Stories Edit

Should we include a list of the individual shortstories somewhere/somehow? Or, for that matter, give them their own pages? Also, although it wouldn't fit into the table, I have another issue cover I was wondering where could be put. (March '53) Such 'original stories' as "The Cage" by E.W. Roddenberry, author of "Questor." The Corbomite Maneuver, Journey to Babel, Metamorphosis and Where No Man Has Gone Before! - AJ Halliwell 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you just list the cover image with the ones already posted here? Additionally, perhaps we could create individual pages for (a la Star Trek: Communicator, in-universe style, using date vs. issue #):
  • Incredible Tales of Scientific Wonder (December 1952)
  • Incredible Tales of Scientific Wonder (January 1953)
  • Incredible Tales of Scientific Wonder (March 1953)
  • Incredible Tales of Scientific Wonder (August 1953)
  • Incredible Tales of Scientific Wonder (September 1953)
Then list each novella with its associated issue, with unspecified novellas/sketches on the main page. --Alan del Beccio 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of not having each story on a separate page, anyway; that's just inconvenient. -- 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the right way to go is having individual entries for short stories, but not for magazine issues. The stories are individual works of literature which hold up on their own. works of fiction have always had their own entries, regardless of length. (Individual chapters of say Captain Proton don't have individual pages, but they are parts of a larger story). Making pages for individual issues on the other hand, would be like making individual pages for a certain day's edition of ever newspaper ever seen on screen(providing of course a date can be desciphered). Hence I would argue for having a section on each issue on the main page, and linking the individual stories from there. Since the main page now has a list of linked stories and a cover galery, both would simply have to be combined, which imo would make the info beter structured anyway and I thus hope to do regardless of what the outcome of this discussion is -- Capricorn 02:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of only jumping at suggesting categories for the list here Edit

Cover Title Author
Incredible Tales - Dec 52
December, 1952
"This Island Mars" Benny Russell
"Lucifer's Chainsaw" K.C. Hunter & Julius Eaton
"I Have No Voice So I Must Shout" Herbert Rossoff
"Federation and Empire" Albert Macklin
"From the Moon to the Earth" Hugh Campbell

I think a table listing issue, story title, and author would be the best organization for the story list. What do you think? I suppose we could do "Category: Incredible Tales stories" to keep them from being lost in "Category:Earth literature". --LauraCC (talk) 20:39, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is much more helpful than a category, and stop undercutting your original intent with all the backtracking. It just makes it seem like we shouldn't bother thinking about what you say because you don't really seem to either. - Archduk3 21:22, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

I do, it's just that everybody has an opinion and I want to leave room for everyone's view if possible. --LauraCC (talk) 21:24, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest you stop doing that. You're not arguing for everyone's opinion, you're arguing for yours. Everyone's opinion is already more or less already known anyway, in that nothing has been done about this "issue," so it either isn't seen as an issue or it hasn't been a big enough problem for someone to fix it yet. The only other option is that no one has seen it, which is impossible, because the page didn't write itself. Don't advocate for other points of view when you're trying to change things, make it clear what the issue is and why your solution is best. That said, by all means, be able to argue the other side, because if you can't do that, you don't actually know why something was done, or if your solution is even worth doing. - Archduk3 21:41, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was partway unsure, but now I like what I suggested above better than a category. :) If we were to further categorize it, "short stories" comes to mind, but that's not necessary either. --LauraCC (talk) 21:43, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Further, the table eliminates the need for the separate cover gallery below as well. :) --LauraCC (talk) 21:45, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Do you mind if I use your sample to create the rest of the table? Or do you want to do it? --LauraCC (talk) 16:35, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

I made that for you to expand upon it. - Archduk3 17:24, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Just asking. :) Thanks. --LauraCC (talk) 17:29, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Incredible Tales - unknown 1

I can't read the order that the April stories are listed in. Is there a clearer image somewhere of the issue cover? I messed it up a little - what did I do wrong? --LauraCC (talk) 17:54, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Before we jump feet first into this, perhaps it might be worth researching their actual appearances on screen. These covers (read: image caps) are taken from background information (DVD extras) yet presented as if these were taken from the actual episode, when they may not have been present or even visible. That's a lot of articles created from blurry background images. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 21:55, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Wow, never thought of that. I found another one that I couldn't tell which month it was supposed to be... --LauraCC (talk) 21:58, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

It's been called into question if all six covers that we got from the dvd extras were actually seen on screen. They are, and sometimes multiple times. The March one is in color instead of black and white and the August one is a lot darker red then it seems in our pic, and I'm not aware of any shot were the titles are casually readable, but all six were seen in the episode. I'm also aware of at least one more cover that isn't documented here as of yet, a green one with a tank-like thing that could be seen pretty prominently in some shots. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:11, January 12, 2017 (UTC)
For reference. - Archduk3 23:39, January 12, 2017 (UTC)
Also, there are at least three "missing" covers. - Archduk3 00:12, January 13, 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to mention this (wish I'd done so before Archduk3 checked the episode), I'm not sure that the March issue was seen in such a way that all titles were visible. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:45, January 13, 2017 (UTC)
All story titles were at least briefly visible on all covers. The tank cover is the only one where not all of it was on screen as far as I could tell, and that's only the main title and date part that were omitted. I may have missed a small version of that one though, since it would be the only cover not used more than once. - Archduk3 04:47, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

Whatever sections of the table are not visible could be put in the background info. Alternately, each issue's listing of titles could go on the image page, as I've seen done for some images. --LauraCC (talk) 15:23, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

"Honeymoon" story Edit

I checked st minutiae's script for "Far Beyond the Stars" and can't find the spelling; the title of the drawing is not even mentioned in the script. Is it "Andoras" or "Andoris"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:28, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

Check the subtitles when all else fails. - Archduk3 20:09, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

(Story) links Edit

In cases where a short story from this magazine shares a title with a Star Trek episode, shouldn't the link with just the title belong to the episode, too, and all stories like this have the word "(story)" following it?

Example: Journey to Babel should be a redirect to Journey to Babel (episode), and "Journey to Babel (story)" should be the story's page title?

It just seems to me that most people searching the title up would be looking for the TOS episode, not the obscure title of a short story on a piece of production art. Is my concern valid? --LauraCC (talk) 17:57, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

No. In-universe articles have priority over real world articles. The only real exception to that is real production staff vs. in-jokes, mainly because there are so many versions of the joke per person. - Archduk3 18:39, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

Because it's fairly obvious to anyone (but me) looking it up that if someone felt the need to classify it as a story, it's probably not the same thing as the episode. --LauraCC (talk) 20:12, January 18, 2017 (UTC)