posted
In that screencap, that's an '8', making it 1831. No question. Closed loop on the top right of the character. You can clearly see the differentiation for the '6' in this typeface two lines below in 1672. Now, I couldn't really tell you whether it was supposed to be a '6' (my clairvoyance is a tad rusty), but that's an definitely an '8'.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Reverend: Incidentally, I've updated your "out of date" shiplist, both with the newest NCC information, plus pre-federation ships from both the "Up the Long Ladder" list, and Enterprise. I've also changed a few things around which you had; maybe sometime I'll email it to you to get your opinions. It's a good shiplist, though.
MMoM: Thanks for the info. I didn't have the Constellation and Oberth prototype ships in my list.
To everyone else: Thanks for your help.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Reverend: Incidentally, I've updated your "out of date" shiplist, both with the newest NCC information, plus pre-federation ships from both the "Up the Long Ladder" list, and Enterprise. I've also changed a few things around which you had; maybe sometime I'll email it to you to get your opinions. It's a good shiplist, though.
Cheers, I'd be quite interested to see your version. I have been maintaining my own one constantly, I just never bothered to update the online copy. I think you'll find I've made a few changes...
posted
MMoM: Yes, I've included the TAS ships. Surprisingly, the registries of the cargo drones are pretty consistent w/ the TOS era ships (the prefix letter not withstanding). The Huron's is a little higher, but still within reason. Also, I can see a good way to justify the Bonaventure's high registry: Instead of looking at it as "NCC S2100", I prefer to see it as "NCC S2", then "100" after it. So instead of 2100, it's 100, making it the earliest ship with an NCC number (the second earliest would be the Carolina, NCC 160). With the way ships are registered & classed in Enterprise, it's not too much of a leap. Plus, I'm making the assumption that the Bonaventure was the first Federation ship w/ warp drive, not the first ship ever.
Reverend: Your online shiplist page came up as a 404 error. I'll email my list to you soon, with an explanation of my changes and additions.
To everyone else: OK, so both I and Balaam see "1831" not "1631." However, Greg Jein must have thought it was 1631 when he made the T-Negative list. So how do we explain it? Do we ignore the chart and go with Greg's number? Or do we add 1831 as an unknown ship, even though that's the (wrong) number he used or the Intrepid? Or do we ignore Greg & the Encyclopedia, and make the Intrepid NCC-1831?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I prefer ignoring Greg and the Encyclopedia, add 1831 as an unknown ship and leave the Intrepid without NCC.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I feel the same way, but since my shiplist acknowledges non-canon, i have the Intrepid as 1631, because i was revealed as that in "My Enemy, My Ally" by Diane Duane (but oddly enough, that was the replacement Intrepid after 'Immunity Syndrome')
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, you could explain that away by saying that at this point in Starfleet history, any replacement ship was given the exact same registry number as the one which came before it, to alleviate confusion.
Of course, why Starfleet chose to re-establish this policy over 100 years later with the Defiant is beyond me.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
the last time i did my shiplist, i think i explained that the second Intrepid was 1631-A in honor of the brave Vulcans of the first (and that the 'A' was left off the registry as featured in 'My Enemy.'
(its one of the exceedingly rare cases of an 'A' registry being used ;-) in Starfleet history, some other notable exceptions made were the honors given to the original Enterprise, the Yamato, the Excalibur, etc.. this just helps to explain the handful of 'A' and 'B' registries that have made it into works that i acknowledge in my Galactopedia, such as New Frontier novels and stuf)
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Reverend: Your online shiplist page came up as a 404 error. I'll email my list to you soon, with an explanation of my changes and additions.
Free servers, you get what you pay for. this should work better.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Umm...so what exactly do you think the www.startrek.com website is?
A marketing tool, of course. What exactly do you think it is?
Do you actually think that the producers and writers of the show choose what goes on the website? Ha! Furthermore, what does the website have to do with starship registry numbers? They presumably just copied them out of the Encyclopedia.
quote: The very fact that such a site exists, and that there have even been such publications as the Encyclopedia, proves that Paramount DOES keep track of this stuff.
No, it proves that there is a demand for said publications great enough to warrant their production. I never said that "Paramount" doesn't keep track of this stuff, only that they don't care about it... they do it to shut all of us up when we bitch and moan about inconsistency.
Now, of course, certain individuals at Paramount (for instance, Mike Okuda) do seem to keep track of this sort of thing. Unless it's being inserted into a script or effects shots or display screens, though, it's nothing more than one guy's opinion.
quote: For the last time, canon is not only what is onscreen, but also anything additional that represents Paramount's official view of the Star Trek universe.
Are you kidding?
We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do use things like the Encyclopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books. --Ronald D. Moore
Can you provide a single quote from a writer or producer of Star Trek that suggests otherwise? Just one will do! Let me help you out: there aren't any.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
