What Do We Want to Use as Our Abbreviation for Kelvin Timeline Novels?

I still find it oxymoronic to use the description "The Original Series" for a remake of said series, which by definition is not the original. If one were to use that kind of descriptive phrase for it, I'd think it would be more along the lines of "The Reimagined Series" or something. ("The Alternate Series" wouldn't work since there's already a TAS.)

 

Thanks!

Oh, I dunno. If Trek Lit is unable to continue developing the Prime Timeline as extensively as the authors used to because of new Prime Timeline productions, the apparent death of the Kelvin Timeline film series might be an opportunity for the authors to have the same level of creative freedom with that timeline as they had in the prime after ENT went off the air.

 

VGR always reminds me of V’ger from TMP, and there’s no series called “Star Trek V’Ger”, whereas VOY makes more sense as it’s the first three letters of Voyager.

 

By that logic, TNG's abbreviation should be THE.

 

The general pattern seems to have emerged for most fans is that if the official title of a TV series contains more than one word, the abbreviation will use the first three initials (or a numeral representing the word) in each word (Star Trek: The Original Series becoming TOS; Star Trek: The Next Generation becoming TNG; Star Trek: Deep Space Nine becoming DS9); that if the official title uses only one word, the abbreviation will be the first three letters of that word (Star Trek: Voyager becoming VOY; Star Trek: Enterprise becoming ENT; Star Trek: Discovery becoming DIS; Star Trek: Picard becoming PIC); and that if there's no official title, the fans will look for a three-letter abbreviation to form out of the most important words in whatever fan-designated unofficial title is used (hence all those Kelvin Timeline examples).

Which does make me wonder how fans will react to Star Trek: Lower Decks. Will we call it LD? Breaks the three-letter pattern. Maybe we'll end up calling it LWD? LDK? What do fans usually call Star Trek: Short Treks? (Star Trek: Section 31 will be easy -- S31.)

God help us when CBS All Access premieres its newest spin-off, Star Trek: A Man Called Sisko.

 

It can only be one thing: LDS

 

When we have the wonderful problem of having books for that series, then we can decide

 

STD and LDS, the great cornerstones of life enjoyment. Truly, what an era in which to live!

 

I do have an issue here. Why was Kelvin ignored when KT-TOS is there as it has the same number of characters as Kelvin?

 

You asked the same question weeks ago, and it was answered then.

 

Fans still seem to be at loggerheads on that last part. Some say DIS, some say DSC. (Memory Alpha uses DIS, whereas Beta prefers DSC - as I do )

 

I use Disco, it's 2 letters longer but infinitely cuter so it's worth it.

 

Someone say Disco?

 

Exactly. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Abbreviations are stupid and should be dropped. Initialisms are fine, for TNG, DS9, LD, and the retronyms TOS & TAS. But everything else is just one word. It seems lazy to abbreviate when we have multiple one-word shows. It made a little sense when the Chronology had only Voyager to contend with as an outlier. Now it's Voyager, Enterprise, Discovery, Picard, and soon Prodigy and who knows what else.

KT for Kelvin Timeline would be fine, but simply Kelvin makes the most sense. Arguing over unnecessary, contradictory, and archaic acronyms is annoying and should be dropped.

 

It's not "lazy," it's just standardized. It's continuing the precedent of using 3-letter abbreviations for show subtitles. Which is the official practice of Star Trek's own makers, so it's pretty bizarre for you to use it as an excuse to insult your fellow posters' alleged laziness.

 

It *seems* lazy for the standard to be adopted, not that it actually is lazy for anyone to do so. The historical reasons for the adoption are well-documented (Okuda Chronology standardization of the then-four shows as a reference citation). I'm an old MA-er, so I used three-viations for over a decade, and understand their utilization for citation purposes. Although, Memory Alpha doesn't really need it anymore, since they've long since templated their citations.

Any standard, or precedent, should always be questioned, for a variety of reasons. Since we're likely coming up on a majority of shows with short one-word subtitles, I strongly feel the old practice is getting in the way of honest discourse. It's causing unnecessary arguments (especially on the Discovery boards where I first noted this), and, frankly, there is zero need for the differentiation when "Kelvin" works much better unambiguously than "KEL" or "Enterprise" than "ENT" or "Voyager" than "VGR".

I used buzz words like "stupid" and "lazy" out of, perhaps, frustration that none of this is ever taken seriously. But I was very careful to address the situation, the abbreviations and not any poster or user of them. Or, at least I thought I was careful, until I was insulted by my favorite author. *shrugs*

 

Well, that's melodramatic. This hasn't been an "argument," just a discussion. I don't think it's gotten in the way of anything; it's just a bit of bookkeeping.

Yes, there are a small number of people who choose abbreviations with the intent to be snide or insulting, like using "STD" for Discovery. But they're just a minority making a disproportionate amount of noise, and if we let them derail our everyday business and shape our behavior in response to them, then we let them win.

 

While I am happy for this conversation to continue - as an organisation nerd, naming schemes are always interesting to me - I do not want it to become an emotional argument.

It's perfectly possible to question standards without also calling into question the people who happen to like those standards.