Publication was cancelled in 2005. See the story here. --From Andoria with Love 17:50, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Do we need the content column? Edit

I have been wondering, not only in this particular case but also in cases like Star Trek: The Magazine, do we really need the 3rd column "content" on this page, as it is clearly prepared for linking to the individual issues, where content can be further detailed, as I've noticed in adding a few of them.? I instead propose a more tersed version like this (for the first four issues):

For issues 1-99, see Star Trek: The Official Fan Club Magazine
Issue # Month Cover Issue # Month Cover
100 December 1994/January 1995 Communicator issue 100 cover 101 February/March 1995 Communicator issue 101 cover
102 May/June 1995 Communicator issue 102 cover 103 July/August 1995 Communicator issue 103 cover

This of course, only applies for publications whose run is entirely Star Trek, not the ones who occasionally put the spotlight on the franchise, like Cinefantastique and the like...Thoughts?--Sennim 18:21, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea - in each instance, the content column is designed to help the reader by providing information they would otherwise have to go through each individual issue page to find: it is intended as an at-a-glance guide for the reader to identify particular issues. Just because there are now individual issue pages doesn't mean this has less utility. -- Michael Warren | Talk 11:23, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Michael.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:39, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Conceded:)--Sennim 12:01, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+