Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
There is very little evidence that any of the other Enterprises where the flagship. The only one absolutely positively identified as the flagship is the Enterprise-D. The Ent-A might have been a flagship at one time for the sole reason that a Starfleet Admiral was flying it, though, but this is speculation. -- Harry 15:16, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
- In the episode "All Good Things", didn't Riker refer to the aging Enterprise-D as his personal flagship? This might suggest that the term may have other uses. The reference to "Hayes' flagship" might be in keeping with this alternate terminology. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk).
- what about the Romulan ship in ST: Nemesis Shinzon was the leader of the Romulans (all be it illegally) his ship should be listed?
And the NX-01 was called Earth Flagship by Adm. Forrest in a year two Episode all though I think the Adm called it that because of all the races Archer came in contact with. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
- Weren't the USS Venture, USS Bellerophon (NCC-74705) and USS Gorkon (NCC-40512) the flagships of Admiral Hastur, Vice-admiral William Ross and Fleet Admiral Alynna Nechayev? I remember that in the Way of the Warrior, admiral Hastur led a task force to defend Deep Space 9 and the Venture was the lead ship. And in TNG episode Descent Alynna Nechayev said that the Gorkon will serve as her flagship. And William Ross commanded the Bellerophon in Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges. Shouldn't these three ships at least be mentioned too, perhaps just in brackets or something. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk).
I think there's some misunderstanding the term 'flagship'. In military terms, a flagship is the ship of a flag officer (admiral, commodore). This is a temporary appellation. If the admiral transfers to another ship, his old ship is no longer a flagship. The new one is. Note that the admiral has to command from the ship. Being aboard as a passenger doesn't make it his flagship. 'Flagship' could also be used to refer to the ship of the officer commanding a group of ships, even if that officer wasn't flag rank. This is a matter of convenience and is also temporary. When the group breaks up, there's no more flagship. Except on a few occasions, the Enterprises didn't serve as flagships in the military sense. Additionally, there's no military sense in saying a ship was "flagship of the Federation."
A more colloquial use of the word 'flagship' would refer to the ship as being noteworthy or exemplary or otherwise held in high regard. This is a public relations or marketing approach to the word and the one that more readily applies. "Flagship of the Federation" sounds like a propaganda title akin to "Hero of the Revolution." It might sound cool but it has no real significance.– StarFire209 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then the confusion is on the part of the writers. They continually referred to the Enterprise-D as the "Federation flagship" despite not meeting the standard real world definition. We have to go with what was canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It does seem that regardless of the series, there was a lot of this kind of confusion. You'd think that given the naval setting (ship-fleet-naval ranks), the writers would try to get a better grasp on naval terminology, traditions, etc. You're correct that Enterprise-D was called the "Federation flagship," though what that means has not been defined. If that same title was not expressly used for any other Enterprise asserting it was should be removed. --StarFire209 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Sword of Kahless should also be included. It appears in the I.K.S. Gorkon books by Keith R.A. DeCandido. It is a Negh'Var class ship and is listed as Chancellor Martok's flagship. It also does not yet have a page in Memory Alpha. – Nicolasavru 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the book Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Buried Age by Christopher L. Bennett, it states on page 407 "...due to its [the Enterprise-D] class and historic name, it was being considered a sort of 'flagship,' a symbol of Starfleet as a whole." This agrees StarFire209's comment about it being a "public relations or marketing approach the word", however I still believe that it should be included as Starfleet's flagship. For this reason, I have also included the Enterprise-E on that page. – Nicolasavru 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- However, that book is considered non-canon here on MA/en. -- Sulfur 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- True the book is non-canon, but it is also the best explanation of the flagship status of the enterprise that we have. Also, it doesn't really introduce any new events, simply provides a rationale for an existing event. – Nicolasavru 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Cut down on articleEdit
I really see no point in including so many ships in the article by assuming that every ship leading a group of ships automatically is called 'flagship'. That's almost ridiculous in the case of the Voyager, which was leading one other starship. The article should limit itself to ships referred to as flagship or the non-specific use of the term like in Star Trek: First Contact. Kennelly 14:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. But it actually made it bigger. --Alan del Beccio 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I object to the wholesale removal of information concerning ships acting as 'flagship' without actually being referred to by name as such...these articles are meant to be as comprehensive as possible, aren't they? The Defiant, and Voyager acted as flagships, they deserve their mentions here.
- As to the list removal, the list is a handy "one stop" reference to all named ships to either explicitly or implicitly be flagships. Again, I feel comprehensiveness requires the list be kept.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, nice write up Alan! Oh wait, this is another complaint. Well, in short, this was a total ( or 95% ) rewrite, to an article that was little more than a patchwork quilt article, and falls precisely into what Kennelly suggested to be the most accurate writeup on the subject, which is, as you said above making this a "handy 'one stop' reference to all names (or unnamed) ships" described as such. I pulled all relevant references to the term "flagship" (or it's definition) and build the article around that. The list then became irrelevant because it became integrated into the text, thus, the more comprehensive, because each referenced ship is supported by a specific citation, and in most cases, a "quote". --Alan del Beccio 05:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- First off, Alan, you need to get a grip...I don't know what your problem is but you've been laying into people lately and it's not becoming to someone of your stature here at MA.
- Second, if you have "improved the article", why have you left out all mention of the times the Defiant was flagship during the DW ("Sacrifice of Angels", et al), just to name ONE glaring omission.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Got a grip for you, Alan. :D Oh, and nice write up! Anyway, Captain Donovan, to answer your question (and to reiterate what Alan said), Alan's rewrite goes back to Kennelly's complain: "I really see no point in including so many ships in the article by assuming that every ship leading a group of ships automatically is called 'flagship'." So, basically, the article was rewritten in response to a complaint. I'm assuming Kennelly's remark included all ships which led ships into battle but were not referred to on-screen as flagships... like the Defiant. Basically, that's why there are so many "glaring omissions". So, despite Alan's snippy comment, he did answer your question before you asked it. ;) If you believe, however, that the removed information should be restored, then please make a case for it ... in other words, argue against Kennelly's original statement. We'll see where things go from there. :) --From Andoria with Love 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- First off, if I've thrown gas on any flames, I offer apologies. Alan and I have always (as far as I know) gotten along wellin the past, to the extent that we interact at all. Thank you Shran, for your perspective.
- Back on topic, if we include, as we have, the DEFINITION of "flagship" that includes "the leader of the grouping", then specific instances where such occurs should, IMO be included in the specifics section of the article. At a bare minimum, I would include the Defiant (Sisko's) for the DW references, and the Lexington (Under Commodore Wesley) during the M-5 trials, as both fit that definition.Capt Christopher Donovan 11:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the actual definition doesn't really specify the leader of a group:
- a ship carrying the flag officer or the commander of a fleet, squadron, or the like, and displaying the officer's flag.
- the main vessel of a shipping line.
- any of the best or largest ships or airplanes operated by a passenger line.
- the best or most important one of a group or system: This store is the flagship of our retail chain.
- Of course, that's just one source's definition. Wikipedia describes a flagship as "A flagship is the lead ship in a fleet of vessels, a designation given on account of being either the largest, fastest, newest, most heavily armed, or, for publicity purposes, the most well known." Based on that (and I'm not saying Wikipedia is 100% reliable by any means), I suppose the Defiant and others who led fleets but were not specified as being flagships could be labeled as flagships. In that case, all that would need to be done is to re-add the information that was removed. However, before that happens, I would personally like to see other people's opinions on this issue. --From Andoria with Love 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is under definition 1 that I am staking my claim as to the status of Defiant and Lexington. I'm not so concerned about "Adm So-and-So's unnamed flagship"...that WOULD be too picky, but it's also a different case (no specifics)...Capt Christopher Donovan 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- If someone can support references for the defiant being a flagship, which I guess I can see with Sisko ordering the fleet to 'open fire' in "SoA", by all means add it with a supporting quote or citation. One could say the same from "The Way of the Warrior" with the reference to Admiral Hastur's task force, lead by the USS Venture, one could assume that that was the flagship if it was the Admiral's task force, or the USS Lexington under Commodore Robert Wesley in "The Ultimate Computer". But the question is, when does it cross the line into guesswork? So with that said, I simply rewrote it using specific references to the term without getting into the ones that were not as obvious. I never said it was 100% complete, but a whole lot better, IMO. And BTW, thanks for the compliment Shran. --Alan del Beccio 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)