The name 'Star Fleet' (instead of the more common 'Starfleet') can be explained in two ways:

1. This is a historically important battle group stationed near the Romulan border. I'm thinking in particular of an old Earth 'Star Fleet Battle Group'. This could also be the reason why so many relatively prominent ships like the Galaxy, Intrepid and Hood are part of it. However, Star Trek: Enterprise also spells the name of the service as 'Starfleet'.
2. The names Starfleet and Star Fleet are both equally valid. But that would fail to explain why almost every other reference is to Starfleet instead of Star Fleet.

-- Harry

USS AIRES Edit

Is it supposed to be the same ship as the USS ares ot the USS aries, or is it a new ship?

-Philip

Background comment Edit

All of the ships in this battle group have been seen or mentioned in Star Trek before, with the exception of the Archer, which was named for Jonathan Archer.

It's obviously correct, but does anyone have a source we can just stick in there so that it's properly cited? --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 16:01, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Removed from page Edit

Reason: {{incite}} on page for more than two years. -- Cid Highwind 17:32, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

STO Edit

I don't feel the STO "reference" is appropriate here, as it is not the same grouping of vessels(as this terminology seemed to be used on an ad-hoc basis) and it served a different purpose; I'm also not seeing any significant revelations about it that we usually require for STO references(we don't note the mere appearance of something in STO). If this is kept, then the description of a Galaxy-class USS Victory should be removed, as that is not relevant. 31dot (talk) 01:56, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be reworded - maybe something like "In Star Trek Online, Battle Group Omega has been expanded to include dozens of starships, which have been dispatched to Gamma Orionis..." etc. How does that sound? - Mitchz95 (talk) 03:50, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm extremely skeptical of including it at all. All we know is that the term was recycled later, being used again on an ad-hoc basis as it was in Nemesis; we don't know that it was the same group that was expanded or had ships rotated in and out, unless they say that in the game. If it is the same group, then it shouldn't be mentioned since we don't note the mere appearance of something in STO(because likely every page would have a "X was in STO" line) 31dot (talk) 10:05, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's intended to be the same group expanded. I'll hunt around in the game for more info; in the meantime we should probably keep it in "Apocrypha". But I'm fine with removing the USS Victory reference. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:14, July 24, 2012 (UTC)