|WikiProject Star Trek||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
Requested move (May 2005)
- USS Defiant (NX-74205) -> USS Defiant
- Support. With one ship being so much more popular than the others it make sense to have that ship as the subject of a main article
with the other two as sections within that article. --Theo (Talk) 23:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Eh, merging is a different discussion... I don't think they should be sections here, but the article about this ship should be the main one and point to the others. —Mulad (talk) 03:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- OPPOSE, USS Defiant should be a disambiguation page. 18.104.22.168 01:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Other uses are minor compared to the NX-74205. — Knowledge Seeker দ 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Featured in many eps. The other two probably only need be mentioned on a 'other ships that briefly appeared in the Star Trek universe'-type page. Niteowlneils 18:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support. violet/riga (t) 16:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
22.214.171.124 17:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can anybody explain how, when Defiant was supposedly a prototype, and the design mothballed, Valiantwas sailing around with a crew of cadets aboard? Since when do cadets train aboard brand-new ships, anyhow? (An old Constitution-class, yeh...) --trekphiler, 16/11/05
- Yes! In the first episode the Defiant appears, Sisko explains that the Defiant prototype was 'mothballed' when the Borg threat waxed then waned; perhaps they kept the registry as a temp measure or to obfuscate viewers.
- As well, supposedly, while on training exercises, the Valiant with crew and cadets, was somehow disabled (attacked, I think), command and other officers/crew were killed, and cadets were then in charge (but didn't know how to repair the warp engines sufficiently). (Big mistake.) :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I never thought a lot of this episode, but they did give a bit of an explanation for the cadet thing. Apparently it had to do with giving the "elite" Red Squad the opporunity to excel further in their training as they prepaired to step into their roles as Starfleet officers. Rather than giving them a beater, they put them in a real ship built for fighting the war with the Dominion that was looming. As for the hull number thing, chances are she was under construction at the same time as the Defiant, but lagging behind as performance data from the prototype was awaited. Construction was halted with the project, though all that probably occurred later than the non canon 2368 suggested by the article, and then the ship was finished after Defiant proved a capable warship with its assignment to DS9. Her hull number was only a little higher because original construction of the ship began shortly after the Defiant.
- Valiant was not 'sailing around' when the Defiant was mothballed. It had only been out on the training mission since just before the start of the war. Valiant was a relatively new ship at the time, as it was still having engine trouble that had been solved on the Defiant a good time prior (had it been older, these problems would have been fixed before it left).
Impulse Engine Designation
I removed the FIG-2 impulse engine designations from the Defiant's engine listing. That entire designation system is from the long defunct (5 years pre DS9) FASA role playing game. What is more, the FIG-2 designation corresponds to an impulse system in use during the original Kirk era movies. While the FASA role playing game may have been happy to assume that half the systems were the same ones used 90 years earlier, the idea makes no sense. That would be like using the starter from an early 20th century car in something modern.
Move from USS Defiant
- USS Defiant -> USS Defiant (NCC-75633)
I'm curious as to why this article was moved to a title listing the later registry number when the prior title neatly avoided this (effectively functioning as a DAB page). The prior ship had much more screen time. If anything, perhaps this article title should be USS Defiant (Deep Space Nine), USS Defiant (DS9), USS Defiant (DS9 starships), or similar? In any event, I'm tempted to move it to something more inclusive. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ending of voyager
Requested Move (May 2006)
- USS Defiant (NCC-75633) -> USS Defiant
Oppose It should move to USS Defiant (DS9) instead. As the original defiant has appeared in two Star Trek shows and has a good amount of notability, and this article is about two separate ships, from the Deep Space Nine series. 126.96.36.199
- *Comment: I don't understand why the articles for NCC-75633 and NX-74205 were merged - aren't they different ships? Gimmetrow 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, they are two completely different ships, of the same class, but even there the NX-74205 ship was a prototype test article, so isn't typical of the class. 188.8.131.52 02:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 11:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This vote is inapplicable, as there was already a vote to move it to USS Defiant prior to the unilateral move back to this location. I put this on WP:RM not because we needed a vote but because we needed an admin to move it back where it belongs. --Vedek Dukat Talk 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- For the record then, I withdraw my participation in this vote. However, the only prior vote for move that I see was May 2005, a year ago. If that is what you are referring to, you can't expect editors today to be bound by a year-old decision, even if you agree with it. You also could have expressed your view in this vote. Gimmetrow 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing to delete any content, I'm just suggesting it might be more coherent to have these treated in the same article. This article already covers 2 out of 3 named Defiant-class starships, it's not much of a stretch to merge the paragraph about the Valiant in as well. see WT:TREK. Morwen - Talk 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
USS or U.S.S.?
The image of the ship shows that "U.S.S." is painted on the hull, yet the article uses "USS". Is there a Wikipedia convention for this, or should this be renamed from "USS Defiant" to "U.S.S. Defiant"? --ΨΦorg 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Confused With Moore
The article seems to be stating that Ron Moore doesn't get to say what is canon. I am very confused. Ron Moore was deeply involved in producing the show. Why can't he say what is canon? Lots42 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Being 'deeply involved' is not the same as being sole author, and since the shows are essentially collaborative, no single person may define canon, not having sole control of the content.Epimetheus Rex (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps more fuel to the fire...
According to the Official Startrek.com entry "History of USS Defiant", the "new" Defiant, renamed from USS Sao Paolo, actually KEPT the old NX registry number.
"...the same-class Sao Paulo was fully renamed and renumbered as an all-new U.S.S. Defiant. Despite going into production as a standard design, its experimental NX designation was never officially changed — even on this replacement." -- http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/documentaries/article/5378.html
I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Starship_article_ruminations, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)