Talk:Previous ships called Constitution: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
m (→Registry) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_%28CC-5%29 but it was cancelled | There is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_%28CC-5%29 but it was cancelled and scrapped. - [[User:Salak|Jay]] | ||
== Registry == | |||
If the original constitution was NCC 1700 in canon ...and this makes sense as it was the constitution class... can anyone think of a good reason for why we're not | |||
NCC 1700-B ? | |||
:Look at the canon registries of the ships called [[ma:USS Intrepid|USS Intrepid]]... no -B or anything but each had different codes. Might be that the Conny code comes from the ship after the NCC-1700? - [[User:Salak|<font color="FF8C00">Lt.JG Salak</font>]][[Image:Neworleans-icon1.gif|USS Independence|35px]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i></sup> 09:12, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | |||
::Rocar, nothing else in Star Trek follows any kind of continuity, why would this be different? ;) -[[User:Varaan|Varaan]] 11:39, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | |||
:::LOL :D BTW, another example may be the Enterprise. It's NCC-1701-E and not NX-01-F, which it could have been. - [[User:Salak|<font color="FF8C00">Lt.JG Salak</font>]][[Image:Neworleans-icon1.gif|USS Independence|35px]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i></sup> 11:46, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:48, 13 October 2006
There is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_%28CC-5%29 but it was cancelled and scrapped. - Jay
Registry
If the original constitution was NCC 1700 in canon ...and this makes sense as it was the constitution class... can anyone think of a good reason for why we're not NCC 1700-B ?
- Look at the canon registries of the ships called USS Intrepid... no -B or anything but each had different codes. Might be that the Conny code comes from the ship after the NCC-1700? - Lt.JG Salak
Talk 09:12, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
- Rocar, nothing else in Star Trek follows any kind of continuity, why would this be different? ;) -Varaan 11:39, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
- LOL :D BTW, another example may be the Enterprise. It's NCC-1701-E and not NX-01-F, which it could have been. - Lt.JG SalakTalk 11:46, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
- LOL :D BTW, another example may be the Enterprise. It's NCC-1701-E and not NX-01-F, which it could have been. - Lt.JG Salak
- Rocar, nothing else in Star Trek follows any kind of continuity, why would this be different? ;) -Varaan 11:39, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
