- "It could be assumed that this was a second prototype, or more likely that the ship was held in experimental status as a technology testbed prototype, testing out new equipment that might later be installed on active duty Starfleet vessels. It is also interesting to note that the registry is "off" for a prototype vessel of that era, as ships with registries over 2000 were in service 20 years prior to this date."
- "However, this could also be taken as evidence that the ship was "held" in prototype status for an extended period of time."
...was removed to avoid overwhelming the article with speculation. What is left are simply the facts. The reader can come to their own conclusions without delving into the world of "it could be assumed". --Alan del Beccio 16:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Computer Status Display Edit
In the article it says:
- The Constellation was not seen, but only listed in a computer status display. It was never explained why this ship as a prototype was going through certification trials in 2293 when the USS Hathaway was already launched in 2285.
What's the source for this? Shouldn't there at least be the name of someone (like Okuda) who said so? But if it's visible anyway why not provide the article with a screenshot? I think with neither of those given this is - unfortunately - nothing but an untraceable claim. – Ambassador 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you serious? What about "she was named in honour the predecessor"? What's the source for YOUR OWN untraceable claim? You know what, without the screenshot, maybe we better just remove this ship from MA altogether. We can't prove NCC-1974 exists at all, we can't prove the DS9 Constellation is the same ship as the imaginary Undiscovered Country one, we can't prove anything at all except that in DS9 SOME ship called Constellation was mentioned onscreen. Please go do your thing now and remove all that stuff and move theis article to Constellation (unknown registry and class). I would but my policy is to don't be bold, just mouth off. Thank you for bringing this up. 18.104.22.168 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You bet I am serious. The fact that the ship was named in honour of her predecessors may be a claim, but a logical and provable one. Just like all Enterprises where definitely named in remembrance of their respective predecessors. Nothing untraceable here.
I'm not going to change anything about this article nor is it my intention. All I say is that simply listing the Constellation's appearance on a display is somewhat...fungous. Of course I believe that it appeared somewhere between the explosion of Praxis and Kirk's final log. Why? Because simply making this information up would not make any sense. So whoever wrote it must have seen it. But personally I would feel a lot more comfortable with a screenshot (which MUST be available if the display is visible) or a hint to someone who let us know this. Of course, I could fetch my DVD and search for this little display but that would not be very reasonable since others seem to have known about it long before and I do not need to convince myself. It should also be up to their gifted hands (when screens are needed, mine are not) to provide us with just a little more insight than just writing "It is there." So without any evidence - never mind whether or not one believes it or not - it is a claim that is virtually untraceable to most of us, including myself.
I do not really understand why you're erupting like that. – Ambassador 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence that the ship exists is actually even better than the evidence for your own claim: YOU aren't EVEN claiming any on-screen reference about the "naming in honour of".
- You just have a habit of saying "There's something wrong with this article!" and fleeing. If you aren't gonna be bold, why should you expect anyone else to?
- To ~really~ highlight the contrast - YOU made a claim that really is untraceable ("logical", maybe; "provable"? I don't see how). But you actually described the means for tracing the claim you originally called untraceable. Is it untraceable or just untraced? Big difference. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk).
Of course the ship exists! Why should I doubt this? And of course I'm not claiming any on-screen evidence for the naming traditions of starships because they are evident. Simple as that.
And I don't have any habit of fleeing. When there is something WRONG I correct it. Otherwise - and that is what you misinterpret as fleeing - I make a point on the talk pages, make my opinion on how something could be done better public and hope to gain support. In the case of this article I do not have any of the screens I would like to see here nor am I able to create them. So I did not change any letter about the existing article, but rather "consulted" the other users - especially those who know where to find the status display and who can bring it to the article. Simple.
No fleeing, no anything. Just the wish for a broad consensus before arbitrarily changing articles to my personal taste. – Ambassador 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but how do you know it's NCC-1974 (without the screenshot)? And how do you know that the Undiscovered Country one is the same as the DS9 one (without the ships appearing onscreen)? You're just taking it for granted, which is the very thing that you argue against. And regarding "fleeing", this page isn't the only example. See your Talk page. What ARE you going to do, besides be not bold? Frig if I know. You know: Now that I see your edit history, I see you ALSO have quite a serious habit of speculating about ship name origins. You sure screwed up Potemkin, didn't you? Got spanked for it, and that. 126.96.36.199 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You are funny. It's in the encyclopedia. I do not know. Neither does the article. Just go and read it. Don't be silly. The NCC comes from the encyclopedia. That the ship from DS9 is the very same 1974 is a necessary compromise. I'm not arguing against that. I just said that writing "It's there." is a bit little. What's your problem? I said it above (go and read it again, if you have to): I DO NOT ARBITRARILY CHANGE WHOLE ARTICLES JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE DOING SO. I make a point on the talk pages. I say what should/could be done in my opinion. THEN I change something - or others do. That's nothing to do with not being bold. That's respecting precious articles but simultaneously pointing out to what could be improved. And I do not improve things here to my own personal taste. I want a consensus. YOU have a problem if you see it as a problem. Go find another hobby! Yes, been there, done that. Uhhh, it's so odd that the Adelphi MAY HAVE BEEN named after the city... Nothing was screwed up. You see: I do not have the encyclopedia. So to me it was clear that the ship was named for the infamous Russian battleship. Well, in fact it was not. It was named for the man Potemkin, after which the battleship has in turn been named. Negligible error. PS Can't remember getting spanked for anything. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambassador (talk • contribs).
not necessarily constellation class... Edit
Forgive me if this was already mentioned in the previous topic, but I found it hard to sift through the emotional outrage.
Anyway, I just wanted to say, since there is no on-screen evidence that this is Constellation class, it's possible that it could be a new ship of a different class. If this USS Constellation were Constellation-class, it would have been about 80 years old by then. Its counterpart, USS Hathaway was retired before it reached that age. I could easily see the USS Constellation having being retired by that time, and a new ship having been given its name. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psydev (talk • contribs).
- While that's possible, the standard class naming convention in Star Trek would seem to indicate it is a Constellation-class vessel, absent evidence it is a different class. --31dot 03:39, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
So is that naming convention "no ship shall have the name of any ship that was the first of its class"? It doesn't work always though because there is a USS Challenger (galaxy class) that came after the Challenger Class (USS Challenger destroyed at Wolf 359). While there may not be a need to re-use old names (because there many to choose from), it seems that it is possible to name a ship after the first of its class, so there is no reason to assume it is Constellation class. (Psydev 09:07, July 9, 2011 (UTC))
- The convention is that the class takes its name from the first ship of the class. Without direct evidence that it is a different class(such as seeing it, which we haven't) we fall back to established conventions. I'm not saying you are wrong- I'm saying there isn't evidence of it.--31dot 11:13, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
- The ship mentioned in "The Abandoned" probably is not the NCC-1974. Another USS Constellation with the registry NCC-55817 was shown on one of Data's displays in "Conspiracy," which is why I edited the article to show that the NCC-1974 Constellation was retired as of 2364. The newer ship is probably the one mentioned in DS9.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk).
This was moved from NCC->NX today. When making such major moves... can we please have an explanation on the talk page about why it was moved and why the original name is not appropriate? -- sulfur (talk) 22:31, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I listed the explanation in the note for the movement. Strictly speaking, the only number we have for this ship is NX-1974, which is from the sixth film. There is no evidence in the canon for NCC-1974. If I acted improperly, I apologize.Throwback (talk) 23:24, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
- The information on a number of ships comes from the Star Trek Concordance, a book written by Bjo Trimble. She probably received information from production sources. She described the ship as being listed and what its assignment was. (The chart was probably similar to the one seen in the "The Measure Of A Man".) There is a chart from the Operation Retrieve plans which lists the Constellation with the number NX-1974. Throwback (talk) 02:33, April 24, 2013 (UTC)