Recent changes Random page
GAMING
Entertainment
 
Star Wars
Star Trek
Transformers
 Muppet Wiki
Digimon Wiki
Marvel Database
See more...

Talk:Federation members

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Bajor?

Re: //Please check. When did Bajor gain membership?

Bajor was accepted into the Federation in DS9:"Rapture". However, the provisional government voted to postpone the actual admission. So it is highly likely that Bajor became an actual member shortly after the end of the series. -- Harry 13:14, 23 Dec 2003 (PST)

[edit] Article content

I just wondered, shouldn't this article preferably list member species instead of their planets (or even colonies)?

In any case, I think this list seriously needs to be checked. There are some planets/species listed as certain members which are anything but certain. I suggest that the membership status should be 'proven' on the linked page (whether planet or species) - otherwise that member should be moved to probable or below. -- Cid Highwind 11:46, 24 May 2004 (CEST)

RE: Which planets are you refering to exactly? Furthermore, your idea of member species is good and a seperate page dedicated to this topic should be created rather than replacing the member planets-list.--BlueMars 15:16, May 24, 2004 (CEST)
Among many others, Alpha Centauri colony (all other colonies as well; not only does it link to the colony instead of the planet, we also don't know if it is an independent member or just a settlement of member planet Earth), Denobula Triaxa (pure speculation at the moment, we don't know if it will be a future member), Sherman's planet (we never heard anything about that one again, might be Federation but might also be Klingon), etc.
Regarding species vs. planets. We already have several Lists about planets including some especially for Federation worlds. I don't think we need yet another one. This list of planets should be integrated there instead, but only after checking its accuracy. -- Cid Highwind 15:50, 24 May 2004 (CEST)
I'll take care about sherman's planet and denobula. alpha centauri was mentioned to be a founding member of the ufp. my proposal is to keep the planets list and to start the species list. we might combine the two lists at a later point of time. --BlueMars 16:14, May 24, 2004 (CEST)
I will move or discuss some more later (I'm not sure about Alpha Centauri BTW, please add a reference on that planets page), but back to the topic: I'd be interested in hearing some good reasons for a) the continued existance of this list of planets and b) the existance of this list of planets under this name (Anyone may chime in, of course...). Let's collect our arguments below: -- Cid Highwind
This is still open for discussion. -- Cid Highwind 09:58, 3 Jun 2004 (CEST)
A list of member PLANETS seems more reasonable to me, since we are aventually talking about the United Federation of P l a n e t s, and not the United Federation of Species/Races... Furthermore, there was a TNG episode(i forgot which one it was ;-( ), where it is mentioned that a planet has to have a united planetary government in order to be admitted to the UFP. Moreover, there are several human groups, which do not consider themselves Federation members (independent colonies) and there are some Andorians factions, which decline memebership, too (pirates etc...). --BlueMars 17:58, Jun 13, 2004 (CEST)
Regarding that, I'll repeat (and clarify) the suggestion to EITHER
  1. Move this to List of Federation member planets or something similar (To be discussed) for clarity
  2. Remove all planets that might not be independent members (colonies, uninhabited planets, etc.) from that list
  3. Create additional lists List of Federation member species (to list species in the Federation, sometimes we don't really know anything about a species homeworld - the Bolians seem to be a good example) and List of Federation planets (to list all planets, including those that simply don't belong here; also to have a similar nomenclature).
OR
  1. Move this to List of Federation planets
  2. Add more planets to this list (from other existing lists, including colonies and uninhabited planets)
  3. Create additional list List of Federation member species (reasons as stated above)
OR
  1. Keep this page under this title
  2. Remove all planets that might not be independent members (colonies, uninhabited planets, etc.) from that list
  3. Add inhabiting species to each entry (similar to List of Homeworlds, with unknown information marked as such)
  4. Create additional list List of Federation planets (reasons as stated above)
Some way or another, this needs to be worked on, and I still don't see a good reason to maintain not only two, but three or more lists that are that similar... -- Cid Highwind 19:04, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Could we get some more discussion on this topic, please? After more than half a year, I still think that a list of federation planets should be at List of Federation planets and nowhere else. At the moment, we also have Cardassian planets, List of Romulan planets and List of Klingon planets, so it would only make sense to have a common nomenclature for these lists. -- Cid Highwind 15:07, 2005 Jan 4 (CET)

[edit] Existance of a list of member planets of the UFP

[edit] Pro

  • Valid information; useful when searching

[edit] Contra

[edit] Existance of that list under this name

[edit] Pro

[edit] Contra

  • Title might be misleading: "members" and "member planets" are not the same (e.g. dependent colonies).
  • Other nomenclature used in similar cases: List of Klingon planets
Perhaps a compromise can be reached and we can not use the word 'member'. a List of Federation planets or a List of Federation allies could have separate sections for those known to be founding members, those known to be members, and those known to be allies, but membership has not been established. This could also contain a colonies subsection. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 19:24, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST)
i vote for creating a "Federation planets list" (with uninhabited planets and independent colonies) and a "Federation member species list". --BlueMars 19:26, Jun 13, 2004 (CEST)

[edit] Bolians

Has it ever actually been said that the Bolians are members of the Federation ?

No, but if we only list planets, that are exlpicitly said to be members, the list really looses its authenticity. in so many episodes and movies we see exceptionally much bolian starfleet personel, so we really may conclude that they are federation members. it is never said that grazer is a federation member, too, though we conclude their membership from the fact that the former federation council-president was a grazerite. --BlueMars 22:18, Jun 4, 2004 (CEST)
Ah, actually we can live with that one. Inyo says that he was happy to represent his people on the Federation Council prior to becoming President. Would a race that is not a member of the Federation have representation in the council ? What we don't officially know is the name of the Grazerite homeworld. Plus, the fact that Inyo is a Grazerite is only from the script, it was never mentioned on screen. Alex Peckover 17:26, Jun 13, 2004 (CEST)
don't forget the fact that high ranking bolian officers are stationed on earth, there are bolian captains and admirals commanding starships and stations, and there even was a "bolian operation" from starfleet in the dominion war. --BlueMars 17:58, Jun 13, 2004 (CEST)
Last time I checked, though, there were also at least two Klingons (Worf and Torres, well she's sort of a Klingon), a whole bunch of Bajorans and a Ferengi in Starfleet. Alex Peckover 10:34, Jun 14, 2004 (CEST)
On the contrary - I think this list only loses its authenticity if we claim that certain species/planets are members if we don't exactly know that. Ideally, only those should be listed as certain members that are explicitely mentioned as such. If that makes it a short list - tough luck, but that's why there's a section probable members. -- Cid Highwind 11:15, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST)


Just a thought. The Star Trek star charts book has a list of Federation members. This list is still far from complete, but it can help. It is located on the first fold-out map of Federation space.

Yes, but we have to first verify that, in this work, we only include information from the actual show. The Star Charts book has a lot of conjecture, speculation and just plain lousy guesswork. We can use the list as a guide, but each entry must be reasearched to verify its accuracy to the filmed material rather than Star Charts hearsay..--Captain Mike K. Bartel
The canonicity of Star Charts is definitely arguable, but also bears one of the core hallmarks of inclusion in the semi-canon alongside the Okuda and Sternbach works; Geoff Mandel was employed in the art departments of VOY, ENT and Insurrection. While I found Star Charts lacking, I find the inclusion of a single, authoritative, and comprehensive listing of UFP members from any source outside of true canon to be far too binding. If anything, I might consider Star Charts as semi-canonical support for instances of contention, as exemplified by the debate on TrillEreiid 07:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xindus II?

Why do take out "Xindus II"? Xindus is already destroyed, so it should be their new homeworld.

Well, that name would be pure speculation, and we try hard to avoid that. Additionally, it sounds more like the second planet of the Xindus system than the second homeworld of the Xindi species. -- Cid Highwind 19:43, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I think the Xindi need to be included somehow, though. They were clearly members of the Federation according to Crewman Daniels, even if we don't know their names. Wouldn't it be better to roll a list of Federation members and member planets into the main Federation page? --Icesyckel 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
See section "Future Members", were this is already the case... -- Cid Highwind 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but our official "MAPOV" is that we are archivists writing about past events is Trek, no? So a "future members" list would seem to violate that policy at any rate. We can't be looking back on events in the future, after all. --Icesyckel 18:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Following that line of thought, we'd need to move both this and the "Probable members" section to a background section. -- Cid Highwind 20:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he does have a point. It does not make sense to say "future members" about a 26th century membership from a database written millions of years in the future. I'd say either merge the information from their into the standard members list (with a note saying "member by 26th century", or into probable members. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reasoning for the "Future" section was that all those are just "possible" members by definition, because it is always just a "possible" future we're shown. So those should really not be moved to the "definitive" part of the list. :) -- Cid Highwind 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Then they should be moved to probable, or a new section named "possible" be made. Saying "future" just doesn't sound right with out POV. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think go with renaming the section "possible", with a similar note as it has now. – Cleanse 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Icesyckel 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
...because "possible" is so much better in regard to POV than "Future"? Somehow, I don't see that. In the specific case we're discussing, the species is a member in one possible future of the 22th century. If the assumption is that we're writing this from a "later" date, then it would not be correct POV to say that this is "possibly a member in the 26th century". It either is, or isn't, depending on what future actually came to be. To avoid this, we can move that info to a background section - or, we could state that "this species has been mentioned as a future member", without addressing the issue of whether it really became one or not. No real problems with POV here, unless you want to make it one. A section "possible members", or the existing "probable members", is much more problematic in that regard. -- Cid Highwind 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you make good points. My only area of contention is on the POV. Historians rarely know all the past and frequently have to say something "probably happened" or "may have occurred." I am sorry to be contention - but my intent is to be as accurate as possible. It doesn't make sense to have a POV that we are historians and to start archiving the future. How are the Xind future members? You were rgith when you said they joined or didn't, but you forget that, either way, it is in the past. We have to write from that perspective, or we will lose it. It is far more accurate to say we are lookign back ont he past, and it is unclear from the available data whether the Xindi world is a member. --Icesyckel 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The thing, as I see it, is: We don't have a defined POV because we're some roleplaying community that likes to have a POV - we have it because it helps us in writing a consistent encyclopedia about a television series. That means we probably should bend our POV to allow us to add facts from the series - not bend the facts to allow us to write from the strictest possible interpretation of our POV.
If we add a list of species that were, at some point, called a "future member", then this list is definitely "true" according to our POV - those species have been called "future members" in our POVs past, whether membership really came to be, or not. It might not be exactly what a real historian would put down, but everything else would necessarily contain speculation or unnecessarily move "canon" facts to a background section.
This is rather similar to the "status" field of our starship sidebars. Most probably, all those 24th century ships are destroyed or at least decommissioned at the "time of writing" - but we still put down their last known status according to the episodes, because anything else would make us lose valid content just because of some POV restriction. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I said that I believed the section violates the POV - not that I agree with having an established POV. Many times I have thought the present tense makes far more sense than the past tense, but I do believe a "future members" section is a violation of the policy - whether it is a good policy or not. I don't really care, but policies seem pointless when not enforced. Your call. --Icesyckel 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I still believe it really is not violating POV:
The Xindi were shown as members of the Federation in a possible future of the 22nd century.
This is what the page (implicitely) states. As I said, it does not state whether they really are members by the 26th century (what a "real" encyclopedia would do), of course - because the television series didn't provide us with that information. What it does do, however, is to provide all the information we have, and it does so in a way that is at least consistent with the writing style of a future encyclopedia. Is it not? -- Cid Highwind 10:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benzar?

Benzar is currently listed under probable members, but I think it was pretty clearly shown during the Dominion War that they were members of the Federation since they were conquered by the Dominion and liberated by the Romulans. In addition, the page for Benzar says that Benzar is "A significant member of the United Federation of Planets." The two pages should at least agree, and I propose that Benzar be moved to the "Known Members" list.--Mste0819

I moved Benzar to the "Known Members" list since no one contested this.-- Mste0819

Is there a reason someone put Benzar back under the probable members list? Please explain the reasoning behind this move.-- Mste0819

[edit] Shall we include all sol-planets?

No, we shouldn't. Unless all those planets (and even the moons you added) are seperate members, they shouldn't be included in this list of Federation members. Actually, this is another good reason to either rename or redo this list (see the discussion above). -- Cid Highwind 14:55, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)

[edit] Dedicate portion of Federation page to member list

Instead of writing a separate page that lists the members of Galactic powers, I think placing the list as a sub-heading on the entry for that power, so that the Federation page hasa sub-heading for Members. That list should be chronological, rather than alphabetical, since there exists the possibility for changes to membership status. --Jstealth 15:29, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

[edit] Content/Scope of this page - redux

This list is still a horrible mess in my opinion. There's still the question of "members=planets" vs. "members=species", but even leaving that aside, this article needs some serious work.

  • The introductory paragraph clearly states that this article is about member planets, not all planets in Federation territory. I will remove those that surely aren't independent planets (most of Sol's planets, for example, or colonies and moons).
  • Where exactly are those "Charter members" defined, anyway?
  • Some "certain" members aren't that certain... I will move some to "probable member" and leave a comment.
  • What exactly is the difference between "probable" and "possible" members? If there is a difference, could we at least get a sensible definition?

-- Cid Highwind 16:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denobula Triaxa

Since "Enterprise" is the only series in which Denobulans have been mentioned or seen, I don't think they should be included as "certain" members, but rather as "probable" members.

[edit] Removed from the list

The following planets were removed from one of the several sub-lists. If you think the removal is wrong, please put a canon reference on the relevant planet article before adding it to the list again:

Perhaps the above should be included in a list of Federation colony worlds.--T smitts 15:14, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Federation Members

Gene Roddenberry and the writers of Star Trek have deliberately left the member planets a bit vague, so not to tie the writer's hands in developing potential plots. Even if fans list every Federation planet from every episode and film, the powers-that-be will just pad the Federation membership with more planets to free up more story possibilities. Someone made an interesting point about something, though. Would different planets in the same system also count as "member" planets? It seems to me like the best analogy to this would be the US territories and commonwealths (Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Saipan, etc.) Earth is the primary world in the Sol sytem, and the only one capable of naturally sustaining life. The other planets in this system could be regarded as "Earth-territories" under Terran jurisdiction. As for species-specific membership, it doesn't wash. It has been established in many episodes that even Earth is a multi-species planet in the future. Where does Guinan live? Her race are all refugees. Since many alien races don't make frequent appearances (where has Denobula been for the last 200 years?), it could be extrapolated that other worlds suffered mass genocides in the 22nd and early 23rd centuries. How is it that a thriving Coridan became underpopulated in less than a century?--Mike Nobody 06:41, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I revamped the page, removed the pna, and removed the following planets:

Most of them are colonies. If anyone can find any information that points to them being members go ahead and put it in the appropriate section with a reference.--Tim Thomason 18:34, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ST01 and 04 aliens

I read that there is a concensus to use the species names and homeworld names for aliens seen in Star Trek IV Sourcebook Update and productions notes from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. So why were Fillandia, Kazar, Kazarite and Megarite removed whereas other references are still remaining. - Philoust123 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the info on the Kazarites and Megarites. "Kazar" was not referenced in background works as the Kazarite Homeworld (as far as I know), and Fillandia (homeworld of the Ariolo) has been deleted for being non-canon. The consensus, I think, is to use names from the Sourcebook for seen species only and not the made-up planet names.--Tim Thomason 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus can be found here. - Philoust123 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kes

"We may assume, that the admission policy of the Federation regards governments and/or planets, and not whole species. In practice, a planet has been under a unified government before it has considered for membership, but this has not always been the case, as with the Kes. Therefore, this may not be a requirement for membership, but still preferable." ~ I don't see the validity in mentioning the Kes here as, last time we heard of them, they were recommended for non-inclusion. - Branfish (no account, but will register as soon as I've posted this) 17/12/06 04:34am GMT

Retrieved from "http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Federation_members"