Talk:USS Defiant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move (May 2005)[edit]

USS Defiant (NX-74205) -> USS Defiant

There are technically two other ships of the same name, but this one appeared in dozens of episodes while the other two only showed up about 3 times. —Mulad (talk) 20:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • 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)
      Having looked at the other articles, I agree that they are too substantial to be merged into this one. From your intro I had assumed that there would be evry little to say about them. Silly me! The main article should open with links to the other articles. --Theo (Talk) 12:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE, USS Defiant should be a disambiguation page. 01:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Other uses are minor compared to the NX-74205. — Knowledge Seeker 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)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 16:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Articles Merged[edit]

I have since merged the articles USS Defiant (NX-74205) and USS Defiant (NCC-75633) into USS Defiant 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Its a manual of style thing Fosnez 04:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should already be at USS Defiant; it was voted on and moved, but User:Cool Cat moved it back. --Vedek Dukat Talk 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ending of voyager[edit]

In the closing moments of endgame, one can see a Defiant class ship, can we assume that this was the Definat? Fosnez 04:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not unless someone from Star Trek says it was. Lots42 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move (May 2006)[edit]

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.
*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. 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)

The Ark[edit]

Has anyone ever noticed how similar the Defiant is ,in shape to the Autobot's ship The Ark? Sochwa 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen something say the cartoon Ark was inspired by the defiant to look more like it. Though I can't remember where. Someone should look into it – Saphseraph (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't see a reason to merge this article (so I "oppose" it..) - both class and show are notable and encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:25, 16 December 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.?[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

According to the Official 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." --

--Kschang77 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Input requested[edit]

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)


I've just watched Season 4 Episode 7 of DS9 Starship Down, and it ends onboard Defiant with Sisko's suggestion that they go to a baseball game on the holodeck. Whereas in the article it states that there is no holodeck on ships of this class? Thoughts? Gavinio (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from context he's talking about watching a game back on the station. Plenty of material in the series and from licensed materiala make clear there aren't recreational facilities like a holodeck on this shop. --EEMIV (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)