There are no scare-quotes. It's not "canon," it's canon.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Okay, fine. 
Please re-read the post and feel free to mentally delete the quotation marks. That doesn't change the substance of what I wrote even slightly.
The fact remains, lots and lots of different diagrams and schematics have been used in on-screen Trek over the years and are therefore technically canon... even if they're indecipherable to the viewers, and even if they contradict themselves or other canonical information. Long story short, that diagram really doesn't resolve the question under discussion.
Please re-read the post and feel free to mentally delete the quotation marks. That doesn't change the substance of what I wrote even slightly. The fact remains, lots and lots of different diagrams and schematics have been used in on-screen Trek over the years and are therefore technically canon... even if they're indecipherable to the viewers, and even if they contradict themselves or other canonical information. Long story short, that diagram really doesn't resolve the question under discussion.
Given production realities, such as the fact that production wrapped on TOS almost 50 years ago, that's never going to change, either.
No single diagram could ever specifically account for literally everything seen on screen. Even taking the route of having the interior of the ship changing over time to accommodate changes in the sets from season to season and from episode to episode couldn't believably cope with the fact that the sets changed even during the production of individual episodes (example, the bridge stations were wild and sometimes not put back together properly for each and every shot). No matter what, choices would have to be made about what take literally and what to squint at.
Long story short, at this point, Drexler's diagram is the most specific we're ever likely to get on the TOS starship.
I prefer to call it the Grimdark Bluniverse, but that works too
But what if next season isn't dark? Kind of goes against the name.
Exactly! There is no canonical answer. That's my point. It's the sort of thing that's destined to remain an open question.
But...
This, I disagree with. I've seen far better efforts on this very site.
Except none of those are canon. Drexler's diagram is.
Yes, I was speaking of the canonical. But also more broadly of the authoritative. It's what we were talking about.
We know that was only due to some lazy model builder mis-using the AMT decals because they didn't want us to confuse 1701 with another similar registry. Those first run AMT models only had "1701" decals.
They could have painted the numbers on and made it any 17xx series they wanted. The model was f-ed up anyway, nobody would've noticed painted numbers on 1960's TV.
And outside of a possible issue with the Grissom having an 800 series # (it could've been a refit of an older ship), I think the overall pattern of registries have been pretty consistent (not counting the USS Yamato's multiple #'s, etc. that were again about laziness).
Cooleddie73 is my doppelgänger from an alternate timeline.
Lol, so you don't think Jane Kirk would have caused reworking of scripts? I am pretty sure Jane Kirk, lesbian was not gonna fly in 1966.
Reimagining for modern audiences.
Oh gods no, the numbers never had an order. They just made em up. TNG ship numbers are all over the place.
Thank you for admitting it took rebooting to do this. Not sure why you beat around the bush.
no, mostly on the front of the saucer section
Nope, because apparently reimagining is not rebooting as long as the events do not change.
They should totally do Jane Kirk. It's the Jane way.
Jane kirk, changes events. There you go being obtuse again and arguing nonsense just to argue.
Changes how?
Absolutely, but smaller numbers on older ships, larger numbers on newer ships. Excepting the "almost all Connies in the 17xx's" and a few other oddities. The 1030 & 1031 stand out in this theory and doubtful they'll ever explain it.
Similar threads
