Talk:Star Trek: Titan

Todo

Why do we need a section on minor characters? Clearly an article about the series should tell the reader who Riker and his senior crew are, but why bother with [Hostile Alien #2] and the like? - Hayter 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hahahah, I don't think we need to list Hostile Alien #2, however I was thinking more like a line for each character like: Dr. Xin Ra-Havreii, Lieutenant Commander Ranul Keru, etc... I don't think each of these should have a full paragraph like the main characters, but should maybe have a mention. Chuck 05:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It'd be good to mention characters if they come up in the general narrative (Xin should clearly be mentioned when discussing the Luna class) but I don't feel a clearly defined sub-section is warranted for cameo players. - Hayter 05:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

USS Titan (Star Trek) Merge into Star Trek Titan Section

USS Titan Article says much of the same thing rather than request a delete of the USS Titan Article lets merge it into it. Aeon 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Merge The Article Luna Class starship should be merged with Star Trek Titan since it has only appeared as a class in the novels. The Titan has been mentioned in Star Trek Nemesis however no class name has been included with it. The Image and Details of ONLY the known ships that have appeared in the novels should be included along with known details about the ship class. So in other words The Luna and the Titan should be included. It should also be noted that this ship is not concidered canon my Paramount and can be contradicted at anytime by Paramount. Aeon 06:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as per Aeon Chuck 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this merge thing has been up there forever. Is it alright to finally merge these articles? Chuck 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, Merge. I thought it had already been done ages ago but I was thinking of something else. Given the nature of this article, I'd suggest "USS Titan" become a main section, with Luna-class as a subsection. Compare it to if you were doing a single page on TNG, you'd have a main section about the Enterprise but not the Galaxy-class. In fact, I'll start doing it now. - Hayter 09:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Although I've edited it, there might still be some repetition and duplicate information so a second pair of eyes would be good to have go over it. - Hayter 09:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through and revamping the whole thing now, so if everyone would hold off on editing until I'm done...probably around 15:45 UTC. Thanks, Chuck 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the duplicate stuff should be gone and the page a little cleaner. Hope it looks good, Chuck 15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool looks great Chuck Aeon 13:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor edits. One was a simple note saying Nemesis says nothing about the Titan's class, the other was a switch of

Riker was transferred from the Enterprise-E on stardate 56844.9 (or 2379).

to

Riker was transferred from the Enterprise-E circa stardate 56844.9 (2379).

Because I don't believe a stardate was given on the day he left the Enterprise. Even if there was however, the continual deviance in the usage of Stardates is thought to imply by some that they are a more accurate time format than DD/MM/YYYY, meaning they change throughout one day. Even if this is inaccurate, the lack of a clear and official guide to them means that if any stardate is mentioned at any stage in the film, we can only say Riker left thereabouts, or of course, circa. - Hayter 12:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See USS Titan (NCC-80102). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That should be speedied. The same article has already been merged into this one. Chuck^(contrib) 03:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Canonosity

Ok first, the reason I had taken the circa out of the article before was because it sounds kinda funny in that context, maybe a better word would be appropriate. About the part that was added, concerning the movie Nemesis not mentioning that it was Luna class, I do not believe that that fits into this article. This article is about the Star Trek: Titan books in particular, and has a sub-section that is labelesd USS Titan. Thus the information in that section is about the USS Titan in the context of the Star Trek: Titan novels. Also, the movie does not mention it's crew compliment, ship size or other important features, but we can't make non-canonical notes about all these. I believe that the last sentence in the intro paragraph is sufficient to cover the whole article. Chuck 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But the Titan has been mentioned in a canon source. The point of the added notation was not to point out that 90% of everything we know about it is non-canon, but clarify that the name/existance of the vessel and Riker's TOD aboard is canon. Because of the canonical nature of these facts, special note is warranted. If everything we knew about the Titan was non-canon then I'd agree in that one line would cover the whole article, but that's not the case.

Regarding usage of circa, I don't understand what you mean in that the context was strange. It's regularly used in Star Trek articles about the Web when a stardate is mentioned but is not exact to the time of the detailed event. For instance, if Picard were to start off an episode with a log entry of 4533.1, and then a day or more passes without another mentioned Stardate, any events detailed on later dates would likely be mentioned as occurring "circa Stardate 4533.1." - Hayter 18:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I will wait to change your edit until you respond here, but I'm not sure if you noticed the last sentnce of the USS Titan section, where it says, "Because the Luna design has not been featured on-screen, it is not canon, however, the Titan's mention in Star Trek: Nemesis means that the existance of the ship is." I believe this is what you were talking about when you said, "...but clarify that the name/existance of the vessel and Riker's TOD aboard is canon." I look forward to your response. Chuck 19:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

edit: I didn't see that you had placed the edit in a different place. Looks ok there, disregard the post above. Chuck 22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the "citation needed" because I did find where that was said, and I'm not certain if it should be cited. It's said on the back cover of book one. I'll leave it up to someone else if there should be a cite in the intro, because I'm not sure. Chuck 20:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I created the infobox not too long ago, but am now realizing that Titan is gonna start getting more and more books. The infobox doesn't look too crowded with just the three books in it, but when do we get rid of it? Will we continue to add plot summaries of every Titan book that is published (I think that that would still be pretty cool)? Maybe if more were written about each book, a small one book infobox could be added to each subsection. Just looking for any ideas...thanks, Chuck 11:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a predetermined number of books to be released - I seem to remember reading "6," "7" or "9" somewhere. I don't see a need to show cover images for all of them and unless the article gets markedly bigger, they could simply serve to overwhelm the basic page content. I don't have a problem with the infobox as it appears at the moment, but if say, one day there are six books out there, I feel it would be better to simply use an image of either the first, or latest book at the top of the page, with thumbnails later on if warranted. I do think the novel cover (#4 or #5) which first displays the Titan herself should be shown as a point of notability, but there's not need to show them all I don't think.

As for infoboxes for each summary, I think these too would overwhelm the base content, especially for those readers using a smaller screen resolution. It comes down to what is needed in the article; ISBNs are fairly useful if someone wants to buy a book, but they're not nearly as important as the story arc of a particular tale, or the way it was received by critics. - Hayter 05:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, having infoboxes for each one would be a bad idea. You're right about the cover that has the Titan pictured for the first time..other than that, I don't see a need for any other book covers, and the infobox should probably stay the way it is, with (maybe) only the additions of future books ISBN's and page #'s (that would be good if there's 6 or 7..might be too much for 9). And just curious, can you remember where you saw that there are a predetermined number of books. I think that that's too bad, as this could have been a neat runaway book series. Chuck 09:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I had a look but can't find it. I think it was on a page about one of the already published books, where it was referred to as "#1 of 6" or something. If the series proves popular however, it could well be extended; The X-Wing series of novels was only supposed to be about 4 books long, and they made at least nine of those. - Hayter 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Characters

I notice the character paragraphs contain information about the person before they came abour titan. Would it not be more appropriate to have the paragraph about their role on Titan, since the link to their page would tell them the other info. This would help with the problem of a limited paragraph on Vale too. Just an idea, what do you think? Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've got more Titan-specific details then fine. Certainly with Vale it's a necessity. The details I added were because they were what I knew offhand - it would be better to have the majority of the text focus on the Titan details. - Hayter 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

U.S.S. Io

Is this a real ship. It keeps getting readded, and I've never read AOF, so I can't verify it. Chuck^(contrib) 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this, the author of AOF included the mention as a nod to the Titan series. The trouble is, there is no accepted establishement of canon across novels. X contradicts Y contradicts Z. That's why they're not considered canon in the first place.

Put it this way. The Titan series can reasonably be expected not to contradict itself, and as such you thus have an established canon for it. But new Titan books, while expected to conform to what's been said in earlier Titan series, are not expected to conform to other books outside of the series. So say, for example that AOF establishes Io as the third Titan ship, and then the newest Titan novel says the third Titan-class is called Ganymede. Such a contradiction could easily happen, because whomever writes the Titan book has no obligation to even read AOF. Going beyond the restrictions of others is kind of the point of Trek novels.

The Io can be included in the article, but it would need to be with an explanation and it's debatable as to whether that explanation would negate the point of including it at all. For simplicity's sake, I'd say no but I'm not overly bothered about it. - Hayter 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sword of Damocles info

I was going to argue that the TrekBBS link is not a bad source, as the forum is verifiably visited by several Trek fiction authors and editors, one of whom posted the information, but it's just been "confirmed" by Psi Phi, which is apparently good enough, so I'll just point the link there. Brendan Moody 03:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The new link is good, although the URL might change as newer books get listed. The other link probably doesn't meet the criteria for sources, but that doens't matter now. The onlt other things is I changed the reference style to make it an inline cite listed at the bottom. Chuck^(contrib) 22:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I usually keep a close eye on Psi Phi, so when the individual page for the book is updated I'll fix the reference to point there. Brendan Moody 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Titan Series.jpg

Image:Titan Series.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sword of Damocles Update

July 2007 is pretty far in the past now (the planned release date of Sword of Damocles). Does anyone know of its fate? It would be good to update that section in the article with more recent developments. Hint: Amazon has a page about it http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Damocles-Star-Trek-Titan/dp/1416526943. -- OranL (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries

The plot summaries for the second and third novels are taken verbatum from the back of the book; this is not allowed. Lots42 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Two more books not shown here

Sight Unseen (ISBN 9781476783161) was released in September 2015 & Fortune of War (ISBN 9781501152009) is scheduled for November 2017. They should be add. 198.147.202.122 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)