NCC-2541 is canonical

[DEWLine]

So it seems we have evidence for two Excelsior-class ships named Hood...?

[Chemahkuu]

DEWLine wrote:

---

So it seems we have evidence for two Excelsior-class ships named Hood...?

Nope, one ship onscreen with the name Hood and the occasional behind the scenes mess up on the actual registry that people argue about.

[DEWLine]

Wouldn't surprise me if NCC-2541 was part of the same production order as the Repulse(NCC-2544) and got despatched relatively early on in her career, thus making room for NCC-44296...

[chrinFinity]

Yeah, I was going to say. Not a problem if one of them met with its demise or was decommissioned.

[chrinFinity]

Also this seems like a stupidly trivial thing to be arguing about.

[Dukhat]

chrinFinity wrote:

---

Yeah, I was going to say. Not a problem if one of them met with its demise or was decommissioned.

The problem with that theory is that if there were two different ships, that would mean that the second ship would have been commissioned after 2363. It's doubtful that Excelsiors were still in production, and even more doubtful that a brand new ship would have a registry as low as 42296. It would most likely start with a 7.

chrinFinity wrote:

---

Also this seems like a stupidly trivial thing to be arguing about.

Arguing about trivial things is what Star Trek nerds like us do all the time.

[throwback]

With these many inconsistencies, and with Starfleet personnel constantly tampering with the timeline, I have come up with my own hypothesis - these inconsistencies are the result of the timeline changing.

For instance, in 2364, there was a starship Atlantis with the registry of NCC-72007. Then, between "The Neutral Zone" and "The Measure of a Man", the timeline changed, and now there is a starship Atlantis with a lower registry. The people are no more the wiser for they change with the timeline, but, we the viewer, are aware of the changes for we exist outside their world and are looking in.

[Chemahkuu]

Or it's an unimportant background error.

[Dukhat]

^Or just a changed premise. It's no different than "James R. Kirk," and no one's rushing to create convoluted explanations for that. YMMV.

These listings will go into my ship list for completeness' sake, but I'm treating them as nothing more than curious oddities.

[Chemahkuu]

Dukhat wrote:

---

^Or just a changed premise. It's no different than "James R. Kirk," and no one's rushing to find convoluted explanations for that. YMMV.

A few people did, then a novel threw in a comment to say it was an injoke between Kirk and Mitchell, all was well.

NCC's however, aren't really worth that effort.

[throwback]

Or, one could take the Biblical approach, which is to preserve different traditions. This is the same approach that ancient Greeks and Romans did with their stories. It seemed that each town and city had their own version of mythical stories.

[Chemahkuu]

It's a number on a sheet of plastic that was never meant to make sense or matter, even to the production staff who made it.

[throwback]

Star Trek fans have been discussing registries ever since I joined the Internet community in the late 1990s. Now, that we can see some of the new registries, we can discuss some more. Now, that we have new registries, people are saying we shouldn't be discussing them. Well, the cat's out of the bag, so isn't it a bit late to put a cork on the whole shebang.

[Dukhat]

BTW, I think this thread has started getting mixed up with the other Measure of a Man shiplist thread.

Don't get me wrong; I'm totally fine discussing registries, and I look forward to actually seeing the list in HD or screencaps thereof so that I can take a stab at guessing what they say. All I'm saying is that it's not entirely necessary to create explanations for every single inconsistency we see, especially when they're from charts and displays that were never meant to be seen up close or scrutinized the way we can now.