tribbles, Part 1 have been released. Why isn't anyone doing anything about it?

--71.164.209.66 18:11, July 28, 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

Fake release datesEdit

Someone has put fake release dates on this page.

Anonymous--173.57.37.111 15:41, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Those are the release dates according to TFAW. If they are fake, please state (with links) explaining why. Stop making false accusations. -- sulfur (talk) 16:02, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

TFAW cannot be considered valid because usually it is wrong.Anonymous--173.57.37.111 23:31, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Saying "usually it is wrong" is not sufficient. Why are they wrong in this specific instance? 31dot (talk) 23:56, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
The November date, I can confirm personally. That's the expected ship date. December, uncertain as yet. -- sulfur (talk) 01:44, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Issue 17Edit

I found no evidence of Issue 17.

Anonymous--173.57.37.111 19:16, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

Then you haven't bothered looking at IDW solicitations for January, have you? It's a McCoy story. -- sulfur (talk) 19:18, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

What is the URL? Anonymous--173.57.37.111 00:31, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

First URL on google: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=41795
Seriously. Effort. -- sulfur (talk) 03:24, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki