The Wikipedia:MACO page is much better than ours! The bare list of actions has to be worked out to something a bit more attractive to read, and more general information on the MACOs has to be added. -- Harry 21:20, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what happened here? I hate to say it, but the page as it is now is a horrible mess. It starts without any introduction, has no apparent logical structure, in the middle is a small section about the "Federation Starfleet" (wherever that came from), at the end a completely unrelated section about the Mirror universe containing just one link... Looking at the diff, it seems as if some other articles (List of personnel, rank structure) were just pasted here complete with their categorization. One of the edit summaries states that some content was copied from StarTrek.com and/or Wikipedia (haven't checked that yet) which is a big No-No. Mike Nobody, please get this sorted out, or I will just revert to the last good version, as this one is pretty useless. -- Cid Highwind 13:16, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- When was the last good version? It was pretty lame to begin with. I admit, it still needs work. But, I'm really proud of it. As for Wikipedia, as I said, it was one of many sources and I did my best not to plagarize what they did; keeping the style of M/A (an online version of the "Star Trek Encyclopedia") and rewording areas more in my own words. If you'd like to make some edits or additions, please do. But, I'd rather have cheese with that whine.--Mike Nobody 13:43, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
"Good" as in "not containing content previously published under an incompatible license" and "relatively coherent" - the last version before your additions. Look, I don't mean to sound rude, but of your changes, a good part is simply copied from Wikipedia:MACO. You can check that by running nearly any part of the added text through a Google search, which will give you the Wikipedia article containing the same sentence as the top result. This includes the section headers 2-6 and their subsection headers, which just don't make much sense in this context. What wasn't copied from Wikipedia was copied from other articles on MA where it should have stayed (for example MACO personnel), or is unrelated (I really don't know why a three-paragraph description about Starfleet is located at the end of a section called "MACO casualities", or somewhere else in the article for that matter). I will revert now, because in my opinion, that is the best possible action. Feel free to bring that up for discussion, though, if you think that you are being treated unfairly - I suggest Memory Alpha:Ten Forward for that. -- Cid Highwind 17:50, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I started to create a complete revision of this page awhile back, but I haven't had time to finish it, and I don't think I will. I can post it if people want, and then everyone else can take up filling in what's left. Ratamacue 01:27, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Forum:Space Marines questionEdit
Does Starfleet employ any kind of special operations away teams?
- The Earth Starfleet (predecessor to the more familiar Federation Starfleet) was known to work in concert with a Human military organization which had teams called MACOs, essentially career soldiers trained to be deployed on Earth and aboard Earth space vessels.
- While the Federation Starfleet itself was never mentioned to have any soldiering jobs outside of its normal security forces, numerous officers over the years have been shown wearing special combat uniforms (in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" and "The Siege of AR-558"), a combat division specialty colored uniform (in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) as well as being referred to by military ranks (like Colonel West in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country).
- This might not answer the topic, as they never said clearly whether they were "marines" or not, but there certainly are soldiers in the 23rd and 24th century Starfleets. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I started this, but I'm starting to feel ill-equipped for tallying MACO casualties. We have nametags that were worn by several different actors, some of whom have been hit (possibly killed) more than once, sometimes while wearing the same name tag continuously, and sometimes while switching nametags. Sometimes the characters were referred to in dialogue as a different name than their tag.
This means we should probably tally wounded-in-action -- all characters/extras/nametags that were hit but not definitely referred to or indicated as dead.
According to the article Colonel West would be equivalent to a Rear Admiral. What is this based on? In the United States, a Marine Colonel is equivalent to a Navy Captain. I am going to make the change. --OuroborosCobra 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was based on the fact that he wore a Rear Admiral's uniform, as well as the rank insignia of a rear admiral. - AJ Halliwell 03:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In the British army—for example—there is the title Colonel of the Regiment, which can be held by a general. So one can be a general/admiral and a "colonel" at the same time. Regardless his rank/title suggests the existence of Starfleet marines (likely descended from integration of the MACOs). —MJBurrage • talk • 06:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, it's a British thing. Most of my military rank knowledge is for the US armed forces. Well, at least we got one thing out of this whole process. The article was originally (as noted when this discussion began) putting Colonel West as equivalent to a Rear Admiral. Now it is the correct Vice Admiral that matches his uniform (if not his title). At least some good came of this. --OuroborosCobra 08:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- As there have been no Trek productions after MACOs made their appearance in Enterprise, there is no way to know. Any speculation we have based on indirect evidence can be read in this article at Military Assault Command Operations#MACOs after 2161. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Also Janeway stated in VOY: "The Omega Directive": "only starship captains and federation flag officers..." Maybe a hint that there are indeed other flag officers in the federation not specifically affiliated with Starfleet.--Maxwell Fawkes 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
removed text Edit
I removed the following text from the background material:
- Many fans speculate that the MACOs, after the formation of the Federation, became a 'Starfleet Marine Corps'.
Speculation, unsupported statement. -- Renegade54 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following sentence:
- A number of MACOs were assigned to the Embassy on Vulcan, and killed in the attack on it.
I think the events of season four are the source for this but I cannot remember it was mentioned that MACO's were among the people in the embassy. – Tom 06:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
MACO rank equivalent Edit
- MACOs have similar weapons, training, and tactics to the special forces of a number of member nations of United Earth, and their rank insignia is similar to that of the US Marine Corps.
Not a huge deal, but I just wanted to point out that due to the use of a single chevron for the rate of Private, and lack of lower embellishment to distinguish a possible Lance Corporal -- MACO enlisted rates actually appear more similar to US Army rates. Or perhaps even an inverted version of British/Canadian enlisted ranks (seeing as they appear to jump from private to corporal). But they seem least similar to the US Marine Corps.
- Or we can remove it all together as it's just a personal observation that isn't based on official resources. — Morder 08:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. In fact, now that you mention it, it seems as though the entire sentence might possibly be a non-official and personal observation.
- and their rank insignia is similar to that of the US Marine Corps.
- Removed the end of that sentence. I'd remove the remainder, but I'm not exactly an expert on ENT, so I can't be sure if official resources did or did not comment on their weapons, training, or tactics. Someone else might be more qualified. --LiberAves 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
MACOs after 2161 Edit
This subsection of the article is full of specualtion. There is really no reason to add that blue collars might be a reference to MACOs - it can't be a reference as in real life MACOs were conceived for Enterprise and didn't exist and canonically Star Trek Beyond states the military was disbanded after the foundation of the UFP. --Angrytarg (talk) 18:24, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the following notes, because they're a mix of irrelevant, speculative, and uncertain info:
"Their weapon seems very similar to an XM8 rifle in function and size, including the marksman variant seen in "The Expanse". The stun grenades are also very similar to "flashbang" grenades. The rifle in sniper mode also bears a strong resemblance to the Federation sniper rifle from the Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force video games, which preceded Enterprise."
"The process of dissolving, absorbing, or continuing separate service organizations as a sovereign world joins the Federation is unclear; however it is known that at least one other Earth organization, UESPA, had continued as a separate agency, albeit one that was seemingly part of, or at least working closely with, the UFP Starfleet. The last known UESPA reference, on the NCC-1701-B dedication plaque (also in 2293), means it is at least possible a pre-Federation agency could survive well over a century later."
"It is also possible that West had the rank of vice admiral and the "billet" (military job) of colonel. (In the British army, a general in charge of a regiment can be called the Colonel of the Regiment.) As for the continued existence of the MACOs as part of the UFP Starfleet, the British Cavalry is part of the British Army, but it still uses its older traditional names for the ranks."
""Ground forces" were mentioned several times in latter season episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, another possible passing reference to MACOs."
"The name and logo of the MACOs may be related to the eponymous species of Terran shark, the Mako."
- I agree with the removal of all except the reference to a Mako shark; doesn't their insignia indicate that? 31dot (talk) 14:07, December 5, 2016 (UTC)