Talk:A Singular Destiny

Book editor Marco Palmieri said this about the catalog info...

"I won't presume to tell you what you can and can't post. I'll simply repeat what I've said in the past. While there's nothing I can do to restrict public access to this information, the catalog isn't written in a way that's intended for public consumption. It's meant for bookvendors. It's put together when many manuscripts are still unwritten, and when plots and character arcs may still be in flux. The catalog is not a reliable source of editorial information. It therefore does a disservice to the editors, the authors, and the readers to draw attention to it.

Reliable information will be released from the editorial offices in due time."

...in | this thread at the Trek BBS.

Furthermore, Keith R. A. DeCandido said that the catalog description of A Singular Destiny wasn't 100% accurate.

And as Kirsten Beyer has confirmed that the description of Full Circle is even more inaccurate (and to his credit JDB didn't include that info), perhaps all of the entries with catalog info (Open Secrets, Over a Torrent Sea and A Singular Destiny) should include some kind of disclaimer.--Turtletrekker 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Dude, I didn't mean to delete the info altogether, just that there should be some mention that it isn't 100% set in stone.--Turtletrekker 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd actually consider deleting the info as a good course of action. This is one of those "slippery slopes" -- how much info from unreleased books should we actually have on this site? -- especially six months ahead of time, when the authors are writing notes that say that the synopses aren't representative of their work! -- Captain MKB 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough-- comment deleted with sincere apologies to William Leisner.--Turtletrekker 09:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the bungle and upset feelings aside, Mike has brought up a very good point about the information about future publications. I would very much suggest an upcoming publication page which would contain any information about an upcoming product. Once official covers and blurbs are released "from the horses mouth" so to speak, the information gets moved to its own page about a month before release. Having a basically blank page for an item that will be released in December 2009 or June 2010 seems a bit silly to me. --The Doctor 20:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is no kind of slippery slope. This isn't rumour and speculation, it's pre-release information directly from the publisher! If we have info from the editors and authors noting an inaccuracy we should note that in a disclaimed as tt originally suggested but it's a perfectly valid source of information at this stage and should remain on the pages.


 * And I completely disagree with the doctor's proposal. Firstly, lets not exaggerate, we have two titles announced for 2010, and neither are schedules yet, so there is nothing as far as ahead as June that year. Having the information on separate pages allows us to develop those pages with new information as and when it becomes available. Squashing it all onto one will just result in a messy system of constant re-organisation. --8of5 22:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do as you will. I have no intention in becoming involved either way.  --The Doctor 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Slow your roll
What does have against couch, negligee, and Magical Paint of Doom? All three are real references, so I'm putting them back. – AT2Howell 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say... write articles for 'em, then it makes it much harder to remove 'em. I can't, not having read the book yet.  :) -- sulfur 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found that the amount of articles I write directly effects the amount of trouble I get into. Most of my time is spent documenting the actual references.  I still keep notes, so some day I can write a lot more articles. – AT2Howell 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your "couch" article going to say? "Esperanza had a couch in her office, which Pran sat on."  Answer honestly: do you really consider that to be a valuable piece of information that serves this site's purpose as a resource for Star Trek related information?  Explain why a common item like this, used in an absolutely common and unremarkable way, deserves inclusion here. -75.168.149.190 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are currently 8 links to couch just waiting for someone to write an article. "Esperanza had a couch in her office, which Pran sat on." sounds good.  Why don't you get on that? – AT2Howell 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me?? Why don't *I* get on that?  Are you under the impression that I'm your servant?  Here's an idea: why don't YOU do it (heck, it's already written for you!), instead of creating work for others that you're unwilling to do yourself? – 75.168.134.42 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey dude, you're the one that's jumping the couch. Feel free to add articles where none exist.  You just shouldn't complain if you're not willing to do something about it. – AT2Howell 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I went ahead and made the couch article, figured someone may as well Jb2005 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You just show up all helpful, eh?  That could work. – AT2Howell 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AT2Howell: You are the one who complained when I deleted your irrelevant red links. In the month since then, not only have you have not written articles for these items you restored... and not only have you completely abandoned any pretense of adding information from ASD to the wiki... but you have not created a single new article other than talk pages.  Measure that against what you will find when you look up my contribution history, and then tell me again "you just shouldn't complain if you're not willing to do something about it."
 * PS to Jb2005: Thanks for doing what AT2 just couldn't be bothered with. --75.168.162.245 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mythological figures
Being that "Christ" is a title, do I file Jesus under J in the referenced section? – AT2Howell 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're trying to avoid theological debates and be neutral in our description of him, I'd suggest that the article should be "Jesus of Nazareth" with "Jesus Christ" as a redirect, and that the article should begin with, " Jesus of Nazareth, also referred to as Jesus Christ, was a...." Given that, I would suggest that "Jesus of Nazareth" should be filed under J, yes. -- Sci 18:28 28 FEB 2009 UTC

However, has "Jesus of Nazareth" ever been referred to by any of the sources? I suggest you continue this, where AT2 previously began, on the Talk:Jesus Christ page though... --8of5 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)