posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rogue Starship:
I remember somewhere that the Hood was destroyed in the Dominion War???
Fact or am i just wierd?

---

It was at Chin'toka, but it was not destroyed AFAIK. Furthermore, that ship had the registry of the Lakota, so, after all, if the Excelsior in question was destroyed in that episode, we could still say it was the Lakota.

So you say the Archer could be named after another Archer? What if there have been two Archers? Say, a Starfleet Admiral from the Dominion war and Henry Archer? Would it be enough to have one USS Archer even if you want to honor both of them? We know that Starfleet has ships like the USS Thomas Paine for example, to make it clear which Paine they mean (if there are more than one). Either they only have one important Archer from history (and several Paines) and it is not neccessary to name it USS Henry Archer, or we finally have a solution for the 'one name, more than one ship'-problem (Melbourne, Lexingtion, Nova).

--------------------
"This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."

posted                      

quote:

---

we could still say it was the Lakota.

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:
So you say the Archer could be named after another Archer? What if there have been two Archers? Say, a Starfleet Admiral from the Dominion war and Henry Archer? Would it be enough to have one USS Archer even if you want to honor both of them? We know that Starfleet has ships like the USS Thomas Paine for example, to make it clear which Paine they mean (if there are more than one). Either they only have one important Archer from history (and several Paines) and it is not neccessary to name it USS Henry Archer, or we finally have a solution for the 'one name, more than one ship'-problem (Melbourne, Lexingtion, Nova).

---

I suspect the USS Thomas Paine is called that because USS Paine sounds identical to USS Pain, which wouldn't convey quite the right image to people they meet.

The vast majority of ships named after people (I actually made a list in a thread once - it's about 50) use only their surname.

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

we could still say it was the Lakota.

---

Although it didn't look like the Lakota?

---

Who said they can't rerefit a refit back?

Most Starfleet ships, yes, but real ships often use the full name (think of aircraft carriers as a prominent example).

--------------------
"This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:
Most Starfleet ships, yes, but real ships often use the full name (think of aircraft carriers as a prominent example).

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:
Most Starfleet ships, yes, but real ships often use the full name (think of aircraft carriers as a prominent example).

---

I don't see what real ships have to do with this discussion. Starfleet usually uses surnames alone (45 known ships), and there are only 3 examples of first names (Nils Bohr, John Muir, Thomas Paine), the last of which can be explained away and the first two were never clearly seen. Why would Starfleet change their practice just for the USS Archer?

---

I assume that - in a fleet of several thousand vessels - there are more than one ship (the Thomas Paine) that require such an addition. And if this is the case, why didn't Starfleet use the full name of a person anyway instead of this 'sometimes we do it this way, sometimes we have to do it the other way'-thing? I brought real ships into the discussion because they use the full name of a person, which simply makes more sense.
The problems are at hand: What if you have a USS Roddenberry, named after the famous TV producer. Then, someone comes up with the idea to name another ship Roddenberry, after someone else. What do you do? Add a 'Gene' to the name afterwards? Just tell the guy to use another name, allthough the other Roddenberry may have been much more important to history than Gene? Or does a ship with that name automatically honor not only Gene Roddenberry but every Roddenberry who ever existed? What would be the reason for naming a ship after someone in that case?
Here's something else, just my personal solution: All the ships, the Brattains and Nobles and Pasteurs and Al-Batanis and so on do have the full name assigned to them (like the Thomas Paine), but it's either not used for whatever reason or the Captain of a ship or a commission or someone else decides if the ship should use the full name or not (Think of ships like a USS Stalin or USS Hitler; Starfleet would veto if the ship is to use that name only, to make clear they are actually referring to the famous scientist John Stalin or starfleet captain Edward Hitler. Maybe another guy named Paine has been a big player in the Eugenic Wars or was responsible for World War 3. )

--------------------
"This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:
I assume that - in a fleet of several thousand vessels - there are more than one ship (the Thomas Paine) that require such an addition. And if this is the case, why didn't Starfleet use the full name of a person anyway instead of this 'sometimes we do it this way, sometimes we have to do it the other way'-thing? I brought real ships into the discussion because they use the full name of a person, which simply makes more sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:
The problems are at hand: What if you have a USS Roddenberry, named after the famous TV producer. Then, someone comes up with the idea to name another ship Roddenberry, after someone else. What do you do? Add a 'Gene' to the name afterwards? Just tell the guy to use another name, allthough the other Roddenberry may have been much more important to history than Gene? Or does a ship with that name automatically honor not only Gene Roddenberry but every Roddenberry who ever existed? What would be the reason for naming a ship after someone in that case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:
Here's something else, just my personal solution: All the ships, the Brattains and Nobles and Pasteurs and Al-Batanis and so on do have the full name assigned to them (like the Thomas Paine), but it's either not used for whatever reason or the Captain of a ship or a commission or someone else decides if the ship should use the full name or not (Think of ships like a USS Stalin or USS Hitler; Starfleet would veto if the ship is to use that name only, to make clear they are actually referring to the famous scientist John Stalin or starfleet captain Edward Hitler. Maybe another guy named Paine has been a big player in the Eugenic Wars or was responsible for World War 3. )

---

To be perfectly honest, that's a pretty silly solution, especially since we have seen the dedication plaques of ships named after people.

And I don't think Starfleet will be painting "USS Abu Abdallah Muhammad Ibn Jabir Ibn Sinan al-Batani al-Harrani" on the hull of any of its ships any time soon.

Expecting Starfleet to emulate the US Navy in every single way, even when it obviously doesn't (and in this case actually trying to deny what we have seen on screen in favour of a US Navy system) is one of the things that annoys me most. Starfleet is not the US Navy, has never been the US Navy, and hopefully never will be the US Navy.

And frankly, considering the US Navy has its combat personnel wear baseball caps, calls ships USS George H. W. Bush and USS The Sullivans, and has managed to sink a fishing boat with a Nuclear Submarine, I'm very glad Starfleet doesn't emulate it.

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by newark:
Aghast. The Sullivans doesn't belong in that sentence. She is honoring the memory of the Sullivan brothers who chose to join the military and died in the service of their country. They are representative of the values our nation places in the military.

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix:
And I don't think Starfleet will be painting "USS Abu Abdallah Muhammad Ibn Jabir Ibn Sinan al-Batani al-Harrani" on the hull of any of its ships any time soon.
[/QB]

---

Sure they will! On a Galaxy class in one continous concentric circle around the saucer to make their enemies too dizzy to fight.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timo:
It's surprisingly honest of them to immortalize what are later seen as major cock-ups that way. What other "never again" ships do we have? Does Starfleet have those? Any battlesite-themed name could in theory qualify, but I'm looking for the likes of USS Hiroshima. Or perhaps USS Tian An Men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timo:
Ships are sometimes indeed explicitly named after multiple people. The The Sullivans is an obvious example, the Lewis and Clark another; but HMS Hood was also a nameshare, honoring multiple generations of seagoing heroes. The USN had at least USS Kaufmann, honoring a father and a son. And I think the Spruance did that, too.

(Hmm. Perhaps we should be happy we got USS George H. W. Bush instead of a shorter form, so that the honor isn't unduly spread. )

Starfleet could have pulled the same trick with USS Archer. Or even USS Sarek and USS Surak, considering that Vulcans just plain *have* to recycle those 5-6-digit S...K names sooner or later. Unless the population of the planet is about 47 pairs of pointed ears at any given moment.

---