This has long been a popular misconception about Kirk's/the Writer's questionable grammar. To quote:
- SPOCK: Inconceivable this body has gone unnoted on our records.
- KIRK: And yet, here it is. No time to investigate. Science stations, gather data for [computer bank]]s. Uhura, notify the discovery on subspace radio.
- UHURA: A strong interference on subspace, Captain. The planet must be a natural radio source.
- KIRK: Let's get out of its range.
What it all basically boils down to is how grammatically weak the line in and who is interpreting it.
Alternatively, "Uhura, notify the discovery on subspace radio," could mean:
- "Uhura, notify [Starfleet of] the discovery on subspace radio."
- "Uhura, notify the discovery [to Starfleet] on subspace radio."
- "Uhura, broadcast the findings on subspace radio."
- "Uhura, notify the [starship/USS] Discovery on subspace radio."
The confusion of this subject roots back to closed captioning/subtitles (from at least) which treated it as a proper noun ("Discovery"). Sources for this include the closed captioning from the original 2-disc DVD release of TOS (found here), and I also recall seeing it on some TV broadcasts, such as the Sci-Fi channel. Based on the most current DVD box set it is no longer a proper noun.
Meanwhile, the article assumes the line means that "the Discovery" means that it was a starship, which makes the sentence (in the article) "and notify her of the existence of" even more misleading about what was really said in the episode. --Alan del Beccio 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was wondering "What is the Discovery and why is Enterprise trying to contact it as opposed to some other vessel? What's so special about Discovery?" I think you're right, though, Kirk is asking Uhura to notify Starfleet about their discovery, not contact the Discovery. --From Andoria with Love 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- If the new captions say 'discovery' without a capital D then yes, this should be deleted. The line as broadcast suggested to me that 'D/discovery' was to receive the notification, since the idea of 'notifying a discovery' sounded grammatically ludicrous.
- Was this at any point clarified in behind-the-scenes materials?--Bounty 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This is now being discussed on the deletion page linked on the flip side of this article. --Alan del Beccio 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think this might all be more ado about something than is necessary. A check of the October 26, 1966 Final Draft shooting script for "The Squire of Gothos" indicates that Kirk's scripted line is "Uhura, report the discovery on sub-space radio ---" It would appear that Shatner simply mis-delivered the scripted line as "notify" instead of "report" and the script supervisor didn't notice the (ungrammatical) slip up. GSchnitzer 01:39, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
- This has been discussed elsewhere. To "notify" something ("notify the discovery (of Gothos) on subspace radio") can also mean to make note of a discovery. To broadcast it to all and sundry. --LauraCC (talk) 19:36, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
Registry Number question
In the 3rd episode they mention the Discovery is basically a brand new ship and in the 2nd episode that the Shenzhou is old. Then how can the Discovery's registry number be lower? And lower by almost 200! I don't remember any instances from other series where that happened... --2003:E3:3BC0:C401:8C70:34CB:ECF5:3ED3 20:13, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
- The ship registry numbers may not be assigned chronologically. Other examples include a newer Yeager having a lower registry than an older Yeager, USS Dauntless NX-01-A (very low indeed), and Prometheus NX-59650. Plus, the Discovery might've been refitted fro stem to stern, and is straight out of spacedock, irrespective of its original age. Cf. the Enterprise refit of 2271-73. Kind regards, -- Markonian 20:21, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
I know Roberto Orci said on the commentary for Star Trek that he researched and found that Matt Jefferies came up with the numbers to mean first two are ship number ad second is design in that So 1701 is 17th ship 1st design. Not sure how this even makes sense. T-888
This article states that black alert is used whenever a "black op experiment" occurred on the ship, but my understanding was (and the black alert article states) that black alert was used whenever the spore drive was used, not just any dangerous experiment. Just making sure I didn't miss something in the show. 31dot (talk) 10:44, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
- I don't recall anything about it being used for every "black op experiment", just each time the spore drive was used as you say. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:58, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
- General plot questions should be asked at either the Reference Desk or the Discussion forum(click "Discuss" at the top of the screen). This page is for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 00:05, April 29, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this counts as a general plot question since it was never explicitly stated that Burnham is the second officer. It is however implied, during Pike's command of the Disco in 2257, when Saru opts out of boarding Section 31 headquarters in favor of reviewing logs or something, and Pike says Burnham is next up. During Lorca's command, I'd guess Airiam. Hurrah123456 (talk) 04:52, July 14, 2020 (UTC)
So since the Discovery was recorded as having been destroyed, wouldn't the addition of the "A" to the registry be done in order to cover up the fact that it had traveled into the future, which would be illegal(as Vance noted)? I know we can't really claim that in this article, but am I completely wrong here? 31dot (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- With exception of the lost elephant from the Craft episode, if Vulcan has been renamed to reflect its "current" name per DIS name, the same should be done with this ship (just as was done with the Sao Paulo) to reflect its current name too. –Gvsualan (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Burnham, Acting CO?
Okay, maybe I missed something in the past few episodes... but when was Burnham made acting CO? Never, AFAICR. But because I *may* have missed something, I don't want to just remove that... --TimPendragon (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)