Talk:Federation members

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

Bajor was accepted into the Federation in. 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)

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
 * Move this to List of Federation member planets or something similar (To be discussed) for clarity
 * Remove all planets that might not be independent members (colonies, uninhabited planets, etc.) from that list
 * 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
 * Move this to List of Federation planets
 * Add more planets to this list (from other existing lists, including colonies and uninhabited planets)
 * Create additional list List of Federation member species (reasons as stated above)
 * OR
 * Keep this page under this title
 * Remove all planets that might not be independent members (colonies, uninhabited planets, etc.) from that list
 * Add inhabiting species to each entry (similar to List of Homeworlds, with unknown information marked as such)
 * 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)

Pro

 * Valid information; useful when searching

Contra

 * Several lists already exist: List of inhabited planets (sorted by organization), Federation colonies. Each additional list makes it much harder to keep all content valid.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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.

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:
 * Alpha V (colony world, unknown member status)
 * Alpha Centauri colony (colony world, unknown member status)
 * Alpha Proxima II (colony, not member)
 * Arbazan (species, not planet)
 * Arvada III (colony, not member)
 * Babel (planetoid in neutral space, not member)
 * Barisa Prime (colony, not member)
 * Caldos II (colony, not member)
 * Castal I (unknown if planet is even inhabited)
 * Cestus III (outpost, later colony, not member)
 * Coltar IV (colony, not member)
 * Delta Rana IV (colony world, unknown member status)
 * Gamma Hydra IV (colony world, unknown member status)
 * Jouret IV (colony world, unknown member status)
 * Norpin V (colony world, unknown member status)

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

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)

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)
 * Aldebaran III
 * Altair IV
 * Andros III
 * Antos IV
 * Archer IV
 * Archer's Planet
 * Argelius II
 * Arkaria
 * Arken II
 * Atrea IV
 * Berellia
 * Bilana III
 * Braslota IV
 * Bre'el IV
 * Bynaus
 * Cestus III
 * Coltar IV
 * Corvan II
 * Cygnet XIV
 * Decos Prime
 * Delb II
 * Dorath I
 * Draylax
 * Galen IV
 * Gallam
 * Gaspar VII
 * Goren
 * Halana
 * Hekaras II
 * Invernia II
 * Ivor Prime
 * Izar
 * Kessik IV
 * Mantilles
 * Manzar colony
 * Minos Korva
 * Ophiucus III
 * Pacifica
 * Qualor II
 * Sherman's Planet
 * Setlik III
 * Sigma Iotia II
 * Tanuga IV
 * Teneebia
 * Terra Nova colony
 * Tessen III
 * Tyrellia
 * Ullian homeworld
 * Vega colony
 * Volan II

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. 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)

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

Medusans?
The Medusans are listed in the "Council members " sections. I tried to find more information on this, but neither the Medusan page nor the page on the episode state that the Medusans are Federation members. The log entry quoted on the episode page mentions the "Medusan ambassador to the Federation" which to me rather sounds like they are not members. Does anyone know what the reason for listing the Medusans is? --Ammaletu 01:27, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Romulus Prime?
Can you please add Romulus Prime? In TNG episodes showing the future (and I believe in Voyager episodes as well), we see Romulans serving on Federation starships in officer uniforms.
 * I don't remember seeing that, but it wouldn't matter. A) There is no planet called "Romulus Prime," just Romulus. B) Romulus is destroyed in the main timeline. C) Having Romulan members of Starfleet doesn't make Romulus a member world, just as Qo'noS was not a member world despite Worf serving, Bajor was not a member world despite Ro Laren and other Bajorans serving. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:40, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Founding Members
I am assuming that the founding members of the federation are automatically granted a spot on the council. Am I correct in that inference? - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 10:07, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable assumption, but there's nothing to support it. In short, we don't know. -- Capricorn 12:54, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Some more changes
I've done another round of cleaning up bad info, and in case some changes might prove controversial I've noted down my reasons: First of all, I've had to remove a number of species from their categories despite there being compelling evidence that they might be members. This might be opening a can of worms, but I've created an "others" category to place them rather then removing them outright. I've also created an apocrypha section, to move some species to which were never conclusively identified as members on screen, but who are accepted as members in non-canon works. It's very embryonic. Also (just covering mys ass here), I'd like to note that I'm familiar with previous discussions on this talk page, and I don't think I'm taking drastic unilateral action in any of these cases. I've made an effort not to step on anyones toes.

Corrected a few non-canon homeworld names:
 * Zaran II -> Zaranite Homeworld - the name is seemingly only supported by a TOS novel and the star charts
 * Aaamazzara -> Aaamazzarite Homeworld - if it's considered of sketchy enough canonicity to get a redirect rather then a page on its own, then I'm not going to treat it as canon here.
 * K'norm -> K'normian Homeworld. see Aaamazzara for rationale
 * ...and so on.

Removed from "Species with Representatives in Starfleet"
 * Camor V - that's an easy one, no Camorites were in Starfleet. However, I've placed them in the others category
 * Ktaris - admittedly, Naomi Wildman technically satisfies the conditions for placement in this category, but I think we can all agree that given her unique circumstances we can't take that as saying anything about possible membership. After contemplating dealing with that in a bg note, or deleting Ktaris altogether, I've also moved it to "others", based on the ambiguity of Ktaris membership.
 * Ullian Homeworld - removed - no Ullians have been seen in Starfleet, and there are no other hints that they are UFP.

removed from "council members"
 * Efrosian Homeworld - I can find no evidence of an Efrosian serving on the council. There is an Efrosian president of course, but while a (human) president was seen presiding over the council at one point, I don't think we can conclude from that that he is a member. Also never stated was that a president had to be selected from the council (even if it seems common). I think it's highly likely that Efrosians are federation members and possibly also council members, but for lack of evidence I've downgraded them to "others"
 * Medusan homeworld - quotes as evidence, but the council doesn't seem to be mentioned there at all. Can't find evidence anywhere else. This issue was raised before on this page by Ammaletu, but no action was taken. I've now taken the step of removing this, unless someone can provide evidence.

The "other members" section is a bit of a clusterfuck:
 * Argelius II - all we know it that's it's friendly, and that it's "a port for Starfleet" - moved to "others" based on the second fact. Interestingly, it seems to have already been removed from this page once, and brought back for unknown reasons.
 * Bolians get an "ambiguous" note despite having an ambassador, a fact which seemed enough for Arbazans to be unequivocally accepted as members. In light of possible non-membership of Bolians, having an Ambassador might not be enough to say that a species is a member. So I've added a note to the Arbazans explaining why we think they are members.
 * Algonian Homeworld - In this vein, I also thought it prudent to add a note here.
 * Arcturus IV - moved to "Species with Representatives in Starfleet"- Apart from one being on the big E, all we know about them is that they were part of the Galactic Cultural Exchange Project, and that some were observed on Earth at some point.
 * Arkenite Homeworld - moved to "Species with Representatives in Starfleet" - as that's all we know
 * Aurelia - moved to apocrypha - The strongest proof I can find is that an Aurelian was included in a Starfleet mission. I'm not even sure we can say he's a Starfleet member.
 * K'normian Homeworld - moved to "Species with Representatives in Starfleet"
 * O'Ryan's Planet - removed - all we know about this species is that one was in San Fransisco.
 * Kazarite Homeworld - removed - all we know about this species is that one was in San Fransisco.
 * Megarite Homeworld - removed - all we know about this species is that one was in San Fransisco. (on a sidenote, it's a good thing that the person who added all these species didn't apply the same rigor to DS9 visitors).
 * Merak II - removed - all we know is that the federation was helping out this planet with a medical crisis.
 * Rhaandarite Homeworld - moved to "Species with Representatives in Starfleet"
 * Rigel IV - removed
 * Saurian Homeworld - moved to "Species with Representatives in Starfleet"

I've also did a lot of other, stuff. My head is hurting pretty bad now. -- Capricorn 12:54, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

External link removal (defunct Geocities site)
This external link, Federation Member Worlds Mini-FAQ, is no longer available. I searched for it on the Wayback Machine without success. Perhaps someone knows of its availability at another location and can re-insert it into the External links section. I have no idea if the "Federation Member Worlds Mini-FAQ" was even useful, but in case it was, I wanted to place a notice here.

18:49, January 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's still accessible through reocities - see.


 * Having said that, the page (or at least the version archived) is significantly out of date (1998!), and doesn't really contain any info that isn't in this or the relevant species articles. So not really worth re-adding IMO.– Cleanse ( talk 04:45, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cleanse. I agree: besides its date, it's hard to read, has dead link(s), and is fan-created (kind of a pre-MA thing). External links seem better suited for non-Trek related material (eg, explanatory info on sites such as Wikipedia or the IMDb). As for linking to external Trek info sites, only official or "quasi-official", such as Sternbach's blog, seem appropriate. (Except in special cases, such as Bernd's site, or ST Minutia, of course.) If there's canon Trek info out there, it should be here. After all, that's why MA, MB, and the various Trek fanon wikis exist! :)

17:11, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Starfleet crewment of different species . ..
The picture doesn't really match the caption. The caption reads, "Many Starfleet members of various species." However, only at closer observation do you see three non-human species represented (at least, that's how many I counted). Is there a picture that more obviously shows the diversity of species represented in Starfleet? Though on the other hand, perhaps this picture is a solid representation of what we really see on starships (mostly humans with a few aliens scattered in here and there . . .). Your opinions?--Cougurrd 06:05, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Maturin's species: Possible member?
Given that Maturin was Governor of a Federation colony, doesn't this suggest his species as a possible Federation member? --T smitts (talk) 07:59, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Nog was in Starfleet, but Ferenginar is not a Federation member.  Holding a job in the Federation doesn't mean one's species or planet is a member. 31dot (talk) 11:40, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Why so much speculation??
Looking at this article it seems more than half of this page is pure speculation, "possible members", and listing planets and stars in the explored galaxy as possible members or "sphere of influence". I would like to vote at this point that we remove all that speculation and leave in only planets and races that have been actually cited as being members or applying membership canonically, and those that have been mentioned as members in non-canon productions that can be cited in their respectful subsections. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:07, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not yet convinced that they all need to go, but I do think the list of "species with representatives in Starfleet" should be moved or deleted, as non-Federation members can be in Starfleet(Nog, as I said above). 31dot (talk) 12:21, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pseudohuman. Seems to be a relic from the early MA days. If we want to list species with representatives in Starfleet, Starfleet would be a more logical place.


 * "Sphere of influence" needs to go because "inside Federation space" is not the same thing as "member of the Federation" (even if they are part of the Federation, they could be only colonies, for example). This could be better noted by converting Federation space to an actual article (from its current status as a redirect), and moving the list there.--Cleanse ( talk 12:29, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

That map isn't a map of Federation space, it's a map of the explored galaxy, as far as I know Federation doesn't claim all the planets and sectors of space it explores. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:02, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it? In that case using the chart in the article and calling it a "sphere of influence" is quite misleading. Scratch my last suggestion.--Cleanse ( talk 13:48, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that map was ever commented upon, so both "sphere of influence" as "explored space" are speculatory. In any case, it's clearly the most problematic section on the page, with essentially no real reason to keep it in. "Species with Representatives in Starfleet" is a very useful list that I think is definitely worthy of being preserved somewhere, perhaps moved to its own page? It may be too long to be folded into Starfleet in an elegant way. 26th century members should be kept in some way or another, as it's not speculation but rather a canon future that may or may not be the real one (or something like that, who could make sense of the temporal cold war anyway). I'd keep "others" too, personally, as the reasons for placing races there are generally pretty reasonable, based not so much in speculation as in ambiguity. Perhaps coalition of planet members could be folded in others also. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:39, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

The map at least was clearly and legibly canonically named, so no speculation there: --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:08, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake. "The explored galaxy" it is then. :) -- Capricorn (talk) 12:53, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Why so much speculation?? Pt. II
Well, the previous discussion seems to have died out without anything happening, but what about just discussing the removal of the "Sphere of influence" members for now? That should be something everyone could get behind, and it would be a huge step towards making this a more correct article. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:21, August 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll move all the speculative bits here, to be sorted out in what ever way, but we seem to agree at least that they don't belong to this article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 01:52, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think that removing that whole section while we merely agree that some don't belong on the page is serious overkill. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:56, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * There seem to be agreement that the "Species in Starfleet" section could be moved to Starfleet, as a start. 31dot (talk) 02:00, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

I've reinstated Apocrypha, trying to move this along, and unless there's opposition I think I'm going to reinstate "others" too, probably in some modified to be more suitable form. Info from both sections is already creeping back in in the form of background notes... -- Capricorn (talk) 14:27, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

I see that Pseudohuman has moved the species with representatives in Starfleet to Starfleet, and all was well. Only, I've stumbled upon a bit of information that we've all overlooked in the discussion, namely the fact that there is already a page Starfleet species. I've put it up for a merge and wanted to mention it here because anyone still following this discussion might be interested in the merge. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:13, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Coalition of Planets
Four members of the Coalition of Planets became the founding members of the Federation. Coridan joined the federation a century later, in 2267. Since the remaining Coalition members seem to have had close ties with these species, and the coalition of planet has generally been presented as a precursor to the Federation, the other members might have joined also at some point.


 * Denobula : Homeworld of the Denobulans.
 * Rigelian Homeworld : Homeworld of the Rigelians.
 * Six unnamed members.

Sphere of influence
From 2293 to 2370, a Federation star chart of "The Explored Galaxy" was featured on several monitors and displays on Earth, Starfleet starships, starbases and space stations. Several planets and stars were labeled in the chart. 


 * Aldebaran III


 * Alfa 177 : Uninhabited and inhospitable.
 * Alpha Majoris I : Homeworld to the Mellitus and a native population.
 * Altair VI : Has a native population and government.
 * Arret : Uninhabited world.
 * Ariannus : )
 * Babel


 * Benecia : Home of the Benecia colony.
 * Berengaria VII : Scouted as a potential site for the United Earth Starfleet's first starbase. Presented as a major Federation asset in.
 * Beta Aurigae : Scientifically examined multiple-star system. No mention of habitation.
 * Beta Geminorum system


 * Beta Lyrae system : An unknown planet in the Beta Lyrae star system.
 * Beta Niobe system


 * Beta Portolan system


 * Camus II


 * Canopus system : Alpha Carinae is mentioned and there are various inhabited planets in its star system, including:
 * Alpha Carinae II : Has a native population.
 * Canopus III : Possibly has a native population, known for a dinosaur species.


 * Alpha Carinae V : Homeworld of the Drella and a native population.
 * Canopus Planet : Probably has a native population, home of poet Tarbolde.


 * Capella IV : Homeworld of the Capellans and the Ten Tribes.


 * Daran V : An inhabited planet.
 * Deneb system : An inhabited planet in the Deneb system of which there are four.
 * Deneb II : Contains a native population.
 * Deneb IV : Homeworld of the Bandi and another telepathic species.
 * Deneb V : Homeworld of the Denebians.
 * Alpha Cygnus IX : Possibly inhabited.


 * Delta Vega : An uninhabited planet and Federation outpost.
 * Eminiar system : An inhabited planet in the Eminiar system, of which there are two.
 * Vendikar : Independent Colony of the Eminiar VII.
 * Eminiar VII : Homeworld of the Eminians and the Eminian Union.


 * Fabrina : Homeworld of the Fabrini.


 * First Federation Homeworld : Homeworld of the First Federation.
 * Gamma Canaris N : Possibly a colony world.
 * Gamma Trianguli VI : Home of the Vaalians.


 * Holberg 917G : An uninhabited planet in the Omega system.


 * Ingraham B : Possibly a colony.
 * Janus VI : Homeworld of the Horta and the Janus VI colony.


 * Kling : A planet believed to be in the Klingon Empire.


 * Kzin : Homeworld of the Kzinti.
 * Lactra VII : Homeworld of the Lactrans.
 * Makus III : Probably contains a native population and government.
 * Marcos XII : Possibly a Federation colony.
 * Memory Alpha : An uninhabited planetoid containing the largest Federation library.
 * Mudd : Inhabited by androids.
 * Omega Cygni system : An inhabited planet in this system.
 * Omega IV : Homeworld of the Omega IV natives, and specifically the Kohms and Yangs.
 * Organia : Supposed Homeworld of the Organians and the Organian Council of Elders.


 * Orion : Homeworld of the Orions, and former homeworld of the Orion Syndicate.


 * Phylos : Homeworld of the Phylosians.
 * Psi 2000 : An uninhabited planet that disintegrated in 2266.


 * Pollux IV : An uninhabited planet.


 * Pyris VII : An uninhabited planet.


 * Regulan system : An inhabited planet in the Regulus star system, of which there are two.
 * Regulus III : Has a population.
 * Regulus V : Class M, possibly has a population.


 * Sarpeid system : An inhabited planet in the Sarpeid star system.
 * Sirius IX : Homeworld to a native population and a planetary government.
 * Talos IV : Homeworld of the Talosians.


 * Tau Ceti system : An inhabited planet in the Tau Ceti star system of which there are three:
 * Tau Ceti Prime : Possibly a colony or resort planet.
 * Tau Ceti III : Possibly a colony, but may be inhabited.
 * Tau Ceti IV : Home of the ship port Amber.


 * Theta III
 * Tholian Homeworld : Homeworld of the Tholians and the Tholian Assembly.

Others
A number of planets might be suspected to be Federation members for other reasons.
 * Argelius II : Homeworld of the Argelians.


 * Camor V : Homeworld of the Camorites.


 * Ktaris : Homeworld of the Ktarians.


 * Angel I: Homeworld of the Angel I natives

=== Apocrypha ===
 * Aurelia : Homeworld of the Aurelians. - Aleek-Om was identified as a "Federation historian" in the Star Trek Concordance, possibly based on the script.

Governments
I'm not a trekie, but I've been trying to write a Star Wars VS Star Trek story. So I've been doing as much research as I can. One by watching all the series and two reading all I can on both series. I think that Federation refers more to goverments. My reasoning is this. In the last episode of Voyager Janeway had helped a Klingon House get into the Federation. So I think it is full goverments, like the Vulcan High Command or the Andorian Empire. {{{unsigned-anon|66.87.0.247}}


 * Off topic, but that isn't what she did at all; she helped Korath get on the Klingon High Council, not join the Federation. 31dot (talk) 02:02, December 23, 2012 (UTC)