Talk: ISS Defiant

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ISS Defiant article. It is not for general discussion; for that, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

Article title[]

Should this not just be Defiant..since USS (aka the Federation) does exist in the mirror universe? --Gvsualan 19:48, 11 Jan 2005 (CET)

I agree- Rebelstrike2005 19:54, 11 Jan 2005 (CET)

Although it could be the ISS Defiant as a homage to the fallen Terran Empire- Rebelstrike2005 20:00, 11 Jan 2005 (CET)

Yes, however, that leads to speculation, and might be little more than a footnote to the Defiant entry. --Gvsualan 20:17, 11 Jan 2005 (CET)

I agree and moved the article to just "Defiant (mirror)". Do you think the "USS Defiant (mirror)" has to be kept as a redirect - I think this isn't necessary... -- Cid Highwind 11:49, 2005 Jan 14 (CET)

Defiant 2[]

ha ha, who wants to bet that the reason they decided to steal the plans for this defiant, was because the last ship to come through from an alternate universe was also the defiant, think about it -- i don't want a name 10:17, 2005 Apr 34 (CET)

Interesting point. That's twice now the MU got a tech boost from a vessel nammed Defiant, from the Prime Universe.

PNA-incomplete[]

Needs references from "The Emperor's New Cloak". --Alan del Beccio 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fate of the Defiant (Mirror)[]

I think there is absolutely no reason to mention weather this ship 'met the same fate as her counterpart in this universe'.

There is no mention of the wormhole being discovered, let alone the dominon, in the mirror universe. Therefore it is impossible for this ship to suffer the same fate.

Even without getting into the origins or the divergent point for the mirror universe compared to 'our' universe, there is absolutely no reason to presume that similar characters, races, or ships share 'fates'. This point is pure speculation, and as such should not be part of the article.

(The wormhole is mentioned in 'crossover' by Kira, but as far as we know, the co-ordinates never cross hands and the alliance or the terran empire never visit the gamma quadrant) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenuk (talk • contribs).

Why not USS Defiant NX-74205[]

If Defiant(Mirror)is a copy of Uss Defiant NX-74205,would it be Uss Defiant NX-74205 not just Defiant.It's a copy of Uss Defiant it would be the same.--67.165.88.232 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is built from the same blueprints, that doesn't mean they used the same registry number. It would be meaningless to use the registry number from another navy. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why can't the Terran rebels use the same registry number.--67.165.88.232 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Because they didn't. — Morder 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would they? Do they have 74204 ships built before this? Didn't think so. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the Terran Rebels aren't the Terran Empire.

ISS Defiant NX-74205[]

According to information from Propworx, which is hosting an auction of Star Trek props, a dedication plaque cover was created for the Defiant in the episode "The Emperor's New Cloak". This cover depicted a top and side view of the mirror Defiant. On the cover, the starship was identified as ISS Defiant (NX-74205). You know, for all that pirates are clever-called, we are an unimaginative lot when it comes to naming things. - Jack Sparrow, The Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.– Throwback 04:59, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Source? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:10, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't viewed it yet, but I gather it is this link he posted on my talk page: [1]. This would be good background information, but unless it was seen in canon the article should not be called that.--31dot 10:17, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

The plaque has now been added to the page in the bg section, and I think I found a shot of some jerk standing in front of it here (Trekcore link), which puts it on the set and, somewhat, on screen. We could ask Doug Drexler just to be sure, but I'm satisfied as is. - Archduk 3 19:48, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

The dedication plaque looks awful in the sidebar. Why change it? -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 12:07, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Because the layout of the entire article was changed, and the main image wasn't a very good one of the ship when we have the others. We also tend to put MSD type images in the second slot (USS Equinox, USS Enterprise-B), but feel free to change it. - Archduk 3 12:20, February 11, 2011 (UTC)