The actual line that mentions Discovery is:
"Uhura, notify the d(D)iscovery on subspace."
I will say based on this line that the discovery in question is a ship-the USS Discovery. My reasoning. The is often used to identify a specific unit in a sentence. This discovery is a specific unit.
Further point, the closed captioning has the Discovery in italics. Italics is used for ships.

As for the Copernicus in "The Galileo Seven", I could find no ship of that name. And where did Mr. Okuda get the registry for the Columbus? The footage of the Columbus is of that of her sister ship, the Galileo.

The line in the novelization, based on an early draft of the script, is "Notify the discovery of the planet on subspace radio." The line should have been something like, "Broadcast the discovery of the planet..." or "Transmit the discovery of the planet...", but even as written, it's obvious that Kirk means someone should be notified of the discovery, not that the Discovery should be notified. Otherwise, we have to believe that Kirk wants the USS Discovery of the planet to be notified. What planet does the USS Discovery belong to, then? See my point?

Apparently, when the script reached final draft, the words "of the planet" were dropped in order to tighten up the script, and what was left was "Notify the discovery on subspace radio." Or maybe Shatner himself dropped the words. But the meaning is clear.

Of course, this is an issue that will not die, because there are always those who stick to their guns despite evidence and common sense and believe what they wish to believe.

Are there any examples at all? I doubt Kirk ever spoke to distant ships even during emergencies. And this certainly wasn't an emergency, or even a very staggering scientific discovery, just an intriguing curiosity.

Of course, it is possible that a USS Discovery was in some sort of a special organizational or spatial position as regarded the Enterprise at that time - perhaps she was a dedicated tender that was supposed to act as a comm relay. But we never ever heard of the Enterprise relying on the assistance of other vessels to perform her mission in any other episode or movie.

Timo Saloniemi

Given the grammatical structure, "the Discovery" would be the "someone", so it's obviously a person, institution or most likely a ship. However, as Frank already noted, this cannot have been the intention. Why should a USS Discovery be mentioned only once without any reference to anything?

Two solutions:

1) Another line involving the USS Discovery was cut. Something like this would have been plausible:

"Are there other Starfleet ships in this sector?" - "Only the USS Discovery."

...a few minutes later...
"Notify the Discovery on subspace".

2) The original line was "Report the discovery on subspace." and Shatner messed it up.

I thought that people weren't allowed to say things like this on the forums?

Basically, what this whole thing boils down to is: both interpretations make sense. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

As for those who insist on believing in the existence of the USS Discovery, they're the ones who can go on believing whatever they want to believe. There's no use debating with people who disregard common sense and who insist on stretching and bending things to conform to what they wish to believe despite the evidence at hand. Everyone's entitled to an opinion - even if they're wrong.

"Lieutenant Uhura, report the discovery of the planet on subspace radio."

Yes, that's right. The original word wasn't even notify. It was "report".

Is the word discovery capitalized, or not? It isn't, is it? I imagine Blish knew what he was doing when he adapted the script, so what we have here is the word "discovery", not the name "Discovery". Are you willing to suggest that somewhere between this draft of the script and the final script which was used to shoot the episode, TPTB decided to invent a ship named Discovery which hadn't been in the earlier draft?

C'mon, man, some of you people will go to any lengths to discover (no pun intended) some new ship never before identified or even imagined and add it to the database. Admit it. And then you get annoyed when someone insists upon the truth. I rely on logic, common sense, and wisdom to make determinations about anything, not fanciful or wishful thinking. To insist upon a USS Discovery in "The Squire of Gothos" is to delude oneself. There is no USS Discovery. All available evidence points to the contrary.

Of course, I'll be accused by someone of arrogance for saying all this, but I couldn't care less. It certainly isn't arrogant to recognize the truth about something and insist upon it. It is the height of folly to believe something that isn't true, or to go along with those who believe something that isn't true and allow oneself to be convinced by their arguments without substance.

I just love how everything in this world has become the subject of opinion and interpretation. People believe what they want to believe, not what is. If I look at a car and say it's a car, someone else will come along and say, "That's just your opinion. I think it's a refrigerator. And I'm entitled to that opinion, and that opinion is just as valid as yours." Doesn't work that way. A car is a car. If someone wants to believe otherwise, they're entitled to their opinion - but they're dead wrong if they think that opinion is valid. Having an opinion doesn't make it valid, not if it flies in the face of reality.

I wish Roddenberry were still around so we could ask him and settle this once and for all. Of course, those who insist on believing in a USS Discovery (no different than believing in the tooth fairy) would probably refuse to accept his answer and come up with a plethora of reasons as to why he's not the final authority on all things Trek.