Removed Edit

Removed the Tommyknockers section; presumably that's a homage to Forbidden Planet instead (since Tommyknockers actually predates the ST references). -- Capricorn (talk) 03:54, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

In the novel The Tommyknockers a young boy is lost after being teleported by an alien device to Altair IV .

Help with this? (From merged "Webcomic") Edit

Is this an appropriate way to list these? --LauraCC (talk) 17:07, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't generally cover stuff that that is neither canon nor licensed so this page will probably have to be merged at best - but depending on the intended direction info like this might perhaps find a place either as a new section under fan fiction or maybe at Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (literature). -- Capricorn (talk) 19:40, April 18, 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that this be merged into Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (literature). In fact, I think one or two of these are already in there. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:48, April 18, 2015 (UTC)
I've put up the merge template. Does the original creator have any more input on this? What exactly her plans are for further development in this page might be interesting to know in light of a future merge. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:54, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's literature - doesn't that refer to novels, non-fiction books etc, as opposed to something that begins online and doesn't always get printed?--LauraCC (talk) 17:07, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

It's a case of logic creep basically; comics were put there for lack of a better place, and once comics were there it was only logical that web comics would also be there. I've been thinking of proposing a split for a while now tbh, the number of mentioned comics is large enough these days that it might make sense. Meh, I suppose today is as good a day to bring that up as any day. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:31, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
A comic is a piece of literature. It's a written thing. It's literature. -- sulfur (talk) 00:55, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, technically, but I still think the page might benefit from a split; it reads a bit awkward to have books and comics mixed together on that page. For one, every almost every section about comics nescesarily starts with a variant of the phrase "this is a comic". This is the wrong page to discuss that though, sorry. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:41, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with sulfur on this one. Comics, even internet based ones, are a piece of literature. Just because it isn't printed and bound in a book of the traditional sense doesn't mean it isn't a piece of written work that one would read. I still vote for this to be merged into the literature article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:08, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear; it's not at all about the literary merits of comics (which I'm aware has been a bit of a sore point for comics fans historically); just about how they're rather a different kind of medium then books and I figured it would be more intuitive to make the distinction, especially now that there's enough material for two pages (which wasn't always the case). -- Capricorn (talk) 09:29, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

[], for instance, categorizes the two media separately ("books" and "comics". --LauraCC (talk) 16:58, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

My only concern is that once we separate "comics" from literature, someone will come along and say we need to separate crime shows from the television article or we then need to give "books" it's own article. Where would it end? If it's under literature it's all contained as one list. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:29, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
Genre is subjective, media type... not at all -- Capricorn (talk) 21:42, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
Merged. Two webcomics are already part of this article, one from the list. Tom (talk) 16:41, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Split suggestion Edit

Apart from "traditional" literature, this page also included referenced in comics. Having those two categories on two different pages might be more logical, and with the number of comics references steadily increasing, I think by now there's enough info to have two nicely filled pages. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:38, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

I'd really only be inclined to support this right now if it was split like Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (television), which is to say neither version of the split page would use the current title. Otherwise, the page isn't all that long yet, as far as these pages go. - Archduk3 06:18, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
I would support a split into "Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (literature)" and "Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (comics)". The latter one would also feature the webcomic references. Tom (talk) 18:22, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest a different idea; keep comics with literature and put webcomics, webvideos, etc as "Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (Internet)". But only for notable ones, not every mention under the sun. --LauraCC (talk) 23:17, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
How about a split of the web content with "Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (web content)" and leave the comics here as there are not that much references? Tom (talk) 13:23, September 20, 2015 (UTC)
Didn't I just say that? (albeit under a different page name) --LauraCC (talk) 16:24, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
I've got to agree with the split suggestion. Novels are nearly always written literature while comics/graphic "novels" rely heavily on a pictorial element to the extent they don't even require written captions. Comics are primarily visual, novels require visualisation.
A compromise might be if the two mediums were kept on the same page but separated into different sections.-RayBell (talk) 08:35, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
In an effort to resolve this, since there is a consensus to split this, just not how, I suggest this:
This would mirror how television was split:
Splitting the page this way also avoids recreating "webcomics", which was moved here, under a different, if more inclusive title, which I'm opposed to. These are also the best terms I could come up with while remaining as broad as possible in scope without deeming "graphic literature" as somehow less than "literature." - Archduk3 00:19, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
Still not quite there. Having text-only books with a "non" in front of them doesn't sound quite right. Maybe "textual literature" and "graphic" or "illustrated literature". --LauraCC (talk) 18:49, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
One possiblity might be "written literature" vs "graphical literature". Or "novels" vs "comics" (I didn't see anything in a cursory first pass that didn't fall into either of those two). -- sulfur (talk) 19:02, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Most non-fiction references would likely be books about Star Trek anyway. --LauraCC (talk) 19:06, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
"Textual literature" was actually what I was leaning towards before settling on "non-graphical." It's exceedingly difficult to differentiate between primarily text based lit and graphical lit without making it sound weird or imply a different division, since "written" makes me think the counterpart will be "printed." I went with "non-graphical" because graphical lit is pretty much like fiction, there just isn't a good way to label what isn't fiction without saying "not fiction." That said, I'm not really opposed to the other options per se. - Archduk3 03:47, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

As for non-graphic literature, let's just keep it simple, stupid, and call it "prose". A short, natural sounding term that includes all types of text-only literature (and is wider then Sulfur's suggestion "novels" for example). For the second page, I guess my preference goes to keeping it simple again and just using "comics", both the other terms seem acceptable too. In any case, I think Archduk3's general idea for how to split is a good one. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:50, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Note: "prose" is the word I was looking for originally, but ended up using "novels" when I didn't see anything in the list that wasn't obviously a novel or comic (again, very cursory checking of the list). -- sulfur (talk) 14:00, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
Just goes to show what a little brainstorming can do...I was looking up the opposite of "illustrated" but couldn't find anything suitable. Sounds good to me. :) --LauraCC (talk) 14:48, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
I would perfer "pictoral" to "comics," since the former is more inclusive, not all non-moving images are comics, and it starts with a "p," like prose, which delights me in a way I find hard to describe. There's probably a more perfect word if we're going for a page with all primarily "picture" parodies and pop culture references, but please persist in allowing me this playful, if pedantic, piece of prose. ;) Archduk3 04:28, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's a word, is it? Seems you're thinking of either "pictural" or "pictorial". And yeah, there's indeed most likely more perfect terms, but I can stomach a bit of whimsy. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:16, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Book links Edit

Would it be appropriate to add the Goodreads link to a section on a book that you're referring to here as I have done with "A Thing Of Beauty"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:09, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

I would add that there are some books with the same title as's probably a good practice. --LauraCC (talk) 16:22, December 24, 2015 (UTC)