Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.

Earth Starfleet - Federation Starfleet merge suggestion Edit

This question has been raised in the MA/de (German talk) and seems to be very important, but not easy to answer: Are there [canonical] positive proofs that Starfleet (Earth) and Starfleet (Federation) are two organisations, and not identical?

We don't ask for theories or explanations about how Starfleet evolved, we need hard facts, positive proofs, taken from canon. Points like different uniforms and ranks or different constitution and structure are no proofs, too, because they can be changed without constituting a new organisation.

First idea was to look for insignias or emblems that put together "Starfleet" and "Federation", the only one we found (here at MA) is the logo of Starfleet Command. But there are some persons that don't accept this as an proof, because it ist also possible, that Federation took command of old Earth Starfleet after beeing founded in 2161 without creating a new organisation. Unfortunatly, the term "Earthship" used through TOS (e.g. here) seems to corroborate this theory.

Finding some lines in dialogue that answers this question would be a better proof. Can anyone think of some? Maybe we could find out when Federation Starfleet was chartered.--Bravomike 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion just started over here yesterday. Not sure if we want to continue this discussion here or there, but regarding the logo, during Enterprise it would seem that like the Federation/Starfleet relationship, it would see that Earth Starfleet and UESPA shared a similar relationship. --Alan del Beccio 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean that the logo is definitely no proof?--Bravomike 07:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, 24th century Starfleet logos have stated that the organization was founded in 2161, same year the United Federation of Planets was formed. Since Starfleet was obviously around prior to 2161, it stands to reason that a variation of Starfleet was formed in 2161. That is, of course, assuming I'm correct about the logo. :P --From Andoria with Love 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A logo like this would be a good proof. Where can I find this logo?--Bravomike 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked at the Star Trek Chronology; it said that the Starfleet Academy emblem seen in TNG: "The First Duty" gives the founding year of the Academy as 2161. That's what I was thinking of. As for Starfleet itself, I can't think of any evidence stating the pre-2161 Starfleet is any different than post-2161 Starfleet... except for this, but this graphic was illegible on-screen and is taken from the first edition of the Chronology (hence the dating errors). Still, it's canon. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this so far. We have some problems with this screen, too, and arguments about how to use it, but I'll report on Your research. Hope, it will convince the skeptics.--Bravomike 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: The Chronolohy is right about this logo, see Trekcore, MMCLXI = 2161--Bravomike 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't work, unless one clicks from this page: [1] it's in the middle of the 4th row. 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Starfleet Academy logo 2368

Academy logo, 2161

Try this. --Alan del Beccio 23:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That is the same link as the first one. Why would you expect it to work any differently? 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Because not everyone is as smart as you, captnoreg. Besides, it works fine once you've gone there once. --Alan del Beccio 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just copy the link and open it in a new tab.--Bravomike 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For all this tripping over each other, it's the same logo found on the Starfleet Academy page, citation and all. --Alan del Beccio 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is something I have been racking my brain on in the last few days, due to a personal project of mine (although that's besides the point here, and doesn't matter, I know). I've always wondered firstly, if the Earth Starfleet seen in ENT was ever mentioned to serve Earth or United Earth. I've also been wondering through this to (as the mixed feelings towards the answer forces me into a debate on the naming scheme for the Starfleet's and their branches) if there is any possibility for Earth Starfleet being Federation Starfleet with expanded duties (along with ranks, organization, training and whatever else). One could possibly speculate (I tried to look for information aside from the mention on the UFP page {Which was a single line} that the military role of the F Starfleet came from the absorption of the MACOs and other military organizations of the UFP members.
One of the reasons I think it could potentially be the same organization, would be the fact (aside from the same name) that several branches of Starfleet (Such as Command, Medical, Communications, etc...) have the exact same name, and for the most part info from both Enterprise and the later series are included on one page (such on Starfleet Medical). Another reason is the fact some of the rank titles, and even the structure is the same in both Starfleets, and the fact in the MU episodes of ENT, the chars were referred to as "Starfleet Officer so and so" even the images and dialog (although, I realize the USS Defiant was written from the POV of the 23rd century, and it's been established that the Earth Starfleet Officers, MACOs, Vulcan High Command, Andorian Imperial Guard and whatever the Tellarites had were adsorbed into the F Starfleet)
There are of course, several different reasons for the organizations to be considered, named and be different. This would include the training and operation of the starship crews. It would also be explained as being different due to the more civilian and scientific (explorer) then the later incarnation which also had a militaristic role (although again, that could be explained). There's also several lines of a mentioned to something happening in Starfleet history, while ENT clearly showed that'd be wrong (such as the naming of ships named Enterprise, although I suppose even then, that could somehow be explained still).
I've also wondered about the branches, aside from Command, MA seems to have them being the same thing in both Earth, and Federation Starfleets (Medical is a good example). Following the logic of things being differnt, wouldn't the branches mentioned in ENT be differnt? If not, and they are the same (and it's known so) perhaps there should be some sort of mention of it's absorption/transference to F Starfleet from E Starfleet.
To the point, what I should ask, is the starfleets separate? How does the branches get written then, if branches have been mentioned in both Starfleets. --Terran Officer 06:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To talk about the branches: This was one reason for us at German MA to start this discussion. At MA/de, you won't find a page about a branch of E Starfleet and its sucessor of F Starfleet on one page, there are two different pages everytime, for example Starfleet Medical (F) and Starfleet Medical (E).
But this may be a effect of our canon policy and our POV policy, that are both more strict than yours (for example, articles in MA/de are written from a temporal neutral POV, so the first sentence of your article Starfleet (Earth) is "The Earth Starfleet was the primary space defense and exploration organization of United Earth in the early-to-mid-22nd century.", our article would beginn with "The Earth Starfleet is the primary space defense and exploration organization of United Earth in the early-to-mid-22nd century." In fact, wording is different, but the tense is present tense.)--Bravomike 06:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Star Fleets does not make a lot of sense. Nor does two "Star Fleet Intelligence" groups. What makes a lot of sense to me is the super-black "Section 31" being Earth only. Other Federation members would most likely have something like that themselves, if they can "afford" it, and don't have a major "issue" concerning it. Consider this: During the massive Dominion war, it would make a lot of sense for them to attack multiple Federation worlds at once (Did they?.) The ideal for the Dominion would be attacks on core Federation worlds. Also bad for moral. The Breen went after Earth, and who knows what else. When push comes to shove you want to compartment information that reveals to the enemy what your up to in every area.That has us, and the enemy knows it, worried the enemy is about to come through the front door. A deep cover group like "31" could/might find out if Earth was a target, they could evaluate if Star Fleet,if informed could do any thing about it, and do what they could one way or they other. Last, if defeat was "inevitable" as portrayed in "Yesterdays Enterprise" regarding the Federation/Klingon War of the other universe, a desperate approach could be to have pre-arranged ellements of "Star Fleet Intelligence", be sacrificed. (the official one, and that really works for the Federation by the way, its not a "cut out" of an organization.) (A really bogus intelligence group could, and most likely would in time be discovered). Its something like in the 1970's DCI William Colby revealed a lot of embarrasing stuff. He was accused of giving away the "family jewels" Try to hide everything, and you most likely won't be able to hide what you must. (thats the term they really used, "family jewels", despite my spelling.) Yet the USA and the CIA are still here, and go on, etc.)Hawks Echo
I was wondering what kind of status or attention this sort of thing was getting, I once again was looking through the various branches of both Starfleets. An example is Starfleet Medical, or Starfleet Academy (Earth). These pages have information from Earth Starfleet and Federation Starfleet. It gets confusing to have some pages with combined information, while on other pages insisting the two organizations are separate. I personally think, that for the "Federation" Starfleet Academy, it should have a "campus" section and describe/list the known campuses seen in the later centuries, and let the Starfleet Academy (earth) be for the information shown in Enterprise. Certainly this would go a long ways towards showing the differences in the two Starfleets as MA insists upon. So, any thoughts? --Terran Officer 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize that i keep making comments like this, but I simply feel that these matters are not being addressed. Any ways. what I was wondering is if this Starfleet is not the same as "Starfleet (Earth)", and it's simply named Starfleet, why does the article start out as naming it The "Federation Starfleet"? The same thing happens with the one seen in Star Trek Enterprise, the article starts out with "Earth Starfleet" but if those names were never mentioned, wouldn't this be the wrong way to start the article out? Especially if the seals in both organizations simply say "Starfleet" (Like the seals for other branches say "Starfleet Command" "Starfleet Medical" etc..., despite the fact earlier incarnations existed and are clearly separate [or perhaps not...]). I suppose this has been debated to deal somewhere, but I am never sure if a real answer has ever been found, and if all the articles within MA has been addressed as such. Any thoughts on this at all? --Terran Officer 05:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved this discussion to this talk page in support of a merge suggestion. Section 31 is integrated, the facilities used for both Earth and Federation SF Command and Academy are the same, and likewise, we've merged Vulcan High Command, despite being something of two different entities performing the same function. If this is successful, related pages with corresponding qualifiers would be merged as well. --Alan 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Support merge. Starfleet's operating authority might have changed once the UFP was founded, but the organization did not. I think there are more hard facts supporting the idea that they are the same group than the other POV.
If the merge is successful, I would suggest that the category Earth Starfleet personnel should be merged as well.--31dot 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Merge, while there could still be evidence otherwise, and perhaps we had not received any real proof to say yay or nay, there seems to be to many variables, both through the episodes, movies etc... and here on MA to consider them both separate. Like Alan said above, while the operating authority (For the 22nd century, it seemed to be the command council, with the Federation Council taking it's place later on) had clearly changed, the basic principle at least, of the organization, has not.--Terran Officer 09:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have merged the articles and their talk pages. --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Further discussions on the matter can be found in the archive. --Alan 17:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The Federation Starfleet has the same name as the Earth Starfleet, seems to encorporate the same ship design and really inhaerits all principles from Earth Starfleet. Also, all ships in Canon except for the USS T'Kumbra seem to be named after Earth concepts, humans are obviously the driving force behind Starfleet, Star Trek XI also seems to establish that Vulcans mainly think of Starfleet as an Earth Organisation, this hints very strongly at the fact that Starfleet is the same, an earth organisation that simply allows for all Federation citizens in its ranks and serves as the de facto military arm of the Federation. However various references such as in DS9: "Rapture" are made to 'absorbing' other militiae into Starfleet, however cannon has also established that Vulcan maintained its own fleet multiple times. The most obvious construction from these facts would be that Federation Starfleet mainly originated from Earth Starfleet and on paper still is an earth organisation (hence all the earth concepts ships are named after) but de facto now serves as a Federation force and (optionally?) assimilates the forces of joining planets into it. But that aside, there seems to be no hard fact that either establishes or denies that the Federation Starfleet is a fundamentally different organisation from Earth Starfleet or even if that concept would make sense. I mean, say that after the Federation was formed the Vulcans, Andorians, Humans and Tellarites fused their arms together and called it 'Starfleet', you can just as well say that the Earth Starfleet then absorbed their numbers into it. It's like debating if Trill is a member of the Federation or if Balrogs have wings.
It of course also all begs the quaestion why Solok would join Starfleet if he hates humans that much. GarakxBashirKawaii 04:39, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Starfleet - military - exploration Edit

In the beginning of the article, it says "The Federation Starfleet (commonly referred to as simply Starfleet) was the military and deep-space exploratory service maintained by the United Federation of Planets." I think that the "deep-space exploratory" should go before the "military", since exploration is the primary function and purpose of starfleet. Being first, "military" gives the wrong impression.– Spock2266 11:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%, for the record I'm a militaristic right wing nut job who loves all of the military lingo and space battles in Trek and Scifi in general but Starfleet is not a military, that is not what the creator and producers of the series viewed it as and even in dialog Picard et al constantly correct aliens in saying that they are explorers and not warriors. I also suggest "deep-space exploratory" first and make the suggestion that "military" be replaced by "defense role" or something like that.– Szaynaq 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Exploration and diplomacy is always emphasized over Starfleet's military roll. Starfleet acts as the Federation's military in wartime because there is no dedicated Federation military. Four of Thirteen 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree!!! In the TNG episode "Peak Performance", Picard clearly states that Starfleet is NOT a military orginization, that their primary mandates are diplomacy and peaceful exploration. Also in the ENT episode "Home" Capt. Archer tells Capt. Hernandez that she should have a MACO as a Tactical officer but Hernandez said she didn't feel comfortable having the military on her ship.–--Bugen4 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Whether Starfleet hates to admit it or not, they are a military to some extent. Paramilitary would be a good name for them. Starfleet was also once referred to as 'the service' by one of their Commodores during TOS. – Fadm tyler 17:04, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Changed the wording to reflect what was discussed here. - Archduk3:talk 17:33, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

"Paramilitary" is not a good term for Starfleet. It IS a military and has been referred to as such. It was called a military in "Paradise Lost," when the idea of Starfleet running the government was described as a "military dictatorship." It is established to be a military every time its internal courts system is referred to as a court-martial -- because "martial" is an adjective form of "military." Indeed, as you note, it is referred to as "the service" in TOS's "Court Martial," and is referred to as "the service" again in "Dr. Bashir, I Presume?" It is established to be a military when Starfleet is asked to enforce martial law in "Homefront." Kirk refers to himself as a soldier in "Errand of Mercy," and Nog refers to himself as a soldier in "Valiant". David Marcus refers to Starfleet as the military in Star Trek II, and Carol Marcus agrees with his terminology but defends the job Starfleet has done. And, most importantly, it fits the legal definition of a military -- it is the organization charged by the state with the task of defending the state in times of war, it holds its members subject to a system of courts-martial, and it enforces martial law. There is, in short, a lot of canonical evidence in favor of the idea that the Federation Starfleet is the UFP's military, and only one piece of canonical evidence that it is not -- Picard's single line claiming such in "Peak Performance." Well, that was the same season where Wesley claimed that the Klingon Empire had joined the Federation; obviously the line is inconsistent with both prior and subsequent canon and should be disregarded.
Memory Alpha should not be about aping a piece of politically correct rhetorical nonsense. Starfleet is a military, pure and simple. A far less aggressive military than seems to exist today, but a military all the same. -- Sci 00:09 15 OCT 2009 UTC
I suggested 'Paramilitary' as a compromise that would satisfy both sides, I guess a compromise didn't work... – Fadm tyler 11:42, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
Paramilitaries are militaries without an official sanction or courts-martial, essentially civilians that fight. It seems that Starfleet is de jure a military and operates on such a structure, but de facto an organisation of exploration, The United Earth Space Agency, whatever that is is not a military it seems. GarakxBashirKawaii 04:45, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
I am changing military to defense, so it will read as "defense service" - picard explicitly said starfleet isnt a military. If anything starfleet is like the NOAA with photon torpedoes Szaynaq 16:20, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the best description that fits the multiple nature of Starfleet is "uniformed service." A real-life parallel is the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which is an unarmed, uniformed service with a rank structure and pay scale that matches military officers. It is neither military nor civilian in nature, though its personnel can be attached to military units under certain circumstances. Starfleet is most definitely a military when the situation demands it to be one, but this term works whether we are looking at it as an exploratory or military organization. Ducttapeavenger (talk) 18:33, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
We try to use terminology used within the series itself and not terminology used or derived from the real world. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:36, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
Just a little strange sentence in "Background information- military".

Quote: "was to have established that Starfleet was under civilian control, such that certain interstellar choices (for instance, whether to aid the Klingon Empire in avoiding economic collapse or to hamper the Empire, eventually causing them to become subservient to Starfleet) were entirely political rather than military decisions"
well, since IRL such decisions (except in cases of military dictatorship) would be made by political and since IRL (except in cases of military dictatorship) military act under control of civilian government this doesn't state anything about the Starfleet's modus operandi.
PS: On the topic itself - Starfleet is a military organization. The rationale for this is simple- Starfleet is tasked (and tasked on regular, not ad-hoc basis) with prosecuting Federation's wars whenever Federation finds itself at war. Pretty much "case closed".... -- 08:03, August 2, 2016 (UTC)

Need for a Separate Abrams Continuity Starfleet Page? Edit

Although the movie doesn't go into great detail about it, the Starfleet of the new timeline/reality seems to be very different from its prime timeline/reality equivalent. When he first meets Kirk, Captain Pike describes Starfleet as "a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada." While the prime Starfleet engaged in these sorts of missions, they were not its most important activities (which, of course, were exploration, diplomacy, and defense); Pike's choice of definition implies something that is not nearly on the same scale as its prime counterpart. Also, Pike asks Kirk if he had ever heard of Starfleet. If Starfleet had been the most important quasi-military organization for all the member worlds of the Federation (the way the US military is the most important military organization for all fifty states in the country, and the way Starfleet seems very much to be in the prime timeline/reality), it would have been a ridiculous question to ask. Please discuss! --BlueResistance 16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There probably isn't enough information yet about the alternate universe Starfleet for its own article. But I do think it should be put in a separate section. At the very least the "humanitarian and peacekeeping armada" quote shouldn't be in the second sentence of the article. Four of Thirteen 05:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If there isn't enough information for a separate article, I do agree that the Starfleet as we had been show should be in a separate section. Although, let's remember information we know from Enterprise is seemingly "the same" as the changes are when the Kelvin was destroyed (apparently?)--Terran Officer 05:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Pike asked Kirk if he knew what the FEDERATION was and then proceeded to state that IT was a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada. But that probably raises more questions than it answers.--Hribar 15:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, could we please seperate all the alternate timeline stuff shown in Abrams' Star Trek 2009 from the trivia of the original universe/timeline? As a matter of fact, Starfleet / the Federation is only described as a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada in the new timeline, 25 years after a major violation of the timeline. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I think that even if we don't know enough for a separate alternate reality page, we need to at least have a separate section on Starfleet's page. Or at the very least, we need to specify things like "a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada" are from the alternate reality and are not canonical to the prime reality.--E42randy 03:54, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Size of the Fleet Edit

Okay, I REALLY have a problem with saying that there are 30,000 ships in Starfleet. There were 39 starships at Wolfe 359, and I know they were in a rush so they probably couldn't get more than 39 starships assembled before the Borg reached Earth. But Starfleet was SEVERELY shorthanded for at least a year after that ("Redemption II"). Even in the 24th century it takes a lot of resources to build a starship, so I don't think it's inconceivable that Starfleet has fewer than 1,000 ships. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe the article claims such a fact. It does state that Ron Moore believed such a thing was possible, which is a valid thing to put in the article. That's the difficulty when numerous people work and write for a long series- people use different assumptions or have different ideas.--31dot 21:06, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

The combined Dominion, Cardassian, Breen and Son'a forces had ~30.000 ships after a year of fighting during the Dominion War. This wasn't too overwhelming for the Romulans, Klingons and Federation (with perhaps a few minor races as allies) at the time because after they developed a countermeasure against the Breen dampening weapon, the Dominion Alliance felt it no longer had a superior force and retreated. We know the Klingons were more powerful than the Cardassians, the Klingons and Romulans were evenly matched, the Federation was a bit more powerful than the Klingons, the Breen were weaker than any of the major powers and that the Dominion had superior forces, but not by too much, the balance tipped over when the Romulans joined in, despite the Breen joining in shortly after the Romulans on the other side. With the assumption that Dominion vessels count for about 1/2 Federation vessels (the Dominion has many weak bugships but few cruisers and battleships), while Klingon, Breen and Cardassian vessels count as approximately 1 Federation vessel (lots of cruisers) and Romulan vessels count as more than one (lots of dreadnaughts and cruisers) I made the following estimate at the start of the Dominion War:

Federation: ~8000 ships. Klingons: ~6000 ships (with cloaking technology and a smaller territory to defend, so the Klingons do stand a chance in a war with the Federation). Romulans: ~4000 ships (counting as 6000 Klingon or Federation ships). Cardassians: ~3000-3500 ships. Breen: ~1500-2000 ships. Dominion (in Alpha Quadrant): ~26000-28000 ships (counting as 13000-14000 Klingon or Federation ships). Son'a: in the hundreds, maybe 500 ships. Possible allies of the Federation (I'm thinking the Gorn): ~1000 ships, 1500 at max.

I think these numbers would work: it would give the Federations dozens of ships to protect each of the 150 member worlds in peacetime (against sudden invasions by the Borg for example) and matches the data we have on the Dominion War and the known balance of power. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Vessels Edit

The Vessels section of this article currently reads too much like a fan page IMO, instead of an encyclopedia. I'm for just scraping it and linking to something like Federation starship classes with a rewritten, and shorter, 'brief history'. In fact, just listing known classes and types would be an improvement IMO, but I'm not the only voice here, so, thoughts? - Archduk3 06:08, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Federation/Earth Edit

Per my interpretation of the above conversation, I have removed all distinctions in this article between "Earth Starfleet" and "Federation Starfleet," as well as some speculation-Angry Future Romulan 21:18, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Anon removal Edit

  • Mr. Moore's lack of surprise notwithstanding, it has not been established that subtracting the lowest registry number from the highest is a valid way to determine the number of ships in Starfleet. The methodology used to generate registry numbers is unknown. That a registry number is a sequential number incremented by one for each starship built, with no gaps, pre-allocated blocks of numbers, or embedded significance in the numbers is unverified. If sequential numbers were used, there would be a larger number of starships than the highest registry number. Take for example the USS Enterprise NCC-1701, NCC-1701-A, NCC-1701-B, NCC-1701-C, NCC-1701-D, and NCC-1701-E, six ships on which the same registry number was used. Based on the USS Voyager's registry number of NCC-74656, this would result in an enormous number of starships. However, there is no true confirmation on how big the fleet is. Note that after the Battle of Wolf 359, a loss of just forty starships was considered to be a devastating setback for Starfleet.

The above was removed from the article by an anon user, I presume because it is not cited.--31dot 20:40, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

PNA Edit

Point of view problems Edit

There needs to be a distinction between the prime and alternate Starfleets. I don't think the page needs to be split to do this, as a good chunk of the info will apply to both, and there just isn't really enough alt info yet. - Archduk3 01:45, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

While in a way, I think it'd be easier to just split, I can relent in this case, and agree to keep it all on one page, however, I definitely agree that the information should be kept separate. It's far too confusing to be reading the article and realizing your shifting POVs from the "prime reality" and the "alternate reality". --Terran Officer 05:22, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing any POV problems with this article. There's currently one sentence and one picture from the alternate reality. Said sentence is appropriately marked to show its a different universe. I thus see no justification for the tag as is. Once we have more alternate info, then we can move it all to a "Starfleet (alternate reality)" page.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:28, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cleanse. I see no need for the PNA citation being as the prime/alternative Starfleet sentence is marked properly and the article is written in the past tense. -- 23:44, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the claim that Starfleet was written from the wrong point of view. I think it is just fine the way it is.

The person who that statement is wrong and needs to remove the objection. The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabeJoe (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts. If you are referring to the edit on May 7- please review MA:POV, as the vast majority of our articles are written from the past tense.--31dot 13:32, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in on this - this article looks to me like it's written in past tense. I'm not sure whats wrong with it. Can someone please specify the areas needing attention? -- 05:06, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
It's admittedly not clear, but the reasoning for the POV notice is actually the discussion directly above. If you agree/disagree chime in there. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:19, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem was the use of "Earth Starfleet", a fan name, instead of "United Earth Starfleet", a descriptive tiles using in-universe names. This is fixed now. - Archduk3 10:26, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate Edit

I've added the inaccurate PNA notice to the vessels section, since it reads like a fan written essay about how the "hero" ships were the most famous ships in-universe because they're the ones we saw in the real world on our TVs. It's also way too rambling and off point IMO. - Archduk3 10:26, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

The Vessels: Starfleet section reads as if the the Excelsior class was directly replaced by the Galaxy design, with no mention of the Ambassador class at all that I can find. 10:11, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
It's a common fan-interpretation that every time they build a new Enterprise, that class of ships replaces the previous Enterprise's class as the primary ship class of the fleet. I don't think that is the case though, or at least nothing like that has been canonically stated to my knowledge. --Pseudohuman 13:07, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

This is why that section is marked as inaccurate. - Archduk3 13:15, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember which episode, but in a TNG episode(s) the visiting admiral has had an Excelsior class vessels when they have rendezvous with Picard in his Galaxy class starship. Which backs up your theory Pseudohuman, because the Excelsior class was in service long after the Galaxy class was developed. Not that I've seen it, but this is confirmed by a number of DS9 episodes, I believe. :) STARFLEETACADEMY 09:17, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Starfleet Command- A branch of Starfleet? Edit

Is Starfleet Command a branch of Starfleet or are they the same thing? Starfleet Command is not listed under the branches of Starfleet. 16:58, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Starfleet Command is Starfleet. They run it, they are not a branch of it. 31dot (talk) 17:03, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Starfleet species Edit

Cites Edit

Any thoughts on if appearances of each species in Starfleet uniform should be cited line by line? This would be in the style of Borg species designations. (Pro) - it would allow for a user to know which episode a rare sighting, such as a Starfleet Peliar Zel native is in. (Con) - it would be problematic for common species like Vulcans. This is a little differnt then the list of appearances at the respected species pages, as this would be specific to proving them as having members in Starfleet. Jaf 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Jaf

What point of view is this list written in? Judging by the subsections, this is a meta-list, however, if it is supposed to an "in universe" list, then it shouldn't be listed "by appearance," and should be listed as "a list of all known species in Starfleet" list. This needs to be better clarified in the introduction. --Alan del Beccio 06:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's tricky. I agree with what you are saying as an editor, but when speaking just as a trek fan that uses this site to find info, I have to say that I really do want to know if the info comes from an appearence or a reference. Jaf 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Jaf

Merge Edit

A section called "Species with representatives in Starfleet" exists in Starfleet, though recently moved from Federation members) Unfortunately the participants in that discussion (including me, until I stumbled upon this) seem to have all forgotten that this page already existed. So, duplicate lists basically. Either this should be merged in Starfleet, or the section under Starfleet should move here. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:13, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Merge. - Archduk3 01:39, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Starfleet Tactical Marine Corps Edit

What is this supposed to be and what source is this coming from? I just noted the regular page on "Starfleet" also lists "Starfleet Marines" as a branch, supposedly citing "The Undiscovered Country" as a source. To my knowledge, nothing, anywhere, hints at "Starfleet Marines". The only clou one might have is "Colonel" West in ST VI - the only mention of a "army" rank int he entirety of Star Trek and that "Colonel" clearly wears a Vice Admiral's starfleet uniform which can only lead to the conclusion that this is simply a script error and West is supposed to be a Vice Admiral - nothing else makes sense here. Supposedly the marines were mentioned in the cut briefing scene, but I cannot for the life of mine recognize the term anywhere on the screenshots provided. Is anyone able to shed some light on this? --Angrytarg (talk) 16:09, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

The existence of "Colonel West" in Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country is a not so subtle reference to Colonel Oliver North, and the note of a "Starfleet Marine Corps" in a deleted scene is obviously a reference to Colonel North's service in the United States Marine Corps. I'd hardly call a rather obvious piece of political commentary concerning the Iran-Contra affair (in which Colonel North was massively implicated) a good source of canon for a supposed "Starfleet Marine Corps." In virtually every episode of Star Trek, across all five live-action series, phaser wielding redshirts and later goldshirts are exclusively termed "Security." Wherever you fall on the semantics debate of Starfleet being a military or not, its security forces have always been, and should always continue to be, Starfleet Security. --GabyBee (talk) 09:04, February 17, 2016 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much for that piece of information. I wasn't aware of the underlying issue so I never caught that commentary. But in that light I completely agree with you and I personally stick with the "Security" definition. --Angrytarg (talk) 09:45, February 17, 2016 (UTC)

I think the underlying impetus with all "Starfleet Marines" nonsense stems from several non-canon sources such as FASA sourcebooks referencing that supposed organization. It supposedly exists in some versions of "B-canon", but has never been implicitly recognized by "A-canon." The closest reference that can be pointed to is Colonel West, which is a very obvious reference to the real-world implication of Colonel North and his 16 indictments on felony (three convictions) regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. Not exactly a stellar (excuse the pun) point of source for a canon "Starfleet Marine Corps." --GabyBee (talk) 09:58, February 17, 2016 (UTC)