Talk:Kirk/Spock (TOS)

Hi,

I didnt want to edit the text myself - I am not good at the whole edit thing. But under 'Notable Zines' it says 'Between Friends, believed the first published Kirk/Spock/McCoy story, printed in Obsc'zine 4 in 1980. '

Thats not true, 'Between Friends' was published in 'Obsc'zine 3 in 1978' :)

Structural Concerns

With the recent tweaking with pictures and such, I once again noticed the more fundamental problem of the Trek pages, i.e. the franchise vs. subseries problem, in that right now there is no Reboot section for this pairing at all, and it is among the most popular in the Trek resurgence. Maybe not as dominant as it used to be in TOS, with Kirk/McCoy and Spock/Uhura having strong followings, but it's not like it is rare. So I'd like to discuss how to integrate things better. Related to this is the problem of the combined franchise page having all the TOS stuff with very little being on the TOS page.

Also the issue that the Strek Fanzine page is currently massive and the only one split out is the K/S slash zines, which for have not been put into the Trek hierarchy at all, and are differently placed from all the rest of the fanzine pages. I don't suggest to stick yet more on the Trek zine page, but I think it might be worthwhile to discuss a general split into sub-series for that zine page.

Also, even with just the TOS part of this pairing, I'd like discuss the section headers. I mean "K/S in Autumn" makes it seem like the pairing went gently into the night or something, as the internet presence right now seems an afterthought in this article. And I'm not disputing a decline in prominence relative to the rest of media and slash fandom, or even an absolute decline in numbers of things published during a period, but I'm still not sure that sticking on "Golden Age" labels is the best approach (though maybe that is just me, because it reminds me of the worst kind of comic book nostalgia). I think that as we can have only one header, whereas the descriptions of the periods themselves could contain multiple viewpoints, maybe it would be better to have more neutral era headers, and then put into the text something like "many fans consider this the Golden Age of K/S".--RatCreature 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you said. What I would like to see is a structure comparable to the Stargate franchise:

a top level page for Star Trek: TOS
a top level page for Star Trek: TNG
a top level page for Star Trek: VOY
a top level page for Star Trek: DS9, etc.

These top level pages then could have subpages for their respective pairings, fanzines, etc. This has the advantage that there could be two K/S pages, one for TOS and one for AOS/Reboot/XI/2009 (I have no idea what the preferred abbreviation is) that could both refer and link to each other without playing dominance games as to which pairing is more important, popular, whatever. These may be the same charactes, but played by different actors and aired in different centuries! After all we do differentiate between all the different Robin Hoods, king Arthurs and Clark Kents.

The Star Trek page could then be about the franchise and link to all the different top level pages.--Doro 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the issue that the Strek Fanzine page is currently massive -- it's only going to become even more so when Morgan and I get serious with the contents of the Zinedex. That, and Judith Proctor's Blake's 7 page, are the last two huge fandoms. Mrs. Potato Head 20:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For me that solution to just untangle the two would work. It would also have its problems with interlinking well and such, but I think it would be better than the mess that we have now. As for the preferred term. I don't think that has been settled fully. I'd propose to go with just Star Trek (2009) as top level for the Reboot, because that is the name of the movie, afaik, also it is consistent with the naming schemes for the BSG reboot being filed under BSG (2003) for example, and it is the label that fanfiction.net and AO3 have chosen for the fandom, while it is not actually the most popular label any subsections of fandom have chosen, i.e. on journals I see a split between Reboot and XI and newsgroups picked AOS for being three letter.--RatCreature 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek (2009) works for me. :) That might get tricky when we get more movies in this rebootverse, but then we could still rename the page and I wouldn't worry about it now. Splitting it up would also be good for the single character pages because there are important thing to be said about TOS!Uhura and Reboot!Uhura that don't necessarily fit on the same page. Pairing names like Spirk, etc. could also be redirected to the appropriate Reboot pairing. --Doro 21:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 would still be the starting year, though. The new BSG lasted longer than 2003 too, after all. But you're right about that being a while off anyway.--RatCreature 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a list of things we would need to do to disentangle this mess. It's here. Did I miss anything? --Doro 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A decision needs to be made what to do with the K/S redirect. That is linked on many TOS slash zines as pairing/fandom, so currently most would want the TOS pairing page, but K/S is also used by Reboot fans who are not all running around calling their pairing Spork or Spirk or whatever.--RatCreature 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think K/S should redirect to the TOS K/S page as this is practically where slash comes from and the TOS page tells that history. And as you've said, the pages in this wiki that use K/S are TOS pages. We could add a disambiguation line at the top of the TOS K/S page that links to the 2009 page. --Doro 22:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. There's also if the main Star Trek/Fanzines are split, some sort of overview links to the other fanzines should remain there. And what about the Kirk/Spock_Zines page? Integration in the TOS zine page, or subpage to TOS/Kirk/Spock pairing page to prevent one huge page? I'm against it as it is currently though as entirely outside.--RatCreature 23:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would vote for turning it into a subpage of TOS as I'm against subpages of subpages and the TOS zine page will still be freaking huge without the K/S zines. Otherwise I would be for integrating it into the TOS zine page. --Doro 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point about subpages of subpages. Mostly I just don't want it to be the only zine page that is quasi-toplevel (aside from technically being a subpage of the "Kirk" redirect). From distangling will also come a problem of what to do with the plain Star Trek page, after all the very TOS specific history is on the TOS page. Like, ideally I think something like wikipedia does with massive pages would be cool, that on the Star Trek page there would be something like abstracts of what the individual series pages say maybe,so you could get an overview of the macro development or something, but I have a hard time to imagine how those would look. And wouldn't dare to summarize/write anything like that. I suck at those kinds of things.--RatCreature 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the main Star Trek page will sort itself out on its own as soon as there is a decent structure and I wouldn't fret too much about it. :) Apropos subpages of subpages, do you think Star Trek: The Original Series/KS Zines would work as the Kirk/Spock Zines page? I don't feel too strongly about it and would be fine with "K/S Zines" (to differentiate it from the subpages that would already have "Kirk/Spock" or "Fanzines" in their names) or "Kirk/Spock Zines".--Doro 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be okay with KS Zines, as I personally loathe that slashes create subpages of things that are not pages in the first place(like the "K" would become), but that might just be my anal personality quirks. We also could split outStar Trek: The Original Series/Slash Zines which admittedly would be almost all K/S, but there would be a small amount of threesome and other slash pairings from the TOS zine page, and it might not be a bad visualization of just how OTP the fandom is.--RatCreature 23:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I share your quirks! *g* And I would be fine with "Slash Zines" too, although I think some K/S fans feel quite strongly about the K/S part, so I wouldn't want to take that away. However, "Slash Zines" might work better for people who don't know the fandom that well and want to find out more about it. *ponders* More input might be necessary with regard to this detail but I would be really glad if we could agree that moving this thing would be the best possible course of action. :) I have to go now, but I'll check back tomorrow. --Doro 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doro, your structural plan is a thing of beauty. I guess the only thing I can add is: don't forget to move the talk pages as well. Otherwise, I'm pondering what subpages could/should be added to the general Star Trek page. Star Trek doesn't currently have a fandom glossary--should each show get one, or should we create a Star Trek/Fandom Glossary page? We might also want to list any zines that cover multiple shows in the franchise, if any. But these things could be implemented later.--æthel 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently my practice in the ST fanzine list is to list a zine in all series it features, ie if I find a TOS/TNG zine I put it in the list for both anyway.--RatCreature 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the talk pages! I added it to the list. :) The glossary question is one we could answer later as it is not directly involved in the clean up process. Also, the wiki people said we could have fandom categories and they are working on it. I don't know how that would influence the glossary question. There are several ways Trek glossary pages could work and there doesn't need to be an either or solution. Each fandom could have its own glossary page and there still could be a general Trek glossary page for all Trek fandom terms... Anyway, we don't need to find an answer for that right now and come back to that later, once we moved everything else. I'm glad you like the plan! \o/--Doro 17:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we all think that moving the pages would be a good idea and I would like to start with putting this plan into practice as soon as possible. If there is no disagreement, I would add the gardeners notices to the pages tomorrow. Please let me know if you think I should wait for something or someone. :) --Doro 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of reorganizing soon. I mean, I doubt many people noticed the discussion here or anything, but considering how few people are around regularly, we'd have to wait until this wiki's community outreach problems are fixed to get a large discussion of how to best organize things going. Meanwhile giving the series their own top level pages seems better to the people editing now based on the problems with trying to mash it all up under Star Trek, so we might as well try whether the other approach works better, and if a hypothetical large influx at some future point thinks differently, it's not as if page structure is set in stone.--RatCreature 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it's decided. I'm too tired right now and won't start before tomorrow, but go ahead if you want. I'll join in as soon as I'm awake again. :) --Doro 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I read through this talk page and your plan, and the whole thing seems very sensible to me. For me, my instinct is to go with how we as fans use the original media, and in that respect, TOS, the subsequent TV series and the films prior to 2009, are all one connected canon, but their fandoms were not always so connected (I read a lot of Voyager and DS9 that had nothing to do with the old school K/S fandom at all.) The reboot film is a new canon, not subordinate to the old one, and will certainly have subsequent films added to it. There are also other media sources such as books and games, but I don't think they have fandoms per se. And of course, there is the old, hard to find TOS RPF, and the new, very easy to find Reboot RPF. The opportunity to have a main Star Trek fandom page that isn't about TOS, but can explain how all these sources and fandoms interlink, and how they don't, would make reading about the fandoms comprehensible to people who don't already know all this. How that mention in the OTW newsletter about fandoms as categories would affect your plan, I don't know, but I don't think you should wait--your ideas would only make this situation better, and good on all of you for working this out.--facetofcathy 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it!! :) --Doro 07:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

interlinking, positioning thereof

I notice the link to STXI in the infobox when I look, and I like it there for organization, but I think it probably should also be on top.--RatCreature 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought as much. I'll add it to the top. And thank you so much for moving all the stuff around and fixing the wikilinks. We did good!! :D And the Star Trek pages finally have a decent structure. --Doro 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The structure had been bugging me for ages, so I'm happy it's finally better. \o/ Maybe now I'll get around to actually add some more stuff, like sorting the LJ comms and adding new ones and such.--RatCreature 20:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

killing time novel history

If people are amenable, I'd like to move the section on Killing Time to its own page and summarize the info here. It may not be a fanwork, but there's some interesting fannish history around it. There's more than one paragraph of material here on it, and even more might be added if it has room to spread out, so to speak. Also, the K/S page is pretty lengthy--summarizing might be beneficial. Yes/no?--æthel 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all about fannish history. That's why I added Granfalloon, a zine that is a real bridge between the traditional science fiction zines and media fanzines. Mrs. Potato Head 02:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

earliest citation of "K/S"

[1] is there a place for this info on this page? Would someone hook it up here or somewhere else? :-) Mrs. Potato Head 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the OED bit is on the page already, so I don't think this says more? Maybe it can be put as an additional footnote link in that section?--RatCreature 17:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see it my first swing through. Mrs. Potato Head 17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

timeline!

This page is getting long, and it looks like there's plenty more to say on the topic. I propose moving all the sections with bullet-point timelines to a separate Timeline of K/S Fandom page and just mention the highlights here in paragraph form.--æþel 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm loving the separate timeline thing. I'm hoping, in my dotage, to do some work on a bunch of them, and would like them really easy to find. --Mrs. Potato Head 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm now thinking the new page should be History of K/S Fandom instead. The sections "The beginnings of K/S (Kirk/Spock)", "The K/S Golden Age ", and "K/S in Autumn" would be moved. If knowledgeable editors are willing, they could then add more here about K/S fanon, online archives and mailing lists, old and new meta, etc. --æþel 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes listed above, though I think the pages could use some more tweaking. I also removed a meta section I added in since it contained redundant material. But I think this paper could get a mention somewhere:

Woledge, Elizabeth (August 2005) "Decoding Desire: From Kirk and Spock to K/S" Social Semiotics, v. 15, n. 2, pp 235-250. doi:10.1080/10350330500154857. Woledge, a self-described acafan, discusses how K/S fans' interpretation of the homosocial text of Star Trek as homoerotic subtext is a perfectly reasonable alternate reading.

I'd like to see a K/S and Academia section or page; it seems like everyone who writes about slash writes about K/S.--æþel 04:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Episode Influences, etc

Amok Time had a huge influence on the development of K/S in terms of fan reaction...I mean it was called the episode that launched the "ship" for many fans. And the fact that Theodore Sturgeon was known for having homoerotic subtext in his writing. I wonder if that should be included on this page? --Shivohn Songbreeze 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there should certainly be some discussion of it. What do folks think about "Amok Time" having its own page? There's certainly enough information to go on this influential subject: links to pon farr, Ancient Vulcan, T'Pring... (which reminds me, I've been planning to make a page for the Starsky & Hutch episode, "The Fix," for a long time...) Or would this subject better be served with a page such as "Influential Star Trek Episodes"? --Mrs. Potato Head 20:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Mirror, Mirror and The Naked Times definitely had huge cultural impacts as well as impacted fanfiction, so maybe that would be a good idea?--Shivohn Songbreeze 21:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the ending scene of the reboot film that was cut, where Spock Prime was supposed to show his younger counterpart the holovid with Kirk talking about if being a starship captain was his best destiny then Spock's best destiny was to be by his side. Lots of fan reactions to that and it has spawn several fics even though that scene was never filmed.--Shivohn Songbreeze 19:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do other folks know of the best way to work with this information and the fannish reactions? I'm unsure. --Mrs. Potato Head 20:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the reactions are episode/movie specific I'd start by adding them to the movie/episode page under a section like: "Fan Reactions" or "Deleted Scenes - Fan Reactions." Then, if we get enough info/reactions we can cherry pick a few quites and make a larger page "Influential Star Trek episodes." Great ideas Shivohn, keep them coming. --MeeDee 00:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference to K/S in pop culture/tv/etc

Would a section on outside references to K/S such as in pop culture/tv/books/other media be okay? K/S has been referenced to in books Tithe (or maybe it's Valiant) by Holly Black, has been mentioned on Parks & Rec, and I'm sure else where and it has definitely been parodied.--Shivohn Songbreeze 21:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to read, as long as we can find some way to tie it back to fandom and what fandom thinks of the references (does fandom like seeing Star Trek referenced, parodied? Dislike it? Ignore it?). You don't have to come up with all the fandom reactions upfront - we can start a page, give it the bare bones outline (here's a list of outside references) and then add: more fannish content is needed. The other way to structure the page would be to offer a list of outside references and then compare and contrast it with fandom tropes/references. (Ex: are fandom tropes making their way into the popular media references or are "they" still looking from the outside in at the "Trekkies." --MeeDee 00:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

history of k/s

A lot of material that belongs on History of K/S Fandom has been added here instead. Could someone figure out how to merge the info over there?--æþel (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Space Husbands

Space Husbands. I've seen this term more and more, mostly in relation to K/S TOS and AOS. Is it something other fandoms use? Did it come from Tumblr, or before? --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

All I know is that when I first encountered slash I told somebody I knew about it and she said it wasn't the actual The Premise that got to her, it was people writing stuff about Kirk bringing Spock breakfast in bed and calling him "honey". Even if they consummated their relationship that way they are not a couple of old queens and shouldn't act like it. The term "space husbands" brings that conversation to mind. --KTJ (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say it's new, like Superhusbands. --Doro (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Doro: Steve and Tony are the only superhusbands, hence the redirect? Does superhusbands mean a certain type of fanwork (like curtainfic or domestic works) with Steve and Tony? --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Superhusbands is a synonym for Steve/Tony, probably because they are both superheroes. It's a pairing name. I haven't seen it refer to any other pairing but I have seen Super[something] refer to other pairings as a pairing name. The only two examples I can think of right now are space husbands for Kirk/Spock and medieval husbands for Merlin/Arthur (ETA: It's a Tumblr thing). --Doro (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

notes section

ok so because caes mentioned the notes section needed cleaning on the nominations page, i thought i would look at that and i think several of them can be folded into the body of the article. namely 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14. 14 should probably be condensed and 4/7/13 need to be rewritten, but i don't see why the others can't basically be moved wholesale into the body of the article. 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 15 can stay. which leaves 6, which can either be converted into a reference or stay; 9, which should definitely just be converted to a reference; and 16 which should probably be split into a reference and the rest of the text folded into the article itself. anyone else have thoughts about this?

the fan who wrote 9 has completely locked their DW, so the reference should be to the The K/S Press #204. The rest of the information is unecesscary for this page, although if someone wants to move it to the page for The K/S Press, it probably fits better there. Flyingthesky (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)