Category talk:Reference books

this is a list category, remove instances of "The," "A," and unnecessary instances of "Star Trek:" from the sort key. (ie or  )-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:19, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

Category:Reference works

 * Category:Reference books
 * Category:Novels
 * Category:Games
 * Category:Comics

To be contained in the "meta-trek" supercategory -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:07, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)

One question, one request
First, I never bought any star-trek-reference-book...because I'm afraid the discontinuity of the series (primarily warp-scales) isn't corrected but continued (ok, in that case it would be a sort of continuity ;))

And thats my Question: (dis)continuity???

Now my Request: would it be a good idea to add a reference_books/continuity_proofed - category reference books?

--Taragond 06:24, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not really sure what your question/request is, but each reference book should be consistent for it's subject. Since I don't own any myself, I can't check, but the warp scale issues seem to be mostly on screen, due to the writers being more concerned with telling a good story than keeping to the formulas in the books, so in that regard the books themselves should be very consistent. There was a change between TOS and TNG though. - 07:12, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that seems right. But can I assume, in any reference-book regarding the "new voyages" since tng, warp-scales (and other stuff of this kind) are identical? Just because the writers don't bother to disregard warp-scale-continuity, concentrating on a good story (absolutely understandable), it shouldn't be so difficult to correct such mistakes afterwards... So I thougt, there is no such thing as a binding definition or formula...why should anything in this books be worth the effort if I can't talk to someone whose conception is based on another (different) book regarding the technology and definitions of the same time? --Taragond 14:57, October 28, 2010 (UTC)