Talk:Federation colonies

Temporarily removed from article

 * Beta Rigel VI, settled by both Humans and Rigelians
 * Deneb Kaitos V, settled by both Humans and Denebians
 * Epsilon Bootis III, also Izar
 * Penthara IV, also New Seattle

I think these entries should not appear in the article, or need at least some discussion. Info on the first three is taken from the Star Trek: Star Charts, nothing of this was ever said on-screen. I'm not sure if the fourth (Penthara IV) qualifies as a any sort of colony. -- Cid Highwind 05:17, 8 Jan 2004 (PST)

Earth Colonies vs. Other Federation Colonies
As I see it, only colonies that are clearly called Earth colony or mentioned as being established by Earth colonists in dialogue (or established earlier than 2161 by humans) should be placed in the first category. Everything else should go in the second. -- Cid Highwind 05:17, 8 Jan 2004 (PST)

Names of colonies
You've been adding the word 'Colony' to a lot of names (New Providence Colony, Alpha Centauri Colony), but I'm not sure how valid those names are. In the scripts, most colonies aren't specifically called Foobar Colony, but usually "the Federation colony on Foobar IV". I also think that usually, "New Providence" and the like are the actual names of the colonies. So New Paris is an Earth colony, while New Paris Colony was never used onscreen, and may even be regared non-canon. I understand why you did it, but I'm not sure it's correct. -- Harry 06:41, 8 Jan 2004 (PST)


 * You are correct, this is debatable as well. For the record, IIRC some names (especially from ENT) did indeed include the "Colony" suffix on-screen (Deneva colony, Vega colony), while it was necessary as a qualifier for others ("the colony on one of the planets in the Omicron Theta System" vs. "Omicron Theta, the star"). "New Providence" was in fact used as the name for a colony on Jouret IV, but wasn't for example "New Berlin" the name of one of the colonies on the Moon? -- Cid Highwind 07:24, 8 Jan 2004 (PST)


 * I recommend that only colonies which were specifically referred by "[name] colony" should have separate articles, or else there will be a proliferation of speculative colony names (which has been established isn't always the name of the planet) with basically the same information as the planet articles. If the name of the colony isn't given, information about it should be in the relevant planet article. -- EtaPiscium 01:48, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Hanolan colony
Does anyone know in which episode this colony is referenced? --BlueMars 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Formerly lost colonies
I think some of these "Formerly lost colonies" do not belong. As the description states, they are from the late 21st/early 22nd centuries, both before the Federation was founded. Bringloid V colony is a very good example of the problem. All records of it were lost before the Federation was founded, and it was not admitted to the Federation before it was abandoned, therefore it was never a member of the Federation, and never a Federation colony. Why is it on a list of Federation colonies, then? --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a few weeks on, and there has been no objection to removing or justification for the keep these colonies:

Formerly Lost Colonies
Many of these colonies were lost due to the chaos of the late 21st century or early 22nd century.
 * Bringloid V colony (Bringloid V, abandoned)
 * Mariposa colony (NB2323)
 * Terra 10 colony (Terra 10, abandoned)
 * Terra Nova colony (Terra Nova)

Away they go. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I missed the initial comment - however, I think that these colonies definitely belong somewhere, so they shouldn't have been removed from article space, rather been moved to a more appropriate location if such exists. Seeing that we do list earth colonies on this page (and remembering that we had a discussion whether to separate Earth and Federation colonies years ago), I'm not sure if this isn't already the best location. The alternative would be to create an article "Earth colonies" (which, by the way, is a redirect to exactly this article right now) and move all earth colonies there. If I remember correctly, this hasn't been done because the terms "Earth colony" and "Federation colony" have been used synonymously, especially in early TNG. -- Cid Highwind 09:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While it may have been used synonymously in some cases, most of those we can "prove" are Federation members, where as these simply could not have been. I propose creating a seperate Earth colonies article. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Planet Q
Should Planet Q from be included in this list? --Mada101 05:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)