Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Talk page help

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

Maintenance discussions

Featured status

Should there be some automatism to "un-feature" an article that has been re-factored considerably? If an article is split up into several sub-articles (or otherwise changed in a major way), should the original retain its status as a featured article? Should it automatically lose that status? Or should it be reconsidered on the nominations page? -- Cid Highwind 15:47, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)

I think it should at least be reconsidered. Ottens 15:57, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
I agree. Perhaps we should make a special page for featured articles that ave undergone major edits. People could vote Keep or Remove. Alternatively, it could be posted on un-feature, but that has such a negative sound to it. -- Redge | Talk 19:36, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
We do. Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:45, Aug 13, 2004 (CEST)

Featured status (redux)

This article is/was full of un-cited references and I don't see a discussion that made this article featured. I personally thing it is a run of the mill, poor quality article, with a vast majority of it misplaced at Federation history.

Anyway, I removed:

"Advances in technology and a drastic shift in public attitudes towards wealth made traditional currencies obsolete in the 22nd century, ushering in the New World Economy. The introduction and advancement of replicators during the mid-to-late 24th century also drastically changed the orientation of the economy, as matter-energy conversion reduced the cost of most small- to medium-scale objects to practically nothing. Large-scale construction was efficiently handled, as well."

It was not cited, and for that matter, seems to be talking about Earth, in the beginning, rather than the Federation. --Alan 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Featured" removal

This article is/was full of un-cited references and for that matter, I don't see the discussion that made this article featured. Other than the primped up images in the article, and the poor organization, which I attempted to remedy, I personally think it is little more than a run of the mill, poor quality article, with a vast majority of it misplaced at Federation history. --Alan 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the "discussion" for this page's featured status nomination:
  • Self-nomination. An article about Federation history, government, and economy. -- Dan Carlson 20:49, 16 May 2004 (CEST)
It was added on 16 May 2004. There were no replies, and it was removed and deemed successful on 27 May 2004. The featured template was added to the article on 26 July 2004. Anyway, the page has definitely been improved, but I don't think it's really featured quality in its current state. Moving the info at Federation history to United Federation of Planets will certainly help. Anyway, I support removal unless someone fixes this up within seven days. --From Andoria with Love 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think this one has potential, but is just not comprehensive enough for a subject so important to Star Trek, and the Federation. -Nmajmani 12:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Renegade54 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. 31dot 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed from Featured status. -- Sulfur 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Is there any reason that the article is written in past tense? It is written in such a way that I keep asking myself "If the Federation WAS this or that, what has taken it's place now?" 03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

MA:POV. -- Sulfur 03:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Nomination (16 Feb 2008, Failed)

I have rewritten it according to conventional encyclopedic style used on articles about countries: its size and location, governmental structure, economy and history highlights. I hope it is suitable.– Watching... listening... 04:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose (for now): There is a spacing error that occurs after the section "The Legislature" due to the way that the pictures are placed. On my browser, a fifth of the page is blank before the next section starts. Also I am concerned that there has really been no "flushing out" of this article with talk page comments confined to general syntax but no discussion of major plot areas. No peer review was conducted that I could find although that alone is not a reason for denial. My main objection is due to the spacing error becuase of the picture placement. -FC 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved the picture up one paragraph and the problem was gone. It also only happened on my home computer; the space was less pronounced on my work terminal. I will change my vote as soon as the other two items are commented upon: 1)no peer review 2)any unresolved talk page issues. -FC 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: there's no spacing problem on my screen. Nonetheless, this issue should be resolved because it likely affects other users. FleetCaptain, perhaps you should play around with the pic placement until it looks fine on your screen. – Cleanse talk 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have also looked at the page, and I find no such problem on my screen. -- Rom Ulan 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I withdraw my Oppose vote but I'm holding off on a support vote as there are a lot of edits going on with this article and sections of it are getting cut and pasted back by various users. Not sure exactly whats going on, but will let the article calm down on the edits and then vote again. -FC 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry to do this, but in the days since this was nominated the article has been anything but stable. Lots of material is being re-written, or removed, or added. Even things as simple as they very organization of the article have been altered. The article is simply not in a stable or mature enough state to warrant feature status yet, IMHO. I think this needs to go through a peer review, and then maybe in a week or so come back to nominating it. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Oppose as well, withdrawing my withdrawal of my original oppose vote. There are way too many edits going on to this article with random cutting and moving of material. No peer review yet either. Article is in flux right now and needs to calm done before being considered for FA status. I recommend withdrawal of the nomination and waiting about 2-3 months after the article has firmed itself up and a peer review has been conducted. -FC 22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I have to agree with OuroborosCobra and Fleet Captain, there have just been to many changes over the last few days, as in it hasn't stabilized itself enough to be included as a featured article. Also the not having a peer review doesn't help it that much either.--UESPA 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like folks have things to add. I see some useful information has been put in. Very well. I shall place the article under peer review', and re-nominate it 2 months from now. Hmm. Getting an article to be Featured is harder than I thought. – Watching... listening... 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FA Nomination (2 March 2008, Failed)

This is a re-nomination. I thought I'd wait at least two months to do this, but the peer review seems to be over. Both I and other contributors have made useful additions, to the point where an admin finally removed the peer review notice. I think this is as good as it is going to get. So, that said...

I hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. I believe it to be clear, concise, well-structured and containing all available information on the subject. What say ye all?– Watching... listening... 12:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's getting there. I think adding some perspectives of other governments on the Federation would be a good add. Such as, I added the thing about the Breen attacking Earth, that was a big slap in the Federation's face. Also, Weyoun mentioned something about attacking Earth as the way to defeat the Federation (that I think might apply), then there was the comment in "To the Death" or "The Ship" about the Dominion outlasting the Federation, or Ru'afo's comment about the "mighty Federation" 'reeking of death' (or something) because they had been challenged by all major powers in the quadrant. Kind of get that 'fair and balanced' thing going for the article. --Alan
OBJECT: I am objecting based on the time between the two nominations. The last nomination was shut down due to heavy editing and the instability of the article. It was agreed upon that a few months should go by to make sure that the article was not being editing repeatedly with information cut in and cut out over and over again. I think that since just over two weeks has past between the nomination this is not enough time to determine this. I recommend the two month waiting period before considering another round of FA status. -FC 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, if the peer review had not been removed by an administrator. I took that as a sign that all was well and ready. Was I wrong?– Watching... listening... 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the peer review template has been removed from the article, because it doesn't belong there in the first place. It still can be seen on the talk page, and the listing on RC still shows it as an active peer review. -- Cid Highwind 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Nomination (19 May 2008, Failed)

In keeping with the decision that was made two months ago, I have waited two months until re-submitting this nomination.

I now hereby re-nominate this article for Featured Article status. I believe it to be a good representation of MA's work in terms of clarity, structure, organization and content. What say ye all? – Watching... listening... 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What the heck, Support ;-). But I think it would be even better if it had a sidebar along the lines of Romulan Star Empire.– Cleanse 07:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I feel that the section about the government is a bit too weak, in particular the part about the judicary. An expansion of this entire area would be very helpful and give it the *umph* that it needs to be a FA. For instance, what about the Seventh Guarantee? Or Aaron Satie? Or the justice process in Author, Author? How about the relationship between the President and Starfleet and what we saw in "Homefront"? Those are just a few examples of what I mean. I also think a large section could be added speaking about the development of the Federation in Star Trek, in particular how it was referred to in the Original Series vs TNG vs Deep Space Nine as well as an appendix section comparing various facets of the Federation to real world governments. This article has promise, but right now I just think its there yet. -FC 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You make very good points, and indeed, the article does need a bit of tightening. Well, the Fed Constitution and the Seventh Guarantee are already in the article under Federation Constitution. I believe most of the stuff you mention should be covered at Federation law (and I'll add a section which summaries and links to that article). The relationship between the President and Starfleet should indeed be added, probably under a new heading "Military" (where we can also given an overview and link to Starfleet). As for background on the development of the Federation, we have the information on various episode pages (especially those DS9 background sections contributed by Bertaut). Condensing this information on the UFP page would indeed be a good idea.– Cleanse 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I move that this be moved back to the peer review/article talk page and I'll work from there to improve this. We can resubmit when its a bit more advanced. Right now, I think it is lacking some key elements. -FC 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination failed and archived, issues unresolved after over 7 days.– Cleanse 11:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

United Fleet of Planets merge

Since this is nothing more than an incorrect term based on a misunderstanding and since the actual term is United Federation of Planets, I think it makes sense to merge this with the Federation article. Comments? --From Andoria with Love 06:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Against a deletion, but maybe support a merge: I thought about that before writing it, but we have a direct verbal reference in a canon episode, i.e. Lokai directly states it and thinks its an organization different from the UFP and Kirk has to correct him. I checked out the policy page and it says "everything seen or heard in any Star Trek episode or movie can be used as a resource for an article". It further expands under "valid resources for articles": "Spoken dialogue (what is said)" This would fall under these two points from the canon policy. -FC 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Addendum to above, I wouldn't have a problem in this getting copied into a new section in the UFP article, something like "other terms for the UFP" or something like that. All too often, I've seen a "merge" become blanking the article and simply putting a redirect in its place. Not that this was done on purpose, I just don't want to see that happen here since this is good material. -FC 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. The way LDS / LSD is presented is a good precedent to follow here too. --Pseudohuman 15:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. It's not an "other term for the UFP", just like LDS is not an "other term for LSD". --TribbleFurSuit 16:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Read my complete comment, please. By core policies of this site, it is a canon statement and should be somehow mentioned either in this article or in the UFP article. I am not against merging, just against blanking with a redirect. And, oh yes, nice to see you again on an article I am associated with ;-) -FC 20:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. It is also like Ivan Burkoff, which also doesn't have its own article.--31dot 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Composition of the Federation

Total of planets members: 156

According with Articles of the Federation by Keith R.A. DeCandido. This number will increase due to political problems of the Romulans, Breen and Dominion. The borders of the Federation,Klingon,Ferengi,Tholians and Gorn will expand. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

non-canon -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Do we know exactly what is a "member planet"? Obviously this is a political notion - there are much more than 150 planets in federation space. My first guess is that a member planet is the homeworld of a member species. Then only Earth, Andor, Vulcan, Benzar, Betazed and so on are member planets.
But perhaps some planets with no indigenous species, but massive colonization can be a member too? Or are colonized planets on a lower rank than homeworlds? do we really know?
In fact, i find we know very little about the Federation, while almost every movie and episode (except for ENt of course) mention it. For instance, it is supposed to be a democracy, but I can 't remember any reference to elections. --Rami
Another expectation is a unified government. It seems clear there are more than 150 planets in Federation space, although this would appear to include some of the larger, more populous colonies (ie Alpha Centauri, although come to think of it, I'm not even sure there is canon evidence to support it being a full member. There are also Federation protectorate worlds, such as Evora. They would appear to be under some Federation jurisdiction, receiving protection and probably trade benefits, but not yet ready for full membership. Jaz 22:27, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Possibly,colonies, and planets like Alpha Centauri, cast their votes into a "sub-council", where Earth and the Terran colonies cast their votes. then, the sub-council decision becomes the vote of Earth's council seat, although there is know canon evidence, it seems reasonable to theorize...--Sciofficer 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any direct canon evidence for Mars being a full member world rather than a colony? With the existence of Martian defense perimeter ships, it would seems as if Mars may have had its own fleet before being absorbed by Starfleet. Additionally, since the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards are in orbit, it would seem to imply that Mars is relatively important to the Federation. – AarrowOM 21:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

UFP: Serving the Galaxy Since 2161

I have read here that the Federation was founded on May 8th in 2161, but I've also read elsewhere that an episode or film had established the founding to have taken place on October 11th of the same year. Could someone please tell me the episodes or films both of these dates are derived from? --Shran 14:30, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In "The Outcast", Deanna Troi and the gang are playing poker, and decide to play "Federation Day" poker, where 2s, 6s, an aces are wild. I believe that's where the May 8th day comes from. And I've never heard of the October one, but it might have come from "These Are the Voyages...". May 8th is much more widely accepted though. -AJHalliwell 15:06, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well I thought maybe that May 8th, 2161 was the day that the charter for the Coalition of Planets was signed, and this was the event seen in "These Are the Voyages...", and that the Federation was incorporated later on October 11th. I thought this might be the case judging from Deanna Troi's line in "These Are the Voyages..." in which she said: "You wish you could tell them that this alliance would lead to the founding of the Federation." This seems to imply that the Federation would come sometime after the event they were witnessing. I thought it might also be possible that "Voyages" took place in October of 2160 and the Federation came about in May of the following year, but this would contradict the characters' statements that they had been serving aboard the Enterprise for ten years, given a start of April 2151. --Shran 04:24, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

October 11th, 2161 is the Federation Day listed in Picard's scrapbook in Star Trek Generations. I don't known if it was seen onscreen.--Tim Thomason 14:37, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ha! The game is afoot, Watson! We need to find out if it was seen on-screen, 'cause if it was, it can be considered canon (even though the Battle of Maxia medal contradicts earlier details). Anyways, thanks. :) --Shran 01:34, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I loved the in-depth look into that album in Star Trek: The Magazine, however, only a very few pages were seen on screen, and the page with the newspaper clipping of Federation founding was not one of them. It also lists Alpha Centauri as a founding member, a later de-canon'd thing. It's Elementary, Dear blue skin.- AJHalliwell 01:40, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Even though Alpha Centauri turned out to be an Earth colony, couldn't it have still been a founding member of the UFP? I think it could have and probably would have, unless there's an episode I've forgotten that said it wasn't. --Shran 03:53, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Size of the Federation

I really doubt the Federation could be 8,000 light-years across, as if so it would take more than 40 years to go from one side of the Federation to another even at warp 9.6, and logistically it would be almost impossible to politically co-ordinate planets which are so wide apart. Furthermore, if the Federation were really 8,000 light-years across, then it would take decades for people on deep space stations (such as Deep Space Nine) to reach Earth, which is clearly not the case according to actual Star Trek TV episodes.

Another article I've read states that the "8,000 light-years" figure actually refers to 8,000 square-lightyears, or just about 90 light-years across. Such a figure I think is much more logical. A starship at warp 9.2 can cross such a Federation in just 18 days. - cyl

Actually, it is not an inconsistency. USS Voyager was taken 70,000 light years away from Federation space, and it has been stated that it would take them 70 years to get home. 8,000 light years would 8 years, as has been stated on screen. 90 light years would therefore be highly inconsistent with statements from on screen. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't got the Star Trek Encyclopedia handy at the moment to check the figures exactly, but in the entry on warp technology it does make reference to the fact that at warp 9 it would take a pretty large number of years to cross the Federation - certainly decades. It only drops to practical spans of time up at warp 9.999+, I think. I did wonder myself how you'd manage a society that would take almost a lifetime to travel across... I'll get the exact numbers when I get chance to look at the book again. All I'm really saying is that times in decades are probably right. - Kaitiaki 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the 8,000 figure would have to be talking about volume not area sine the Federation is a 3 dimensional entity. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
And why is that? It could mean 8,000 light years across just as easily as that. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Further, one will find from a review of average FTL velocities given in episodes that warp speeds are generally higher than the TNG Tech Manual speeds which "cyl" was referencing. Whether you want to attribute this to "warp highways" or writer inconsistency or other things doesn't matter so much . . . the reference to 8000ly is just fine, and is even smaller than the older 10,000ly figure. That older figure came from the same TNG TM which featured low ship speeds, so the inconsistency "cyl" references is not just between the TNG TM and the shows, but within the TNG TM itself. --DSG2k 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the 8000 ly figure is from direct dialogue from Picard to Lily Sloane in 'First Contact'. It's entirely possible that UFP is irregularly shaped (supported by the semi-canonical 'Star Trek Star Charts' by Geoff Mandel), and 8000 ly refers to the longest axis within UFP territory. Also, the DITL warp speed calculator indicates that crossing 8000 ly at TNG-scale Warp 9.6 would a little over four years, not 40; you may be thinking of the original, geometric TOS scale. I doubt 8000 ly refers to volume; 8000 cubic light years would be the volume of a single sector -- 20 ly on each side, as indicated by the semi-canon Okuda works.Ereiid 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You have to remember they don't normally travel at warp 8+ unless they need to. I specifically remember the episode in DS9 Fascination when Jakes girlfriend was going away to a school that was 300 light years away. He said it was a long way. Imagine the the European Union if it's member states were so far away that it would take YEARS for them to visit Brussels at the highest speed possible to achieve. Assuming that we don't have the technology we do today. This would make the Union impracticable. What happens if there is a military attack on one side of the federation? The only way they would be able to protect it is if they stationed Starfleet ships at all areas. Forcing the personnel to spend years away from their family. Oh and also if there was a political situation. Imagine having to wait years to hear from an ambassador. – 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The Klingon connection

It's interesting to note in a possible future that the Klingon Empire will be absorbed by the Federation. It you read the early TNG writer's bible and pay attention to references in the Roddenberry years of TNG, it's implied that the Klingons had already been defeated/absorbed/pacificed at that time. ie Q from Hide and Q (IIRC): "Your people conquered the Klingons." Riker does not dispute him. Thankfully, this angle was not followed up and many of the best episodes in TNG & DS9 explored the Klingon Empire.--GreatBear 23:28, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

True enough. There's no other explanation for the Klingon ship in "Heart of Glory" having the Federation seal on its bridge.--DNJimerson 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
In "Samaritan Snare", When Picard and Wesley are conversing in the shuttle,

and Picard begins his story about his encounter with the Nausicaans, Crusher asks,"was this before the Klingons joined the Federation?" although it makes no sense, what's said is said--Sciofficer 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Klingons as members in the future

I am sure I will hate myself when someone points this out to me, but I want to double check the point on Daniels saying the Klingons are members in the 26th century. Granted, it has been a while since I saw the epsisode (that's why I am asking here), but I don't remember Daniel specifically saying that. I remember him saying what races where members of the Enterprise-J crew, and that Xindi and Klingons were among them. I remember seeing Klingon attack cruisers at that future battle (Proxycon was it?). Thing is, I don't remember him saying they were members of the Federation. Their presence on the Enterprise-J does not imply this (Worf was on Enterprise-D after all), and the Klingons often had large fleet engagements along side Starfleet in the Dominion War. Am I missing something? Can someone quote the line that I am missing? Thanks in advance, I'll crawl back into my cave as soon as someone sets me straight. --OuroborosCobra 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • DANIELS: It's getting harder and harder to surprise you, Captain. I've brought you to a monumental moment in history, the battle of Procyon Five, where the Federation engaged the Sphere Builders.
  • ARCHER: Federation. You've mentioned them before.
  • DANIELS: Vulcans, Andorians, Ithanites, Klingons. Dozens of species, including humans, all unified in a powerful alliance.
Seems to imply membership to me, and I might add, doesn't mention that any Klingons serve aboard the Ent-J. - AJ Halliwell 05:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, been a long time since I watched that one. Thanks AJ, I'll go back to my cave now ;-) --OuroborosCobra 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Khitomer Accords influenced by Enterprise-C

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the article, but the history section seems to imply that the Enterprise C in 2344 was a contributing factor to the Khitomer Accords of 2293(whose party the Enterprise-A crashed). If I remember Yesterday's Enterprise correctly, the acts of NCC-1701-C prevented future hostilities, but could not have(time warps aside) contributed to the past. Perhaps the short paragraph claiming this should be removed. --Cob amplifier 08:20, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing. Indeed, that note about Ent-C in relation to Khitomer needs to be removed, or possibly refactored for a mention near the Narenda III incident. --Machitis 20:02, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Nature of the Federation

Interstellar alliance and nature of?

Are we certain that the Federation can best be described as an interstellar alliance? It behaves much more like an out-and-out state -- the Federation government declares war, the Federation Starfleet provides security, the Federation Credit is their unit of trade, the Federation Council passes laws, the Federation President gets to declare martial law on Member Planets... it seems very much its own state, not an alliance. -- User:Sci 11/15/04

Has anything in the canon ever provided details about the exact nature of this alliance? Is the Federation a strong federalized republic like the United States? Or more of a loose confederation like the EU, but with a common defense?Gotham23 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
To a point, it's a matter of interpretation. Canonically-speaking, however, the Federation has all of the characteristics of a nation-state -- there's a Federation President who is capable of declaring martial law in Federation Member States such as United Earth, there's a Federation Council that was able to pass laws affecting both domestic (warp 5 speed limit) and foreign (giving the Founders the cure for their virus, declaring war, refusing to support Klingon invasion of Cardassia) policies, there's a military organization that is answerable only to the Federation government and not to its Member State governments (Starfleet), there's a large, Federation-wide bureaucracy for everything from archeology to cartography, there's a Federation Supreme Court that apparently is the court of last resort in the entire UFP, there's a common sense of cultural vis a vis "traditional Federation values" espoused by the New Essentialist Movement... Basically, every indication, I would say, is that the Federation is a strong federalized republic. It doesn't appear to be a unitary state -- Federation Members do seem to have areas of exclusive jurisdiction over which the Federation government may not intervene, and its members do maintain domestic security/space forces (much as US states maintain state militaries). So it does indeed resemble the US insofar as power and authority are distributed between the Federation and its members.
Now, who the heck knows the inner workings of the government? We don't know for sure that Federation Councilors or Federation Presidents are popularly elected, though that seems to be the implication. We don't know the relationship between the presidency and the council, nor between either of those two and the Supreme Court. It's possible that it's a parliamentary system, it's possible it's a semi-parliamentary system. It's possible that the Member States appoint their councilors. It's possible that representation in the Federation government is like the US's, or the UK's, or France's, or the UN's, or the EU's. We don't know.
If we expand our pallet to include the novels, Articles of the Federation establishes that the Federation Council is a unicameral body with a single councilor for each Member State, with each Member State determining for itself how its councilor will be determined. The president is popularly elected by all Federation citizens after the qualified candidates are declared by the Council, and the President and Council's relationship is a cross between the Prime Minister/Parliament and US President/Congress relationships insofar as a president must preside over full meetings of the Council. The president appoints councilors to the Council's committees, whom the full Council then ratify, and can preside over committee meetings. There's an allusion to the UN insofar as the five founding Federation Members -- United Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri -- automatically get seats on the Federation Council's national security committee. The Council may pass legislation and the president may veto it; a veto may be overridden. Legislation is introduced into committees and passed onto the full council for approval. The full Council can over-ride presidential foreign policy directives, though that's generally left to the president to determine.
But, all that is non-canonical, so take it as you will. -- Sci 16:57 12 OCT 2006 UTC
It'll make for good primer when the authors and scriptwriters someday come here to actually figure out/learn how their invented systems work... --ChrisK 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostly Humans?

Could we say it is mainly Humans in Starfleet because most of that species have a penchant for exploration?Gul Reid 19:27, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Should we have something on citizenship in the Federation? Or would that be completely non-canon?- B-101 13:28, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Well, the question should be asked the other way around: Is there any canon information about citizenship in the Federation? If yes, it should of course be added to the article. If not, it shouldn't. -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I'm going to search on Google to see if there is anything related to citizenship in the Federation, although it may be non-canon. I'll post links to any sites I find here so you guys can investigate them up close.- B-101 18:36, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I looked at some stuff on Google. Most of the sites I found didn't have what I think was canon info on citizenship in the Federation.- B-101 13:28, 12 Oct 2004 (CEST)

In the DS9 episode, 'The Sound of Her Voice', the character Lisa Cusak, described herself as a federation citizen in a distress call. Therefor there must be citizens and the federation must be a state. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
A number of DS9 episodes make passing reference to Federation citizenship. In the DS9 episode "For the Cause," Sisko and Eddington talk about Federation citizenship: Sisko says that Kasidy Yates is a Federation citizen and therefore cannot be searched without probable cause, while Eddington notes that the Maquis are not Federation citizens. In "Heart of Stone," Sisko notes that Nog, as a Ferengi, is not a Federation citizen and therefore must be sponsed by a high-ranking officer to apply for Starfleet Academy. Puritan 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


The membership section could use info on the requirements for membership. Planetary unity, warp capability, etc. Jaf 00:32, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I made one addition to point out that, after 7 years, Bajor still hadn't finished the application process. I think the wording could use some work, though. --Icesyckel 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Bajor is a special case. Remember that after 5 years, they were to be admitted, and were literally on the eve of admission in 2373 before Sisko put a stop to it in "Rapture", acting as the Emissary of the Prophets. So in fact, Bajor cannot be used as an example of it taking 7 years. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I remember that - yes. After the war was over, why weren't they admitted if they were ready? Could that imply that the process can take >7 years? Just a thought. --Icesyckel 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. We barely see anything after the war. We don't know that one week later, they weren't admitted. The only movie set after the war doesn't touch on the subject, as far as I know. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Carol Marcus' quote

"Starfleet has kept the peace for a hundred years...", circa 2285. Backtrack to 2185...and that's about 25 years after the Federation's founding. Should reference be made to no war (what with the Organian influence imposing that the Feds and Klingons be kept on opposite sides of the playground...) existing for approximately one century by that time? --ChrisK 09:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall to what she was referring to, but on-screen evidence seems to suggest that the Federation had not held the peace for all that time. According to Jean-Luc Picard, the was a decades-long "war" between the Federation and the Klingons some time following initial contact (likely part of the 70 years of adversity mentioned by Spock in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country). There were also conflicts with the Axanar, with the outcome of the subsequent peace mission permitting Kirk and Spock to serve together (apparently, the Federation itself was at risk of disbanding or at least losing Vulcan as a member, but that's just pure fanon speculation). And I'm sure there were many other wars or conflicts that I'm forgetting that occurred between 2185 and 2285... --From Andoria with Love 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I take that to mean that Starfleet had kept the peace within the Federation. In the TOS era, I have always felt the Federation to be portrayed as a much looser alliance between the different member races than we see in the TNG era. Just take how the ambassadors acted in "Journey to Babel", they were outright hostile towards each other. I have always taken this quote to mean that despite the difficulties between the member worlds, Starfleet had kept the peace within the Federation for about 100 years. At the time of Star Trek II, the Federation is still only about a century old. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
So in other words, it was like the "united States" were before the Civil War, after which the United States was. --ChrisK 10:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the Federation democratic?

The Federation supposedly stands for all that is just and right, but then why is it that (AFAIK) no character has ever mentioned any upcoming elections, awareness of politicians or any formal partisan politics? I don't think its just because the series never got round to mentioning it, as the series did mention almost every other aspect of life within the Federation. Are the Federation's citizens completely uninvolved in the governing of the Federation, or are there any canon explanations, or non-canon explanations, (or heck, even speculation will do), given to answer this seemingly glaring inconstancy. Thanks. 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody has a Universal Translator, and it actually collects their words and polls support. So no actual election event is necessary because the pollsters already know who everyone wants. 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there will ever be a canon answer or mention of detailed political aspects, as it would bog down the episode or movie it would be in. The writers of "Homefront" considered going into detail about the relationship between the Federation and the Earth government, but decided not to for that reason.--31dot 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sisko in "Paradise Lost" describes the Federation President as democratically elected. It's in the context of him stating that Federation citizens wouldn't accept Leyton's military dictatorship. So its incorrect to say that the Federation has never been said to be democratic.– Cleanse 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Requirements for admission to the Federation?

Does a group apply for membership to the Federation, or do they get invited? If they apply, do they apply as a planet or as a species? When applying, is the species required to divulge to the Federation all it's qualities and abilities, special powers, etc? Is there a penalty against member species if they are found to have concealed certain facts about their species?-- 17:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Clues can be found in "The Hunted", "Attached", "Rapture" and Star Trek: Insurrection, among others. Clearly if this is not addressed in the article than that needs to be added if this page ever hopes to become featured. --Alan 17:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hark! --Alan 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I consider this article a prime candidate for Feature Article status once done to satisfaction. If you have meaningful contributions to make to it to that end, please do so. Many thanks.– Watching... listening... 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-opening this peer review as a way of listing areas in which the article can be expanded and improved. For this article's FA nomination history, see the Talk page. These discussions have identified the following areas. Feel free to help to implement them and add your own ideas. And when they're done we can cross them from the list. This could be a great article if we all pitch in.– Cleanse 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perspectives of other governments on the Federation

Alan gave the following references:

  • Weyoun's comment that attacking Earth is the way to defeat the Federation
  • Weyoun - "The Dominion has endured for over two thousand years, and will continue to endure, until long after the Federation has crumbled into dust." DS9: "To the Death"
  • Ru'afo - "Federation support, Federation procedures, Federation rules... look in the mirror, admiral... the Federation is old... in the last twenty four months, it's been challenged by every major power in the quadrant – the Borg, the Cardassians, the Dominion... they all smell the scent of death on the Federation. That's why you've embraced our offer... because it will give your dear Federation new life." (Star Trek: Insurrection)

I also think the following could be mentioned:

  • Garak's and Quark's conversation about root beer and the Federation - DS9: "The Way of the Warrior"
  • Eddington's comment about the Federation, Maquis, and comparing it to the Borg - DS9: "For the Cause"
  • Anti-alien and anti-Federation sentiment on Bajor - early DS9 episodes

Cleanse 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I added all of these, except the last reference, and then some. --Alan 22:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between Starfleet and the Federation

Suggested by FleetCaptain. So for example, the events of DS9: "Homefront", the Khitomer conspiracy.– Cleanse 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Background - development of the Federation in Star Trek

Suggested by FleetCaptain. So where it was first mentioned on TOS, and how it developed over the other series. There's quite a lot on DS9's handling of the Federation in the DS9 background info discussions contributed by Bertaut (sourced from the DS9 Companion)– Cleanse 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Background - comparison of the Federation to real-world governments

Suggested by FleetCaptain. There's a little in the article already. I wouldn't go overboard with this though.– Cleanse 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are some production-based references to support such an inclusion, I don't see the need to expand such a section with speculated parallels. --Alan 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
...which would constitute original research. --Jörg 10:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"The United Federation of planets /was/ ...." - Past Tense

Why is the article written in the past tense? I don't see any discussion of its' demise - is there any reason to suggest it doesn't still exist? 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See MA:POV.– Cleanse 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Federation Council of Exobiology

This section of the Federation is mentioned in Dark Frontier as giving the Hansens final permission to start their mission to follow the Borg. Shouldn't they be included?--Tiberius 08:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Capital Issue Revisited

I've reverted some of the edits by regarding Paris being the capital city and headquarters of the UFP. I think it is premature to say anything definitive about that right now. There's a movie coming out soon that might give us some new insights. We simply don't know based on the MA 'broadcast only' canon standard. But the Office of the President (the executive) being in Paris means exactly that. We have absolutely no idea where the Federation Supreme Court (the judiciary) sits. And the Federation Council (the legislature) apparently has chambers in San Francisco. Whether this is their historical, primary, secondary, or one-time meeting hall is purely speculative. I don't think we even have any on-screen dialogue that unequivocally establishes Earth as the "homeworld" of the Federation. A lot of hints and allusions imply that possibility. But for all we know, the seldom mentioned judiciary found it 'logical' to move their centre of operations to Vulcan. – 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that absent a reference to one of these places being the capital, we shouldn't use the term. That said, in reality countries with their branches of government in different cities refer to each city as the capital(The judicial capital, the legislative capital, etc.)--31dot 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears that 9 years later Earth is still being referred to as the capital of the Federation. We know we have Starfleet Headquarters and Federation Council meetings in San Francisco and the President's office in Paris, but is there unequivocal evidence that Earth is the capital? I know this is my opinion, but I would prefer a distributed or neutral capital, as having everything on Earth reinforces the notion of the Federation as a "homo sapiens only club". What about Babel? If no one objects, I may go about removing direct claims of Earth as the UFP capital. --ВорЧа (talk) 19:57, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Don't resurrect a 9 year old inactive discussion in the middle of a talk page where one will find it... see: Talk:Earth#UFP capital?. --Alan (talk) 21:10, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for my breach of the rules in placing a comment here on an old discussion. If you would like, I can move it to your new talk page and delete my comment here. ВорЧа (talk) 21:38, May 20, 2018 (UTC)


Why isn't this in MP3 instead of .ogg? Microsoft can't even find a player for it. 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

MP3 is a closed source format requiring licensing to use, Ogg Vorbis is not. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are YouTube Videos that have it. You are welcome. George.e.pierson (talk)

Starfleet poorly equipped?

The article notes that "Starfleet were deployed to combat zones, often poorly equipped by modern military standards." This seems indefensible to me; the equipment that can be carried by a single individual is so advanced by modern military standards that it hardly bears comparison, and no explanation of what is supposedly lacking is offered; even if Starfleet members were sometimes lacking in equipment while operating in combat zones, suggesting this happened "often" is jumping to conclusions, and I think this only applies to the DS9 episode "The Siege of AR-558" where the troops in question had been isolated for a long time. Furthermore, that doesn't really seem to be on-topic in a page about the Federation. Anyone else think this ought to be removed? 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's rather speculative and irrelevant to this page, so I removed it:
Cleanse 08:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Four

The Federation is among the "Big Four" powers in the Milky Way Galaxy, the other three being the Dominion, Klingon Empire, and the Borg Collective.

Removed the above, as it lacks a citation. Sounds like a fan term to me, as I don't immediately recall where that comes from.--31dot 03:41, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

What about the Hierarchy? And there are several others as big as the federation. And when its comes to military strength, they are certainly not the big four. Its obviously non-canon and shouldn't exist in the article. – Wormulon 11:49, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


So we know that the Federation has the Fed credit, but don't Ferengi's hate the Federation becuase it has no established currency? Why is this not mentioned in the article at all?--Obey the Fist!! 21:12, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Probably because of what you just said there. How Star Trek treats the Federation economy is probably the single most inconsistent thing in all of Star Trek. On the one hand we'll have Kirk, Picard, and Jake Sisko running around saying that the Federation has evolved beyond a point of needing money (and therefore currency), on the other hand, we hear about credits, we see them as customers in pay only establishments like Quark's, and we see the Federation get involve in business deals. We even hear about banks on Federation worlds. Because of all this inconsistency, chances are no one has wanted to touch it in this article with a ten foot pole. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:22, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Which is why this will never be a MA:FA. I mean, I don't know enough to even attempt an in-depth currency section. Maybe Pseudo will :)--Obey the Fist!! 21:38, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Beta quadrant?

This article has contradictory info. Is the Federation located in the Beta quadrant or not? The sidebar says Beta, an anon user mentioned it in text and had that edit reverted, even though it says so right under it (plus sidebar). If it is not in the beta quadrant and canon sources dont say so, then info from side-bar needs to be removed as well. – Distantlycharmed 07:09, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been extensively held in Talk:Beta Quadrant. Basically the conclusions there are:
  1. The encyclopedia, and by extension virtualy all background sources since, suggest that the Federation has teritories in the Beta Quadrant
  2. Despite this, the Beta quadrant was rarely mentioned in canon, and the ufp and surrounding powers are consistently treated as being in the alpha quadrant only. (it is speculated that "alpha quadrant" is shorthand for local space though)
I'm open to discussion, or new evidence, but note that the Beta quadrant talk page has gone over the evidence quite thoroughly. My suggestion would be saying that the Federation occupies the alpha quadrant (which it definatly canonically does), and making the more tricky beta quadrant claims the subject of a background note explaining the situation. That note is already in place, by the way. -- Capricorn 07:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Right. And I am not disputing that. I was merely pointing out that the sidebar says "Beta Quadrant" under location, while other sources, including discussions, say it to be non canon. I am suggesting to remove that contradiction, which means removing the sidebar notation as well to have consistency throughout article. I didnt want this to turn into an edit war, so I took it to discussion. If you want to remove sidebar notation and no one else will come and revert that, by all means. We dont need to have a lengthy discussion again. – Distantlycharmed 07:41, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neat. I've made the changes, the beta quadrant is now only mentioned in the background note. Unless anyone has any other objections, I guess this issue is closed. -- Capricorn 08:10, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Voyager Flight Path

[ST Dimension high resolution] This chart from Voyager Season 7 places the UFP in both quadrants. As the chart is canonical, I would say that is definitive evidence of the Federation being in both quadrants.Throwback (talk) 00:12, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's that evident. The UFP label still is in the alpha quadrant, and may refer to the dot denoting Voyager's endpoint, but the dot may also just stand for Earth, which is usually placed near the quadrant border. Well, exactly on the border to be precise, but given the scale any milky way map necessarily is, it could easily be a hundred light years off-center and you wouldn't be able to tell it from such a map. You've got to appreciate that on any map that scale you simply can't tell that much, the dot here covering both sides of the border is in fact about 4 or 5000 light year in diameter and would therefore probably overlap not just the Federation, but its neighbors and pretty much any region of space it has some business in. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:54, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Great seal

The infobanner on the right has a picture of the "Great Seal of the United Federation of Planets". However, has it ever been referred to as such? In particular, while it's a seal, where does the "great" come from. Sounds like fanon to me. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:51, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

most real countries (and states) call the main seal that represents the country the "Great Seal of ..." see here:, so it's not a fan based term it's more of a historic/tradition based term Chasemarc (talk) 14:27, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

The way you explain it, it absolutely is a fan based term. A likely name is still not a canon name. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:57, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

alternate reality Federation?

is there a page for the alternate reality (JJ Abrams universe) Federation or is MA treating it as the same as the Prime Universe Federation? Chasemarc (talk) 18:31, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think that right now we don't need a separate article for it, as we know very little about the alt-UFP itself. They didn't say much beyond Pike's brief reference(near the top of the page) which is written as an alt-reality note. As we start to learn more about it, we can expand the brief mention into a section of this article, and perhaps beyond that its own page. 31dot (talk) 21:27, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Hey, just pointing out that pike said that STARFLEET was a "peacekeeping and humanitarian armada," not that the Federation was. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Pike: "You understand what the Federation is, don't you? It's important. It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada." --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:05, February 22, 2013 (UTC)


I don't want to edit war, but Instantventure keeps adding that new world economy replaced socialism and communism and the replicator had something to do with the reason why people were not concerned about accumulating wealth. Both of which are not from the cited episodes as far as i know and are personal fan interpretation and speculation. As far as I know, it was all about adapting the "philosophy of self-enhancement" as was stated in "In the Cards" etc. and the fate of communism/socialism have not been addressed at any point in the series. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:47, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I've temporarily protected this page. 31dot (talk) 09:20, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
Moved here from my talk page.
Why did you remove my revisions? Capitalism wasn't the only system of economies on earth at the time, in fact, socialism is the most common system. Communism is also a prominent system today. My revision was to create political neutrality and present facts.
Concerning my other revisions, It is shown that Federation members could acquire materialistic things Miles O'Brien replicated an Alamo Model and Federation members are shown to be able to have luxuries like decorations, etc. throughout the series. Although there ideology is to generally not be materialistic, it is shown that Federation members are allowed to have and fulfill material desire. The elimination of poverty can also be attributed partly to advancing technology, like replicators. The philosophy of self enrichment is a general one. --Instantventure (talk) 22:27, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
I did not remove the edits, but I agree with it. Such information about the motivations behind the Federation's economic policies is speculation. 31dot (talk) 22:32, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
if the Federation eliminated currency in its system then clearly socialism and communism died with it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Instantventure (talk • contribs).

Federation citizens/organizations/government used Federation credits as currency. I don't think it has been stated what currency was used in the United Earth. People still got payed for their work. It just wasn't an important aspect of life for most people. With Carter Winston however for example his wealth became an important part of interstellar affairs. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:18, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's possible to have a compromise. I found it in the script for "Encounter at Farpoint". It is an immense courtroom meant to reflect strength and power. (We'll discover that it dates back to the mid-21st Century post-atomic crisis era.) Both decor and legal procedures reflect the time when a desperate humanity, still wounded and bleeding from nuclear war, sought answers to its pain and problems through the merciless strength of a new form of dictatorial government representing neither capitalism nor communism. [1] So, for our purposes, we have as close a statement that people did reject both economic systems, and from the episodes, we know that within decades a new economic system arose.Throwback (talk) 23:28, October 3, 2013 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a means to get the proposed in-universe edit in the article. 31dot (talk) 23:34, October 3, 2013 (UTC)
True. However, it could be put in the background information. (This was an oversight on my part when I wrote the earlier post.)Throwback (talk) 23:42, October 3, 2013 (UTC)


I don't think it was ever identified like that. For all we know it might be a private company, or an agency associated with just one member planet, or who knows what else. So I would suggest no. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:31, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

ok, thak you C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 08:31, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Weird Glitch

Um…where's all the content for this page? This may just be a glitch for macs or something but I can't see any content on this page. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It happens all the time. The content is still there, it just doesn't show up. --LauraCC (talk) 17:12, October 6, 2015 (UTC)
There's a not easy to replicate bug going on in the server software. Try reloading the page a couple of times, or add "?action=purge" to the end of the URL. One of those two should work. -- sulfur (talk) 17:15, October 6, 2015 (UTC)


The section on the Federation's reputation seems to be just a collection of ruminations on how the Federation sucks, which people who think figuring out how the good guys are really the bad guys and vice versa in fiction makes them cool counterculture rebels just love. It includes an unhinged rant from a narcissist with delusions of grandeur trying to justify treason. This whole section probably ought to be stricken. The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShorinBJ (talk • contribs).

I agree that not all the people here are particularly respectable or trustworthy. I might make notes on that, but I think it is against Memory Alpha's policy to make judgements on the reliability of a particular character. Perhaps someone could add some notes on the 23rd century Klingon perspectives about how the propaganda in the Klingon Empire made-up or exaggerated negative things about the Federation. Most of these statements right now are from political enemies of the Federation, so they want to make it look bad. (Ruf'ao I do not count as being an ally of the Federation). Another thing that could be done that I see is lacking from the article is point out examples of all the people who wanted to join the Federation, such as the Kes (government) on the planet Kesprytt III (TNG: "Attached"), Angosia III in TNG: "The Hunted", and Bajor during part of DS9. We could also note that the Bajoran Provisional Government chose to be associated with the Federation rather than run DS9 independently or become allied with someone else, such as the Romulan Empire, Klingon Empire, or Ferengi, probably because the Federation had a reputation of being fair, powerful, and open, rather than the Romulans who were rather isolationist, the Ferengi who were exploitative, or the Klingons who seemed to have an unstable political situation at the time. It seems to me that the positive reputation of the United Federation of Planets has been ignored in this article in favor of the negative views. --ВорЧа (talk) 08:28, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
About the recently deleted parts on "reputation," I can see why some were deleted, such as Shinzon's quote which was more or less just a reference to the Federation (I suppose the fact he heard about it could count as reputation though), and Gul Dukat's statment that was deleted was a political, "diplomatic" message rather than a real statment of what was thought about the Federation. However, why did Quark's analogy to the Federation as root beer get deleted? It to me seems like a legitimate view of the Federation, with less political motivation than the others. And why should we not also delete Ru'afo's view, and that of the Changeling impersonator? They do not seem to me to be any more legitimate than the claims of the Michael Eddington which were deleted. I think that Eddington's statements and especially those of Quark should be put back or a fair bit more should be removed.--ВорЧа (talk) 07:23, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

verb tense

Shouldn't the opening section be in present tense? ( 07:16, August 25, 2017 (UTC))

On Memory Alpha, virtually all pages are in the past tense, to keep a consistent viewpoint across Star Trek eras. See MA:POV. 31dot (talk) 09:24, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

Politics/political culture of the UFP (communism?)

Hello. I'm a longtime fan of Star Trek and, having studied some eastern philosophies as well as Communist and capitalist theory, have a few observations that may be poignant to add to the article in some form.

I'll keep it as short as I can: the Federation, especially as presented in TNG, quite clearly displays to me a society that most would indeed consider to be a "communist utopia". This, however, is not obviously and directly stated, but may be inferred from the obsolescence of nationalistic thought (but not cultural innovation and variety - see Picard's pride in his French heritage contrasting with his ridicule of Q's dressing as a mid-20th century nationalist American military commander) and obvious reliance on a worldview lacking nationalism of any kind beyond the natural value of life, experience, and the individual in and of themselves.

By valuing life's experience in and of itself - in a society in which "people exist to better themselves and others around them", or whatever precisely it is they say - they have thrown off the implicated shackles of aggressive nationalism or economic motive as the dictator of their intent, but rather exist in a simpler state devoted to their duty to each other as living beings and the act of living that life to the full without constraints of a domineering capitalist system of neoliberal economic thought and subservience to an aggressive interpretation of nationalistic thought.

This focus on life's experience as an end in itself, both for the individual and the group, is also mirrored in Taoist and Confucian philosophy, which appears to be well expressed through this philanthopic and compassionate (yet organised) mindset. In Confucianism, a major element of ethics is the acceptance of your place in the society as a whole owing to the privelege of contribution to society and natural order of human hierarchies, which may explain the willingness of individuals to exist within a stratified framework of military command. Taoism, on the other hand, offers a philosophy which propounds a kind of basic innocent human joy in even life's most basic processes and focuses on removing all the 'schismatic' or 'schizophrenic' thought that civilisation brings, including a rejection (amongst other things) of aggressive nationalism and aggressive devotion to entirely theoretical causes of religious doctrine or economic imperative.

All of these elements together seem to create the conditions for a beneficent space-faring society organised towards the liberty of the individual as a part of a peacekeeping armada exploring the stars for no other necessary reason than simply to "go where no one has gone before" in a spirit of intrepid discovery. And I wish to explicitly state that the Federation may not need to have been an overtly communist project: merely that a state of "communist utopia" is a natural result of a society in which some Taoist and Confucian ethics are wholeheartedly adopted by the majority of people.

To bring this to a conclusive point: there may be some interest amongst people browsing the wiki for ideals and ethical systems that are hinted at through the characters' presentation of the Federation's ideals, and it may be useful to provide links to these and/or add a small paragraph of conjecture to such effect. 01:37, September 1, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of this should be added to the article. It's your own analysis, whereas this wiki focuses merely on documenting what we know from on screen statements and such (basically our mission is to create a trustworthy collection of hard facts for philosophers like you to check their ideas by). A similarity between the Federation society and communism has never been commented upon in canon, so that's outside our purview. You might feel more at home voicing these ideas at some other, more general forum-like Star Trek sites. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:16, September 1, 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, we don't keep MA's content reserved to only what has been established in canon; if you're able to find any citeable quotes or the like from production staffers, those sort of comments can be used as background information. --Defiant (talk) 21:09, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah anything citeable on the subject can of obviously be added (and even would be of great value). I was just trying to explain to an apparent new editor the no subjective essays thing from MA:NOT. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:33, May 22, 2018 (UTC)

Discovery's Alpha/Beta Quadrant Overview

Adding Beta Quadrant after Discovery on-screen star charts?

In Star Trek: Discovery there are some visible on-screen star charts that show that some Federation planets, outposts and starbases are located in the Beta Quadrant. I checked many of the individual articles of these location references (see DIS: "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad") and they've all been updated with this information, for example: Ardana (Federation member); Ajilon Prime, Jouret IV, etc. (Federation colonies); Archanis IV, Galorndon Core, etc. (Federation planets); Deep Space Station K-7, Starbase 24 etc. (starbases). More importantly, the Federation-Klingon border appears to be located there. If what we've seen in the Discovery's star charts is considered canon, should we update this article by saying that the UFP has some of its territory in the Beta Quadrant?--Sid-Vicious (talk) 00:29, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think per that map it's finally fair to do so. You'd still have to be careful not to make claims that are too broad though. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:12, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Alpha and Beta Quadrant Federation

I've made this changes, and just wanted to add the actual map to this talk page to document stuff. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:12, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

Federation space

By my count there are over 90 references to "Federation space" or "Federation territory". There are plentiful maps (see above) to support such an article, so I think because something with a border around it and specific neighbors to note makes this a tangible and potentially large self supporting article of its own merit. --Alan (talk) 13:41, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. It refers to the territory around it, not the internal matters or history.--LauraCC (talk) 16:09, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

32nd century

Shouldn't we update the Federation's emblem in the Sidebar? Or, as a compromise, keep the emblem but change the flag in the bottom of the Sidebar? It is the latest incarnation, after all.