Changes by Throwback Edit
- NCC-500 – added registry, from a ship diagram in ST II
- NCC-1404 – added registry, from a studio model in “Unification I”
- NCC-1664 – added registry, seen on a wall chart in “Court Martial”
- NCC-1672 – added registry, seen on a wall chart in “Court Martial”
- NCC-1697 – added registry, seen on a wall chart in “Court Martial”
- NCC-1837 – changed date to 2293, ship is listed on a ship chart from the movie
- 10281NCC – year deleted, no year stated in episode
- NCC-10386 – corrected registry to NCC-10376
- NCC-18253 – deleted registry, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-29487 – deleted class, Oberth-class a speculation from Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-38997 – deleted registry, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-40521 – deleted registry, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-45231 – deleted class, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-50446 – deleted registry, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-57418 – deleted registry, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-62048 – added registry, from a studio model in “Emissary”
- NCC-66808 – deleted registry, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia
- NCC-67016 – changed year from 2366 to 2367
- NCC-68723 – added registry, from a studio model in “The Best of Both Worlds, Part II”
- NCC-72617 – deleted registry, registry is illegible in an Okudagram from “Whispers”
- NCC-2541 – added registry, previous registry for USS Hood (NCC-42296), seen on studio model
- The "Other Registries" section is for registries that would be canon if they weren't contradicted by a visible one. - Archduk3 03:55, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the runabout registry, if the Okudagram was seen in the episode, I think it is permissible to use the registry in the canon part of the article if we have a clearer image of said Okudagram from another source. It's only if the Okudagram was not seen at all in the episode that we wouldn't use any information from it. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's how I understand it.--31dot 10:40, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
"Some have stated that NCC stands for Navigational Control Code, an identity code that all federation ships are required to broadcast under normal conditions. In "Mudd's women" Kirk accused Mudd of flying with broadcasting a navigational signal, thereby posing a hazard to navigation. This lends some credence to the claim all ships in the federation were required to broadcast a navigational signal."
- Removed: "An old studio model blueprint designed for promotional studio use has the meaning explained as Naval Contact Code." if someone can be more specific and provide a pic or a link to a pic then we can put this back. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:04, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I found the original source that the directly preceding editor had his info from here. Checked my own copy of the blueprints and found the original source wanting. FJ was consistent in his use of "Naval Construction Contract" and did not use the alternative on sheet 3 as purported, so it is definitely out.--Sennim (talk) 11:37, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
- [Addendum]: The "Nav(igation)al Contact Code" designation has in the meantime also been identified and verified from my own copies as stemming from a purely unlicensed fan production. Both (justified) removals therefore appear to be poorly remembered amalgams of the two designations, and both are as far as I'm concerned definitively out--Sennim (talk) 10:31, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
- In the era of the United Federation of Planets, the number following the prefix was an indicator of both the age and the century in which the ship was built. Bear in mind, that this wasn't an ironclad rule. For example, some early ships of the Oberth-class had three numbers in their registries; however, their hull configuration indicated that they were built in the 23rd century. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock) In the 22nd century, the single, double, and triple number registries were introduced. (TNG: "Power Play") In the 23rd century, the quadruple number registries were introduced. There were brief experiments with adding a 0 to the beginning of a triple number combination or a letter to before the numbers. These proved unsuccessful as they weren't used widely. Another experiment, adding a letter after the number, indicating that this ship was the second, third, fourth, etc ship to bear this number, would prove more successful and would be adopted for other prefixes, like NCV. (TOS: "The Cage"; Star Trek; TAS: "More Tribbles, More Troubles"; Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home; VOY: "Relativity") In the 24th century, the quintuple number combination was first introduced. (TNG: "The Naked Now")
Removed per What Memory Alpha is Not, in particular "Original research." This reads as a "subjective essay which ... draws conclusions" instead of an encyclopedia reporting what is known, amongst other issues. - Archduk3 10:56, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
Newbie on the bridge!
I'm searching for the signification of the USS prefix.
- What are you looking for that isn't already written? In canon very little was said about what it actually means. We do have non-canon information about it, but it cannot be in the introduction due to our POV. 31dot (talk) 09:54, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
Danm it! I made a mistake! I'm wanting for the NCC signification. Excuse me boys.
I assume "USS" mean "United States Ship", like for sea vessels. This would mean that planet Earth is still not united in Star Trek universe... The point is I'm preparing a fan's novel and I wish to introduce other nations' ships, thus I need to know if the NCC initials are directly related to the US space navy's nomenclature or to the Federation's.
OK, I found it at the page's foot. IMHO the NCC definition should be in the page header. It's always better to define the topic before rather than after. Thanks to everybody! 188.8.131.52 14:20, October 1, 2016 (UTC)B.V.184.108.40.206 14:20, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
- I know this is a rather old discussion but I have to say that this is extremely bizarre. Not only does it appear that the OP could not be bothered to read the articles until pushed, the final post just sums it up. The appendices section says that the NCC definitions (there is more than one) are non-canon. Therefore, they are obviously unsuitable for the page header. Considering that two definitions are given, which one did the OP use? Further, did it really take 4 days to find the NCC definition? How can anyone mistake this article for the USS one? What on Earth was going on? Mind you, we are dealing with someone who could not spot the search bar... 220.127.116.11 15:33, May 30, 2017 (UTC)