FA status Edit

FA nomination (22 May - 28 May 2005, Success) Edit

USS Defiant (2370) -- Self nomination. I've been working on the Defiant article for a while now and I think its got a lot of information in it. -- Rebel Strike 15:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Mild oppose - needs wiki mark-up. --Defiant | Talk 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Done... I now support this nomination. --Defiant | Talk 09:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. AmdrBoltz 14:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support.--Scimitar 15:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Renomination while still an FA (12 July 2005) Edit

USS Defiant (2370) A well writen, complete article, with the full history of the ship. User:Tobyk777 12 July 2005

Defiant A very good and detailed description of the Defiant class ships' technical systems. User:Tobyk777 12 July 2005

PNA to FeaturedEdit

Outside of the "appearances" section, episode references should be placed within the article along with each event or paragraph. --Gvsualan 20:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How's that? -- Rebelstrike2005 19:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly like how I said it. It needs episode references in the articles content. --Gvsualan 07:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured article status?Edit

I think this article has the potential to be a featured article but I would appreciate any assistance or ideas to make it better. -- Rebelstrike2005 15:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, the existing "PNA" listing should be resolved by further edits or discussion here. -- Cid Highwind 15:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe the existing PNA notice has been resolved. Citations are now extremely well detailed. If there are no objections, I will remove the notice from the page. -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Two Defiants under one headingEdit

Couldnt we combine the two pages under a heading like this USS Defiant(NX74205 / NCC75633) i know they are different ships, but under the same crew and same series of trek i think we could actually merge them. i know the 1701 and the 1701-a have seperate pages, but they were on different media one was tv one was movie and the tv ship lasted the whole run of the series. the 1701-a was a refit ship anyway wasnt it, making it actually a different ship class as well. these ships the prototype and the sao palo are the same ship of the line and fit under the same series, and the sao palo defiant was destroyed by the borg in a movie wasnt it? Its Time For The White! =/\=Talk=/\= 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Since these articles are being written from an "in-universe" perspective, the type of media or series in which the ship appeared does not count in the writing of these articles. Also, the NX-class Defiant was such an integral part of the Trek universe that it certainly deserves its own page. --From Andoria with Love 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
NX class Defiant? --Alan 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

actually the sao paulo defiant wasnt destroyed by the borg it was "adrift but salvageable" and i think that attack took place during ds9's run-- 12:01, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the former Sao Paulo (DS9's second Defiant). It was this one, the first Defiant assigned to Deep Space Nine. The events of First Contact take place during Deep Space Nine's fifth season; the Defiant is destroyed and replaced in the seventh season. —Josiah Rowe 13:02, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Second Defiant?Edit

Which episode are we told that this is the second not third defiant. It may be the second Defiant to be seen, but how do we know a Defiant was not commissioned in 2300 and decommissioned in 2350? Truth be told, we don't even know if one of the new Warp 7 ships could have been named Defiant. --TOSrules 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what you are talking about.– Tuvok of 9 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
He's asking about if there were prior Starfleet vessels named Defiant. It's not unreasonable to assume that the name Defiant's been attached to at least 4 or 5 ships in federation history. (3 have been seen) (StarkeRealm 09:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC))
Well we already know there was another ship named Defiant, the USS Defiant it was first seen in TOS: "The Tholian Web", then in ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly" that why the article does say it was one of three, it instead says one of at least three. --Illwill 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article Edit

Launched: Stardate 47538.5 (2370)
Crew Complement: 50 (2370s)

The first information seems to be contradicted by the second paragraph (which states 2371 instead). The other one needs to be cited. After that, both could be moved back to the article text, where appropriate. -- Cid Highwind 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cloaking Device? Edit

I was just thinking it would be nice to have a pic of the Defiants cloaking-device? - (Awar 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

The device was never seen on screen. --Jörg 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a real shame it would be cool to see a romulan cloaking device! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awar (talk • contribs).

*cough* picture of a Romulan cloaking device *cough*
We have seen them. Just not this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that the Defiant used a Romulan cloaking device rather than one procured from the Klingons?

MikeWard1701 00:42, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Picture Edit

It seems to me that there could be a les distorted picture in the bigginging. the current one is a little too elongated. – 7th Tactical 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, and besides, it's an unedited screencap and thus is a valid picture. - Enzo Aquarius 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Previous NCC #. Edit

The Enterprises (save for the very first one) retained its original registry number and added letters in the meantime. Why wasn't this Defiant numbered NCC-1764-A? -- 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Enterprise was unusual in this practice, as far as we can tell. Look at other ships here, like the Intrepid, the Potemkin, the Lexington, none of them just tacked letters on. It seems to have been something done out of honor for the accomplishments of the Enterprise, not as standard practice for the fleet. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be numbered NX-74205-A? In any case, OuroborosCobra makes an excellent point, and I think that explains it pretty well from an in-universe perspective. In actuality, the 'real' reason they didn't name the ship Defiant-A was because they didn't have enough money to do a new model for "What You Leave Behind". There's an FAQ about the 9-episode arc in Season 7 in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, and one of the questions is why wasn't the ship called Defiant-A. That's the rather humdrum answer that's given. – Bertaut talk 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this follows real-world practices. For example the USS Enterprise CVN-65 isn't instead designated CV-6-A after the World War Two USS Enterprise. Technically I guess the second DS9 Defiant should be NX-74205-A (or probably better, NCC-74205) yet it isn't. It's very unfortunate that there wasn't the time or money to use all-new footage in 'What you leave behind', but still. Having said that, it would be awesome if they could get rid of the re-used footage for a special DS9 anniversery box set. --Darth Windu 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Crew Edit

Does it make zero sense to anyone else that the command crew of the Defiant and the crew of DS9 are one and the same. Who takes care of DS9 while Sisko and everyone else are out on adventures for who knows how long. In reality wouldn't the Defiant have had an all new crew? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chimeradave (talk • contribs).

Who takes care of the station when the main characters are asleep? Probably the same answer, an equivalent to the beta shift from TNG. In addition, we have seen times when other crew were put in charge, Michael Eddington was in the episode where he eventually defected all the way to the Maquis, IIRC. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this an article discussion or a general discussion about the Defiant? I have never been quite sure of that one in relation to discussion pages. If a general discussion, my opinion is that Worf should have been in charge of the Defiant, with Sisko's position on board being similar to that of a commodore. He can make requests, but not give orders ("Set course for Bajor if you please."). Sisko seems to use the ship as his personal yacht much of the time, which seems wrong when she should be defending DS9. There is also the question of the chain of command, in particular where Kira fits in. As an officer in the Bajoran Militia, she holds no Starfleet commission (until the 7th series of DS9) and thus has no authority within the chain of command. It all seems very confusing.--Indefatigable 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe it was stated somewhere that Worf was in command of the Defiant when Sisko was absent, it's just not coming to mind at the moment. Without that citation, it was still certainly the case in "Paradise Lost", where Worf commanded and Kira was also on the bridge. In "Waltz", Worf also commanded the Defiant to search for Sisko, but had to follow Kira's orders in conducting the mission. --Alan 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ship Size Edit

Did anyone else notice the radically varying size that the Defiant seemed to possess from episode to episode? One episode showed it flying around DS9 attacking Klingon Birds of Prey and it was gigantic. While on others, it was so small it could fly in and around the body of a Negh'Var. I can't remember which episode the gigantic Defiant was from, but I just recently saw it again in a youtube video and was reminded.– TheRogueX 01:03, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

The Neg'Var may not be a great example. That was the one in the mirror universe, and it seems to have been massively upscaled, everything from birds-of-prey to Galor class ships to the Defiant seemed smaller. That said, the VFX department has often not been great about scale. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:12, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Number of decks? Edit

How come there's no info here on the deck situation? Most images online show 4 decks yet there's one around with about 8 decks and in the Season 4 episode 'Rejoined', Dax refers to a leak on deck 5. So... Just how many decks does the ship have? I can understand 4 decks, with their being a crew of 47. But then where does the deck 5 reference fit in? J. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The decks should be discussed somewhere, though we should probably sort it out here first.--31dot 20:43, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

The MSD I have of the Defiant shows 5 distinct decks with the 5th one being probably maintenence access to the Warp nacelles. Now whether this should constitute it's own deck is another question. But if a 5th deck was mentioned and it can be found on the actual MSD, then I guess it should count.--FBobbyWS6 01:58, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Lack of section about Defiant Interior space Edit

I noticed that unlike the other articles about the Hero ships there are no sections in this article about the interior layout. Seems like this should be added to the article to make it complete. --FBobbyWS6 01:58, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

The interior layout layout would be covered at Defiant-class, with this page only covering information specific to this ship. If there isn't any specific info, we wouldn't have that section. - Archduk3 03:26, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the other hero ships don't all have interior sections. USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), for example, basically doesn't have one because we don't know of any differences between that ship and a stock Galaxy class. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:10, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Quote Edit

"The Defiant was the finest ship I ever commanded. There'll never be another one like her."

- Captain Benjamin Sisko, 2375

An anon replaced the current quote with this one, and I've got to say the current one is far better. - Archduk3 21:08, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Defiant Crew Edit

Why didn't it have it's own crew? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It was an experimental ship that had been shelved when the Borg threat became less urgent and due to design flaws; it probably did not have a crew before being assigned to DS9. 31dot (talk) 03:32, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Set? Edit


Does anybody know where the defiant sets were located, since the wiki says, that the bridge and engine-room was at stage 18. I cant find blueprints of those anywhere 18:13, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to this, but I would suggest you are better off posting your question in the forum as the talk page is for improvement of the article itself. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:40, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
Well, the location of the sets would be valid Background material if it is currently missing from this article, so the question is OK. I presume the IP user looked at the article and could not find the information so they posted here. 31dot (talk) 20:00, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed when he was asking about blueprints, that it was a generic question about the Defiant and not the article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:25, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Names Edit

Why isn't this page named NX defiant and the other (2375) named U.s.s. Defiant (Sao Paulo) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I'm not sure what you mean; the other page is called USS Defiant (2375). 31dot (talk) 11:40, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
There was a long discussion about what to name these articles. We voted on it and ended up with using the year of commissioning in the page titles, since both ships had the same name and registry in the episodes they appeared on screen. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:32, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I thought the IP was saying the other page was named that currently. 31dot (talk) 14:13, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
I think the IP was voting for a rename to "NX Defiant" and "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo)" respectively, but I think they're fine as they are. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:29, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Title Query Edit

Why does this wiki use Years and Beta use I and II surely it would be more logical to use the I and II here as well Hutchy01 (talk) 08:31, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

That was the consensus that was arrived at here after much contentious discussion. We're the wiki that deals only with what appears on screen, unlike Memory Beta(which can take more liberties with naming). "I" and "II" were never used on screen. 31dot (talk) 09:12, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

More details needed Edit

We've already asked to death questions already basically answered in the article (i.e. "it was an experimental ship") but I think we could detail who piloted and manned the ship at each encounter since the best we get unfortunately is who commanded it at the time but not many other details on who else was on-board at each rendezvous.--Gunman6 (talk) 20:37, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Quote Edit

I wonder if the better-known quote "Tough little ship." by Riker in Star Trek: First Contact might not be a better quote to be featured at the start of the article. --T smitts (talk) 05:37, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Ship's christening date Edit

Text of article before my edit.

The original paragraph reads as if the plaque or the christening of the ship before the ships trial runs occurred. The plaque says the ship was launched on 47538.5 in 2370. It also says the Odyssey was destroyed on that same year, 2370. Sisko had to be a member of the ship's design team, even though we assume he was the commander of DS9 in season 3 for a few years. We can also assume the ship was in storage for a few years. This leads me to believe that the official launch date of the ship, as stated on the plaque, is the day the ship was taken out of storage, not the day the ship was built and underwent its initial tests. I reworded the paragraph to reflect this. Oldag07 (talk) 03:55, April 15, 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary to put the text you changed here if you link to the article revision, which I have done to correct your indent and simplify this a bit. Just a friendly FYI. - Archduk3 04:26, April 15, 2016 (UTC)

new name Edit

Shouldn't this be USS Defiant (2366) since 2366 is when it was constructed and launched. ( 01:14, November 16, 2016 (UTC))

During the long discussion we had about this, we went with the date of commissioning. We know when development began, but we don't know exactly when it was constructed. 31dot (talk) 02:00, November 16, 2016 (UTC)