Not sure if this is going to fly, but is was mentioned, albeit not by name or number. - Archduk3 08:50, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

It was only mentioned on dialogue that there where '...three more nx-class ships on the drawing board'. This does not necessarily mean that those ships were given the numbers NX-03 and NX-04. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ncc-1864 (talk • contribs).

Seriously? - Archduk3 20:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe number 3 and 4 have been given the registy ncc-03 & ncc-04? We don't know, and this is what I was pointing out.
On the other hand, how come that there is no article here on MA about the nx-gamma? Because we don't have any indication that there was such a ship. It's pure speculation, even if this would fill in the gap between nx-beta and nx-delta. How about the NCC-1702? There is NCC-1701 and there is NCC-1703, so there has to be NCC-1702 as well? We knew that there at least 12 Connies, so here we go... --Ncc-1864 17:24, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

The difference between these and other missing numbered ships, or greek lettered ones for that matter, is that these were actually referenced in an episode. We also have an established numbering scheme for NX-class ships, unlike the NCC registries, so we know the next two would be NX-03 and NX-04. - Archduk3 17:38, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Are two numbers (nx-01 and nx-02) already sufficient to talk of an 'established numbering scheme'? And is it on the other hand so hard to think of nx-alpha and nx-beta is followed by nx-gamma when there is also an nx-delta? Please remember that nx-03 and nx-04 haven't got mentioned on episode. Why can't they skip a number for the nx-class as well as they have done it for the nx-prototyp (nx-delta instead of nx-gamma)? But I think that we can at least agree on that Starfleet was planning two more nx-class starships. --Ncc-1864 20:34, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Who says there wasn't a NX-Gamma? There could be, but it was never mentioned in an episode. These ships were mentioned. - Archduk3 21:09, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually kinda sorta in agreement with NCC1864- I'm not sure two ships is enough to establish a pattern(unless there is something else that I'm missing). I know that modern navies change numbers of ships or even leave some disused, if a ship is cancelled. That said, I do not believe this should be deleted, but perhaps renamed to "Unnamed NX class ships" much like the other unnamed ship articles.--31dot 00:39, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

My point about the numbers was that we don't have any reason to think they aren't numbered sequentially, and we know they will be NX-somethingsomething, unlike the NCC system which produces numbers pretty much at random as far as we know, hence the reason I invoked common sense about this. That said, an unnamed NX class page seems unnecessary.- Archduk3 00:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)