I read a lot of ENT, DS9, and Voy and NX being hard-canon. But please, you all forget where it got establised into STar trek. Which was in The Search for Spock. Which is way older. So TOS actually brought it into Hard-Canon, with the Prototype Excelsior NX-2000. As someone earlyer mentioned allready.
So I don't see any point of this "It's soft-canon!" and the "It's hard-canon, cause DS9, VOy and ENT showed it!"
So the whole discusion is a bit odd, since The Search for Spock made it hard-canon in 1984 allready.
One says Soft-Canon, the other one says, which sounded for me like the folowing: "Voy made it Hard-Canon!" and so on. So please.. stop the discussion about the NX prefix, since it was allready Hard-Canon before most people here in the forum propably were born. (Sorry, most discusions on the forum look like, most people on here are litle kids. Sorry if I offend anyone by it, just the expression I get very often over the fights.)
And sorry for my bad grammar and stuff, I'm still working on my english. And it's very good compared to 3 years ago.
I have a "Ships of the Line" calender in front of me, and on the first page is a ship called XCV-330, Enterprise.
It, too was an experimental ship that used a unique form of propulsion (based on a vulcan design with a vertical ring in the back). It wasn't very efficient so the project was scrapped
I have a "Ships of the Line" calender in front of me, and on the first page is a ship called XCV-330, Enterprise.
It, too was an experimental ship that used a unique form of propulsion (based on a vulcan design with a vertical ring in the back). It wasn't very efficient so the project was scrapped
And as I recall that ship was also Pre-Federation, wasn't it?
excuse me?
idk if you have NOTICED, our Star Trek Online IS soft canon, and by the rights of Cryptic and CBS, they can choose this for OUR STO.
please check the facts and proof of our STO's canon is. before you think it's non canon... jeez
we got NX classes and it's soft canon another many more on way too :P
Learn the difference between Soft Canon (otherwise known as FAN FICTION, or derogatorily known as Fan ****) and actual CANON (what the creators actually are doping with the property in question).
Soft Canon at best doesn't follow the full vision of the owner/creator of the IP, and at worst is basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit.
"But it's licensed!". I hear that argument all the time, and people don't realize that just having a "license" means nothing in terms of whether or not something is "canon" or not. Look at Franz Joseph for a real-life Trek example - his blueprints were de-canonized quite a long time ago, when Gene changed some things around in the Star Trek universe (specifically, all nacelles must be in pairs). That eliminated two of Joseph's designs from canon completely (the single-nacelle destroyer AND the three-nacelle dreadnought). The ONLY reason TNG got away with odd numbers of nacelles is that it was decreed that in TNG, each nacelle housed two sets of warp coils, making each nacelle a self-contained warp drive.
Having a 'License" does NOT mean that the "licensed work" has even been looked at by the licensor - and that's a policy Pramount followed for quite a while, milking the cash cow for all it was worth. CBS these days has a different viewpoint - but cannot interfere with licenses already granted. Heck, if Paramount was still the copyright holder I could have written a novel making Spock the illegitimate lovechild of a horny Betazed and a KIingon Targ, and it would have been considered "soft canon" by your definition, once I paid the license fee. Matter of fact, there was a lot of dross like that over the history of Trek, such as the Kirk/Spock slashfic that got published by Pocket before Roddenberry could stop it. Some of it was even de-canonized by Gene, then later put back into Canon when Paramount wanted to make some extra money (TAS, to be specific - most of it was absolutely horrible, including the eps which introduced the Kzinti. The Kzinti were never originally intended to be a part of Trek, but were part of a separate "universe" (Known Space), that were grafted in for time reasons.
Thionk on that before you start getting hostile at people who say the books aren't canon - because technically they are NOT - just as having a license is meaningless if the entity doing the licensing has no regard for even minor things like "continuity". That's even why the term "soft canon" exists - it's defined as "works set in a particular fictional place, that have the permission of the copyright holders to use the name".
Further information on this topic can be found here
Paramount's official take is identical to Roddenberrry's take: Nothing that wasn't a part of the various Trek TV series and films is not canon. NOt "soft canon" , but NOT CANON. PERIOD. Don't like it? Tell it to CBS Corp, the current UP holders. Barring that, you have no right to get hostile anywhere that anyone says that the various books etc. aren't canon, given this evidence.
Yeah, it was Pre-Federation but I don't believe it was Pre-Starfleet. The NX was Pre-Federation too.
Fair enough, one thing they really don't ever touch on much is the civilian side of things, because as I recall the SotL Enterprise was a testbed for a civilian liner. On a completely hijacking thought it would be nice to see some traffic in the space lanes that wasn't all military or 'shipping' related. Surely at some time a transport or something has to break down and need help in the galaxy
Fair enough, one thing they really don't ever touch on much is the civilian side of things, because as I recall the SotL Enterprise was a testbed for a civilian liner. On a completely hijacking thought it would be nice to see some traffic in the space lanes that wasn't all military or 'shipping' related. Surely at some time a transport or something has to break down and need help in the galaxy
Yeah, one of my gripes about the game is that planets should be full of commerce ships, and satellites, and warehouse space stations, etc.
Paramounts official take is identical to Roddenberrry's take: Nothing that wasn't a part of the various Trek TV series and films is not canon. NOt "soft canon" , but NOT CANON. PERIOD. Don't like it? Tell it to CBS Corp, the current UP holders. Barring that, you have no right to get hostile anywhere that anyone says that the various books etc. aren't canon, given this evidence.
That is....alot of negatives...I think they equal out to ! committed to film= ! considered canonical
Ive got over a hundred (yes, im not joking) ST novels right across the room in book stacks.
I dont ever recall any registry number other than NCC or NX in any individual book or any series.
Also, if there's such a registry in New Frontier and i somehow missed it.....i really like the NF series, but you have to admit Peter David takes a hell lot of liberty with the source material, both with regards to technology or people. I still recall the novels set after his novel 'Before Dishonor', where several authors tried to smooth over his....distortions.
Im surprised there is such a debate. I thought NCC and NX are all we really need.
really i saw that and it does not EVEN FOLLOW GENES TIMELINE AT ALL its probaly a star WARS thing but with a ST ship instead of the death star
Nope, NCX is not used in Star Wars...
in fact the only acronyms in SW are:
ISDI/II (Imperial Star Destroyer)
VSDI/II (Victory Star Destroyer)
RSD (Reclaimator Star Destroyer)
MC (Mon Calamari 40/60/80/90/100)
PSD (Palleon Star Destroyer)
SSD (Super Star Destroyer)
ESD (Eclipse Star Destroyer)
SoSD (Sovreign Star Destroyer)
I probably forget a few, but prefixes in Star Wars designation class...
Due I forgot simple ones:
Neb B (Nebulan
Neb B II (Nebulan B II)
EC (Escort Carrier)
LF (Lancer Frigate)
CC (Carrack Cruiser)
DN (Dreadnought Cruiser)
BC (Bulwark Light Cruiser)
INC (Interdictor Light Cruiser)
Plus hundreds more I can not recall off the top of my head...
Some books indicate INV/ISV and RNV/RSV as official designations for all ships, but Star Wars never really embraced that categorical system instead depending on name and class to for cataloging similar to the Navy Catalogs from the olden days of sail.
Learn the difference between Soft Canon (otherwise known as FAN FICTION, or derogatorily known as Fan ****) and actual CANON (what the creators actually are doping with the property in question).
Soft Canon isn't Fan Fiction... Fan Fiction is Fan fiction, Soft canon is any licenced works outside of the Movies/Shows.
Soft Canon isn't Fan Fiction... Fan Fiction is Fan fiction, Soft canon is any licenced works outside of the Movies/Shows.
Try reading the article I linked to, that explores policy on what is/is not fiction in Star Trek...
Then explain to me the :licensed" (yes, it was, by Pocket Books) slashfic that got published as a OFFICIAL LICENSED WORK (described in that article), and why it's no longer considered canon at all. Explain the LICENSED Frans Joseph Blueprints that are STII considered NOT CANON, al least in terms of being actual ships.
Licensing just means that a company/publisher has BOUGHT THE RIGHT TO USE A NAME from the original IP holders - it says NOTHING about whether or not the work is to be treated as a reference for the IP in question. A "licensed" work in terms of canon only has whatever status the OFFICIAL IP HOLDER assigns to it, and first Gene's (then Paramount's after Gene lost control in the 80s due to poor health) position was that only what was shown on TV or the films could be used as any sort of reference - the rest meant nothing. This even included anything published by Pocket Books, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Paramount's holding company at the time.
READ THE ARTICLE, THEN come in here and try to spout off about "soft canon" - that Roddenberry, then Paramount, then others have said HAS NO "OFFICIAL" STATUS. THAT INCLUDES THE VARIOUS BOOKS PUT OUT BY THE PRODUCTION CREW. They use the Star Trek Mythos to make money, but are NOT considered any kind of reference work, nor is what is said in them treated as any kind of "fact".
Get your definitions straight, again, before getting hostile - and check the sources provided. You might learn something.
The debate between what is canon and what is not is pointless and really doesn't get to the heart of the issue. If Cryptic wants to add non-canon stuff in, they do it, but most times they have a decent reason for it being in there.
If there was a specific need for new registries other than because people want it, then I am sure that they would consider adding it.
So far the only registries I can see being used is ISS (we have their uniforms so I don't see why we can't have their ships), SS for Vulcan ships, a unique registry for the Andorian ship, and if possible NCX as a replacement for NCC so we can use the numbers we want, as most ships ingame are kitbashed refits.
Pocket is part of the National Amusements family which includes CBS and Paramount. While their work is not officially canon, it's also a step above something like Armada or work by other publishers, I'd say, because it is produced within the CBS family.
well, guys, i think it's time our ships get new Prefixs.
NCX and EX Exist In Soft Canon Books, Why Don't have New Prefixs for STO? after all it's soft Canon STO.
let us know of Dev could comment on this for adding to Ships prefix?
anyone, would you rather have NCX or EX than NX and NCC?
Just NO
STO has been going in the right direction.....we want to move forward
Pocket is part of the National Amusements family which includes CBS and Paramount. While their work is not officially canon, it's also a step above something like Armada or work by other publishers, I'd say, because it is produced within the CBS family.
Pocket also published the novel Killing Time in 1985, which was a fan-written SLASHFIC. Just so you know, a slashfic is a work of fiction that depicts a homosexual relationship between two characters normally considered heterosexual. In this case, Kirk and Spock.
Least that can be said is that Gene was FURIOUS, and almost yanked the IP. Would have too, if Pocket hadn't ceased publication and recalled the book. But, according to your definition since it was published by Pocket IT'S CANON that Kirk was bi and Spock either bi or homosexual. After all, it's in a licensed work published by Pocket Books!.
Now do you see that assuming a publisher knows what's canon and what isn't is being a leetle too trusting, and one reason why Gene didn't regard ANY of the so-called "soft canon" as having any meaning at all?
This distance between Roddenberry and the novels started to change in 1985, when the TOS-era Killing Time appeared, a novel written by a fan who was active in the so-called 'slash fiction' scene (a genre wherein mostly-female authors describe homosexual pairings between otherwise-thought-to-be-hetero males, such as in the frequent (some say original) case of "Kirk/Spock" slash-fic). She had managed to keep a very strong erotic subtext between the Captain and his XO, one more brazen in earlier drafts. This was largely excised by the Pocket Books editorial staff, but nonetheless a pre-edit version managed to get published before Roddenberry and others insisted on its recall.
Roddenberry was furious . . . not out of homophobia, but simply because these were his characters and his universe and it was being altered in a major way. Soon thereafter the pre-production for TNG began in earnest, meaning that Roddenberry was officially back in the saddle, and, per Richard Arnold, Roddenberry decided that it was time to have some more control over the books again. He was finally able to put someone in the sort of "production oversight" position he'd originally considered back in 1967, in the form of Richard Arnold.
TOS used the NCC number as a REGISTRATION, similar to what we currintly use on aircraft - the acual ship names for the Federation were always prefixed (as they are in-game) as the U.S.S. <name>, where USS stands for United Star Ship. Same with the Klingons, whose IKS designation mirror's Britain's HMS designation (For the Klinks, it's Imperial Klingon Ship; for the Brits, it's His( or Her) Majesty's Ship).
Being that we can have a 10-digit number as a prefix, with only one of the 10 digits reserved - there's absolutely no danger of running out of prefix numbers, ESPECIALLY at the current age of the game - there aren't enough subscribers to possibly fill up a 10-digit permutation anytime soon.
I'm sure that if there is a real reason to do so, all Cryptic would have to do is go to CPS and get a authorization to be able to change the leading digit.
I'm not suggesting that Pocket Books are canon... But the approvals process has tightened up in places over the years (in part due to things after that book) and CBS seems to take canon just a hare less serious and its licensees just a bit MORE serious than Berman or Roddenberry did.
Canon? No. But pretty closely coordinated with CBS on some major points. And unlike, say, the standard toys or video games, original material created by Pocket is, after a manner of speaking, owned by CBS.
CBS would have trouble referencing Star Trek Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or the original races in games like "A Final Unity" or new ships from "Armada". But CBS owns the company that owns the books.
So while the books are not canon, properties featured in the books can be utilized more readily than properties featured in works by a traditional licensee.
I would suggest that the difference is that whoever is in charge of Trek at CBS would utter a single word to make something from the books canon because the rules for canon are what CBS says they are and CBS effectively owns the material from the books. Whereas they don't own new material created by other licensees quite so clearly.
Personally I think the game is just fine with only the NCC and NX prefixes. Further, IF any further prefixes were to be added, most likely it would be NAR since that prefix was mentioned on Voyager.
However, given a choice between the two, I could potentially see the use of NCX for a concept prototype perhaps but I also think that a concept prototype would fall under an NX prefix. As for EX....no way, no how. I just don't see how an EX prefix would work in STO.
Hard Canon - TV Shows, Movies, i.e Enterprise, TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voy, also the movies...even the new one
Soft Canon - Games, Books, Comics, i.e STO, Elite Force, Legacy, Bridge Commander, etc
Non-Canon - Fan Made shows, simms/rps, books, etc i.e Bravo fleet, Star Trek: Of Gods and Men etc
Therefore the NX Class is Hard Canon, the NX Class in the game is still Hard Canon but the game itself [allowing it out of the 22nd century] is soft canon.
Hard Canon Prefixs I've seen, NX for prototypes, NCC for registered ships and NCV, 29th Century Time ship. Its been known for Prototype ships like the U.S.S. Galaxy, U.S.S. Excelsior to go from NX to NCC once lunched officially after testing.
Being that we can have a 10-digit number as a prefix, with only one of the 10 digits reserved - there's absolutely no danger of running out of prefix numbers, ESPECIALLY at the current age of the game - there aren't enough subscribers to possibly fill up a 10-digit permutation anytime soon.
Agreed, except that they are not unique, and multiple players can use the same registry over and over. If it was a unique given to every ship created, then it would be another story.
I just thought it would allow those who wanted a shorter number without using pre-established registries like 1701. I didn't like the idea of having to throw up a "9" in front of the registry I had already planned on using before game launch.
The only other one you could possibly get away with is the NAR prefix, used for the SS Vico and the USS Raven. Even then it'd probably only appear on science based vessels.
I'm not suggesting that Pocket Books are canon... But the approvals process has tightened up in places over the years (in part due to things after that book) and CBS seems to take canon just a hare less serious and its licensees just a bit MORE serious than Berman or Roddenberry did.
Canon? No. But pretty closely coordinated with CBS on some major points. And unlike, say, the standard toys or video games, original material created by Pocket is, after a manner of speaking, owned by CBS.
CBS would have trouble referencing Star Trek Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or the original races in games like "A Final Unity" or new ships from "Armada". But CBS owns the company that owns the books.
So while the books are not canon, properties featured in the books can be utilized more readily than properties featured in works by a traditional licensee.
I would suggest that the difference is that whoever is in charge of Trek at CBS would utter a single word to make something from the books canon because the rules for canon are what CBS says they are and CBS effectively owns the material from the books. Whereas they don't own new material created by other licensees quite so clearly.
The ones I've been directimg my comments to are those who think, jst because a work is "licensed", that it has the same weight and importance as the original source materiel. Demonstrably false, and variable on the attitudes of the original IP holders. Lucas is fairly tolerant of people modifying and changing thins in the SW universe; one of the side effects of that ire the godawful prequel movies (he incorporated comcepts that people had added to his universe, such as the whole midochlorian thing - and thereby made the prequels worse since their original concepts - written at the time os the original Star Wars back in 1973 - didn't quite jell with the Expanded Universe stuff.
Roddenberry wated (and usually got) much tighter control ofer any "expanded Universe" - explicitly calling out parts of it as non-canon, then later declaring ANYTHIGN non-TV series and film-based non-canon. Not "soft" canon, NOT CANON AT ALL.
Srtrangely, he also declared projects he'd authorized non-canon for a while too (TAS) - it wasn't until after his death IIRC that TAS was re-added to canon. Nothing else ever was - not one novel, not any of the "technical files" put out by the production crew - nada.
The attitude that some people have, that if it appeared in a book it somehow has some official standing - and gettign hostile when questioned on that! - is what's been sparking the responses I've been posting. Exposing that attitude for the bullcarp that it is.
Now, the people at Cryptic have added some of te Pocket Books-published things to the game. That doesn't make them canon, either - as by definition STO isn't, even though the devs were trying to keep to the previously established fiction up through Star Trek XI - up to where Star Trek XI split off into it's own continuity, anyway. That resolve onthe devs part is slipping, though - what with all the "retro" ships being intorduced. That's even been commented on over at the TvTropes entry for STO - sadly, under the Fan Dumb category. Same with the Klingon issues... have a look here.
Anyway, it's not directed really at anyone, and I agree with you to a extent.
The only other one you could possibly get away with is the NAR prefix, used for the SS Vico and the USS Raven. Even then it'd probably only appear on science based vessels.
The SS Vico (NAR-18834) was an Federation Oberth-class science vessel that operated out of Starbase 514 during the mid-24th century. The Vico was not a Starfleet vessel. In 2368, the Vico explored an astronomical formation known as a black cluster
In "The Raven", the ship was described as being a Federation civilian vessel, with the prefix "SS." In "Dark Frontier", however, it was referred to as the "USS Raven," despite the Hansens clearly being civilians.
NEITHER ONE was a Starfleet vessel, and since the only playable Federation ships are part of Starfleet, using a civillian designation would be a terrible idea. Those would have to wait until there were non-Starfleet ships playable in-game...good luck with that.
Comments
Whoa whoa whoa, I have all of the New Frontier books not 5 feet from me, and I don't remember a single mention of an "NCX" anywhere.
So I don't see any point of this "It's soft-canon!" and the "It's hard-canon, cause DS9, VOy and ENT showed it!"
So the whole discusion is a bit odd, since The Search for Spock made it hard-canon in 1984 allready.
One says Soft-Canon, the other one says, which sounded for me like the folowing: "Voy made it Hard-Canon!" and so on. So please.. stop the discussion about the NX prefix, since it was allready Hard-Canon before most people here in the forum propably were born. (Sorry, most discusions on the forum look like, most people on here are litle kids. Sorry if I offend anyone by it, just the expression I get very often over the fights.)
And sorry for my bad grammar and stuff, I'm still working on my english.
It, too was an experimental ship that used a unique form of propulsion (based on a vulcan design with a vertical ring in the back). It wasn't very efficient so the project was scrapped
And as I recall that ship was also Pre-Federation, wasn't it?
Learn the difference between Soft Canon (otherwise known as FAN FICTION, or derogatorily known as Fan ****) and actual CANON (what the creators actually are doping with the property in question).
Soft Canon at best doesn't follow the full vision of the owner/creator of the IP, and at worst is basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit.
"But it's licensed!". I hear that argument all the time, and people don't realize that just having a "license" means nothing in terms of whether or not something is "canon" or not. Look at Franz Joseph for a real-life Trek example - his blueprints were de-canonized quite a long time ago, when Gene changed some things around in the Star Trek universe (specifically, all nacelles must be in pairs). That eliminated two of Joseph's designs from canon completely (the single-nacelle destroyer AND the three-nacelle dreadnought). The ONLY reason TNG got away with odd numbers of nacelles is that it was decreed that in TNG, each nacelle housed two sets of warp coils, making each nacelle a self-contained warp drive.
Having a 'License" does NOT mean that the "licensed work" has even been looked at by the licensor - and that's a policy Pramount followed for quite a while, milking the cash cow for all it was worth. CBS these days has a different viewpoint - but cannot interfere with licenses already granted. Heck, if Paramount was still the copyright holder I could have written a novel making Spock the illegitimate lovechild of a horny Betazed and a KIingon Targ, and it would have been considered "soft canon" by your definition, once I paid the license fee. Matter of fact, there was a lot of dross like that over the history of Trek, such as the Kirk/Spock slashfic that got published by Pocket before Roddenberry could stop it. Some of it was even de-canonized by Gene, then later put back into Canon when Paramount wanted to make some extra money (TAS, to be specific - most of it was absolutely horrible, including the eps which introduced the Kzinti. The Kzinti were never originally intended to be a part of Trek, but were part of a separate "universe" (Known Space), that were grafted in for time reasons.
Thionk on that before you start getting hostile at people who say the books aren't canon - because technically they are NOT - just as having a license is meaningless if the entity doing the licensing has no regard for even minor things like "continuity". That's even why the term "soft canon" exists - it's defined as "works set in a particular fictional place, that have the permission of the copyright holders to use the name".
Further information on this topic can be found here
Paramount's official take is identical to Roddenberrry's take: Nothing that wasn't a part of the various Trek TV series and films is not canon. NOt "soft canon" , but NOT CANON. PERIOD. Don't like it? Tell it to CBS Corp, the current UP holders. Barring that, you have no right to get hostile anywhere that anyone says that the various books etc. aren't canon, given this evidence.
Fair enough, one thing they really don't ever touch on much is the civilian side of things, because as I recall the SotL Enterprise was a testbed for a civilian liner. On a completely hijacking thought it would be nice to see some traffic in the space lanes that wasn't all military or 'shipping' related. Surely at some time a transport or something has to break down and need help in the galaxy
That is....alot of negatives...I think they equal out to ! committed to film= ! considered canonical
But we have rocks!
I dont ever recall any registry number other than NCC or NX in any individual book or any series.
Also, if there's such a registry in New Frontier and i somehow missed it.....i really like the NF series, but you have to admit Peter David takes a hell lot of liberty with the source material, both with regards to technology or people. I still recall the novels set after his novel 'Before Dishonor', where several authors tried to smooth over his....distortions.
Im surprised there is such a debate. I thought NCC and NX are all we really need.
I want to say no on principal, but new registry numbers could have a purpose.
NCX = Section 13 ship, or ship thats commissioned but has been allocated to experimental ship research.
ooo, lol.
EX? nah, I think that doesn't even sound good.
Plus, It's the 25th century. In the 22nd, NCC didn't exist, now it does. Maybe a new company is building ships now, or theres a new regulation.
really i saw that and it does not EVEN FOLLOW GENES TIMELINE AT ALL its probaly a star WARS thing but with a ST ship instead of the death star
Nope, NCX is not used in Star Wars...
in fact the only acronyms in SW are:
ISDI/II (Imperial Star Destroyer)
VSDI/II (Victory Star Destroyer)
RSD (Reclaimator Star Destroyer)
MC (Mon Calamari 40/60/80/90/100)
PSD (Palleon Star Destroyer)
SSD (Super Star Destroyer)
ESD (Eclipse Star Destroyer)
SoSD (Sovreign Star Destroyer)
I probably forget a few, but prefixes in Star Wars designation class...
Due I forgot simple ones:
Neb B (Nebulan
Neb B II (Nebulan B II)
EC (Escort Carrier)
LF (Lancer Frigate)
CC (Carrack Cruiser)
DN (Dreadnought Cruiser)
BC (Bulwark Light Cruiser)
INC (Interdictor Light Cruiser)
Plus hundreds more I can not recall off the top of my head...
Some books indicate INV/ISV and RNV/RSV as official designations for all ships, but Star Wars never really embraced that categorical system instead depending on name and class to for cataloging similar to the Navy Catalogs from the olden days of sail.
Soft Canon isn't Fan Fiction... Fan Fiction is Fan fiction, Soft canon is any licenced works outside of the Movies/Shows.
Try reading the article I linked to, that explores policy on what is/is not fiction in Star Trek...
Then explain to me the :licensed" (yes, it was, by Pocket Books) slashfic that got published as a OFFICIAL LICENSED WORK (described in that article), and why it's no longer considered canon at all. Explain the LICENSED Frans Joseph Blueprints that are STII considered NOT CANON, al least in terms of being actual ships.
Licensing just means that a company/publisher has BOUGHT THE RIGHT TO USE A NAME from the original IP holders - it says NOTHING about whether or not the work is to be treated as a reference for the IP in question. A "licensed" work in terms of canon only has whatever status the OFFICIAL IP HOLDER assigns to it, and first Gene's (then Paramount's after Gene lost control in the 80s due to poor health) position was that only what was shown on TV or the films could be used as any sort of reference - the rest meant nothing. This even included anything published by Pocket Books, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Paramount's holding company at the time.
READ THE ARTICLE, THEN come in here and try to spout off about "soft canon" - that Roddenberry, then Paramount, then others have said HAS NO "OFFICIAL" STATUS. THAT INCLUDES THE VARIOUS BOOKS PUT OUT BY THE PRODUCTION CREW. They use the Star Trek Mythos to make money, but are NOT considered any kind of reference work, nor is what is said in them treated as any kind of "fact".
Get your definitions straight, again, before getting hostile - and check the sources provided. You might learn something.
If there was a specific need for new registries other than because people want it, then I am sure that they would consider adding it.
So far the only registries I can see being used is ISS (we have their uniforms so I don't see why we can't have their ships), SS for Vulcan ships, a unique registry for the Andorian ship, and if possible NCX as a replacement for NCC so we can use the numbers we want, as most ships ingame are kitbashed refits.
Just NO
STO has been going in the right direction.....we want to move forward
Pocket also published the novel Killing Time in 1985, which was a fan-written SLASHFIC. Just so you know, a slashfic is a work of fiction that depicts a homosexual relationship between two characters normally considered heterosexual. In this case, Kirk and Spock.
Least that can be said is that Gene was FURIOUS, and almost yanked the IP. Would have too, if Pocket hadn't ceased publication and recalled the book. But, according to your definition since it was published by Pocket IT'S CANON that Kirk was bi and Spock either bi or homosexual. After all, it's in a licensed work published by Pocket Books!.
Now do you see that assuming a publisher knows what's canon and what isn't is being a leetle too trusting, and one reason why Gene didn't regard ANY of the so-called "soft canon" as having any meaning at all?
For example UFP-903827
TOS used the NCC number as a REGISTRATION, similar to what we currintly use on aircraft - the acual ship names for the Federation were always prefixed (as they are in-game) as the U.S.S. <name>, where USS stands for United Star Ship. Same with the Klingons, whose IKS designation mirror's Britain's HMS designation (For the Klinks, it's Imperial Klingon Ship; for the Brits, it's His( or Her) Majesty's Ship).
Being that we can have a 10-digit number as a prefix, with only one of the 10 digits reserved - there's absolutely no danger of running out of prefix numbers, ESPECIALLY at the current age of the game - there aren't enough subscribers to possibly fill up a 10-digit permutation anytime soon.
I'm sure that if there is a real reason to do so, all Cryptic would have to do is go to CPS and get a authorization to be able to change the leading digit.
Canon? No. But pretty closely coordinated with CBS on some major points. And unlike, say, the standard toys or video games, original material created by Pocket is, after a manner of speaking, owned by CBS.
CBS would have trouble referencing Star Trek Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or the original races in games like "A Final Unity" or new ships from "Armada". But CBS owns the company that owns the books.
So while the books are not canon, properties featured in the books can be utilized more readily than properties featured in works by a traditional licensee.
I would suggest that the difference is that whoever is in charge of Trek at CBS would utter a single word to make something from the books canon because the rules for canon are what CBS says they are and CBS effectively owns the material from the books. Whereas they don't own new material created by other licensees quite so clearly.
However, given a choice between the two, I could potentially see the use of NCX for a concept prototype perhaps but I also think that a concept prototype would fall under an NX prefix. As for EX....no way, no how. I just don't see how an EX prefix would work in STO.
Hard Canon - TV Shows, Movies, i.e Enterprise, TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voy, also the movies...even the new one
Soft Canon - Games, Books, Comics, i.e STO, Elite Force, Legacy, Bridge Commander, etc
Non-Canon - Fan Made shows, simms/rps, books, etc i.e Bravo fleet, Star Trek: Of Gods and Men etc
Therefore the NX Class is Hard Canon, the NX Class in the game is still Hard Canon but the game itself [allowing it out of the 22nd century] is soft canon.
Hard Canon Prefixs I've seen, NX for prototypes, NCC for registered ships and NCV, 29th Century Time ship. Its been known for Prototype ships like the U.S.S. Galaxy, U.S.S. Excelsior to go from NX to NCC once lunched officially after testing.
Agreed, except that they are not unique, and multiple players can use the same registry over and over. If it was a unique given to every ship created, then it would be another story.
I just thought it would allow those who wanted a shorter number without using pre-established registries like 1701. I didn't like the idea of having to throw up a "9" in front of the registry I had already planned on using before game launch.
The ones I've been directimg my comments to are those who think, jst because a work is "licensed", that it has the same weight and importance as the original source materiel. Demonstrably false, and variable on the attitudes of the original IP holders. Lucas is fairly tolerant of people modifying and changing thins in the SW universe; one of the side effects of that ire the godawful prequel movies (he incorporated comcepts that people had added to his universe, such as the whole midochlorian thing - and thereby made the prequels worse since their original concepts - written at the time os the original Star Wars back in 1973 - didn't quite jell with the Expanded Universe stuff.
Roddenberry wated (and usually got) much tighter control ofer any "expanded Universe" - explicitly calling out parts of it as non-canon, then later declaring ANYTHIGN non-TV series and film-based non-canon. Not "soft" canon, NOT CANON AT ALL.
Srtrangely, he also declared projects he'd authorized non-canon for a while too (TAS) - it wasn't until after his death IIRC that TAS was re-added to canon. Nothing else ever was - not one novel, not any of the "technical files" put out by the production crew - nada.
The attitude that some people have, that if it appeared in a book it somehow has some official standing - and gettign hostile when questioned on that! - is what's been sparking the responses I've been posting. Exposing that attitude for the bullcarp that it is.
Now, the people at Cryptic have added some of te Pocket Books-published things to the game. That doesn't make them canon, either - as by definition STO isn't, even though the devs were trying to keep to the previously established fiction up through Star Trek XI - up to where Star Trek XI split off into it's own continuity, anyway. That resolve onthe devs part is slipping, though - what with all the "retro" ships being intorduced. That's even been commented on over at the TvTropes entry for STO - sadly, under the Fan Dumb category. Same with the Klingon issues... have a look here.
Anyway, it's not directed really at anyone, and I agree with you to a extent.
Guess you missed a part of those Wiki entries...
On the Viko:
And, on the Raven:
NEITHER ONE was a Starfleet vessel, and since the only playable Federation ships are part of Starfleet, using a civillian designation would be a terrible idea. Those would have to wait until there were non-Starfleet ships playable in-game...good luck with that.