The Star Trek Encyclopedia getting first update since 1999!

[Vanyel]

Anyone else find it hard to get the books out of the box? I'm going to find a ribbon or shoelace so I can pull the books out easier.

There are things I like, the scope of topics it touches, and things I don't, the small amount of space given to describing a starship class.

I haven't gotten through both books, but so far, I'm not really impressed. Memory Alpha seems to give more information.

 

[Avro Arrow]

9. There's an S.S. Kogin, NAR-24016, and S.S. Manoa, NAR-28474, that I've never heard of.

11. There's an S.S. Wisconsin, NAR-50732.

IIRC, those were from redone Okudagrams from one of the remastered episodes. *Checks Memory Alpha* OK, it was "Inheritance". If I'm remembering the discussion from the time, these names were changed from the ones that appeared on screen in the original version (although were of course were also easier to read).

There was no attempt like in the past to come up with conjectural names, registries, and classes for any new ships since the last Encyclopedia came out, which was annoying.

That's disappointing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The registry is mentioned in the entry for the ship and shown on the CGI model.

The Kelvin Enterprise in the Encyclopedia previews looks to me like Tobias Richter's model, if so that probably means the others are from the Star Trek Rivals game he did the CG for and may not 100% reflect the original CG models. My speculation, though and I could be incorrect.

"All Glory Comes From Daring to Begin." The commissioning date is indeed 2225.5, which in NuUniverse dates, means the ship was commissioned in 2225. The registry on the plaque is still wrong.

Not the most auspicious beginning. Although I wonder if the number is incorrect in the Encyclopedia or perhaps reflecting an error in the movie itself (like the Riverside-built Enterprise being from the San Francisco yards on her plaque)?

I am also wondering if the Kelvin's plaque is perhaps an invention of the Encyclopedia.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

In one of the specials for the 2009 film, there is a featurette set on the Kelvin bridge. A dedication plaque can be seen in the turbolift alcove. Unfortunately, it is seen at a distance.

I am not seeing a lot of new additions based on information from the Encyclopedia at Memory Alpha, so I am presuming this work had little to add to Memory Alpha.

The more I learned about this work, the more I feel that it was a cash-grab.

I will admit I was biased against this work. When I learned that the authors were not consulting Memory Alpha, as they wanted to make their own mistakes and not repeat other people's mistakes, I experienced a red flag moment. Yes, I understand they wanted to make their product distinctive; yet, Memory Alpha has become a repository of knowledge for people learning about and writing books about and in the Star Trek universe.

(I do not see an error in the Enterprise being built at Riverside and being said on the ship's plaque as coming from San Francisco. It can be factually true if the ship was built at one site and commissioned at another.)

 

[DonIago]

Personally, speaking as someone who's done a large number of edits to Wikipedia over time, I'm glad they didn't take information from a source that "anyone can edit".

 

[Lakenheath 72]

It is still a resource. Like any resource, it has good and bad points.

I am not happy that they have not fixed earlier mistakes, like wrong registries and classes.

 

[Idran]

Personally, speaking as someone who's done a large number of edits to Wikipedia over time, I'm glad they didn't take information from a source that "anyone can edit".

Can't speak for MA, but for Wikipedia, they've actually had experts count up the number of significant errors in major Wikipedia pages vs. the same article in traditional encyclopedias, and found them to be about the same.

Beyond that, though, if you're making an encyclopedia, you never source your information from another encyclopedia. You don't use one tertiary source as a citation in creating another tertiary source, you use the primary or secondary sources directly. It's bad practice to do otherwise; it's the same reason you don't cite encyclopedias or dictionaries when doing academic writing. If you're writing an encyclopedia, a paper, a reference work, anything at all that people would later consult for information, and you've got the original sources yourself, use the original sources, don't use someone else talking about them.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

But I suppose it could serve as a starting point; that is, if MA has a note about something, you follow the citation to an original source.

 

[Idran]

Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine. If the Okudas didn't even allow themselves to do that when they weren't sure about where something came from, that's a little silly.

 

[Spike730]

I just opened my parcel from Amazon. I was really excited about this but after skimming through the pages and realizing that they didn't fix a single mistake from the 3rd edition, I'm going to return it right away. Can spend my money better elsewhere.

 

[ryan123450]

Sad that this isn't an amazing effort that would hopefully warrant a new Chronology. I'm not expecting one at this point.

 

[JD]

Because, as I said, it would have required rewriting a substantial number of other entries.

But wouldn't the other new stuff already require that?

 

[Idran]

Oh, yeah, that does seem like an odd argument. Is it really going to be significantly more effort to revise 11 hours' worth of existing entries than write 11 hours' worth of new entries? The amount of content is the same either way, and it isn't like there's a throughline you'd need to worry about keeping the integrity of with an encyclopedic entry; you could essentially just drop in new text with barely any changes to the existing text.

Especially when we're talking about TAS; I can't imagine there'd be nearly as much to add or change in the Encyclopedia from an hour's worth of TAS as from an hour's worth of Enterprise or the new films, so it's not even really fair to compare it hour-by-hour. It's better than it's given credit for, sure, but it's still not exactly dense with information or world-building.

 

[Christopher]

Especially when we're talking about TAS; I can't imagine there'd be nearly as much to add or change in the Encyclopedia from an hour's worth of TAS as from an hour's worth of Enterprise or the new films, so it's not even really fair to compare it hour-by-hour. It's better than it's given credit for, sure, but it's still not exactly dense with information or world-building.

Isn't it? It gave us Kirk's middle name and Amanda's last name. It contains the only onscreen mention of McCoy's daughter. It gave us the name of Kor's starship and introduced us to members of his crew, including the second speaking Klingon female character in Trek history. It established ShiKahr, Vulcan's Forge, the kahs-wan, and the le-matya, and it gave us our first look at Spock's home and his city (and the design of Spock's home inspired the design of T'Pol's family home in ENT, with its walled courtyard connecting to the street and containing a fountain and sculptures). It showed us undisguised Orion males for the first time (though ENT did not follow that precedent) as well as the first sane and articulate Orion female. It gave us Caitians, Edoans, Vendorians, Phylosians, Megans, Aquans, Lactrans, Pandronians, Draymians, and others, and introduced creatures ranging from glommers to sur-snakes to Capellan power-cats. It gave us Carter Winston, Stavos Keniclius, and Robert and Sarah April. It let us see behind the curtain of the "Shore Leave" planet and how it works, the very essence of worldbuilding. It showed us more of the innards of the ship's engineering complex than TOS ever could. It added Starfleet technologies like force-field belts, the bridge intruder-control system, the aquashuttle and scouter gig, xenylon uniforms, and the first holographic rec room, as well as a few new ship classes.

TAS had plenty of worldbuilding and added significantly to TOS's image of Starfleet, the Federation, and the galaxy. And some of what it established has become part of basic Trek lore. Which makes it all the more nonsensical to exclude it from what's supposed to be a comprehensive reference.

 

[JD]

Wow, I forgot just how much TAS actually did introduce into the Trek universe.

 

[ryan123450]

Itmakes it that much worse that its relegated to second class by most people.

 

[Idran]

Wow, I forgot just how much TAS actually did introduce into the Trek universe.

Haha, as did I. It's been too long since I watched it, I guess.

 

[elric428]

In my opinion the only things the encyclopedia should contain are the things mentioned and shown in the series on TV (including TAS) and the movies. I would not include anything mentioned in Star Trek literature or computer games etc. Also I would not include added info from the remastered shows as I do not consider them to be canon.

 

[elric428]

You can hear a podcast of the Okudas talking about the making of the encyclopedia here: http://www1.play.it/audio/engage-th...-okuda-authors-of-the-star-trek-encyclopedia/

 

[Lakenheath 72]

As a starship nerd, I am disappointed with the lack of new information.

Denise and Michael Okuda worked on the Encyclopedia for two years. Honestly, I expected better results.