Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 4

• Archives: 1 * 2 * 3

TNG S1 Commodore, DS9 Fleet Captain/Deputy Director

I have removed the TNG S1 Commodore rank, since it has never been seen on screen and nothing has been offered to suggest that it is even possible. From TNG onward, the Commodore rank does not exist and the image shown isn't even conjectural. Thus, the image has no place in this article.

The four pips/underline rank for DS9 has never been called "Fleet Captain" onscreen before. It has only appeared onscreen once, and the character was referred to as "Deputy Director". Therefore, I have removed this image as well. Kevin W. 00:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

This article will soon be gutted, more or less. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sure of yourself. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If people want to have nasty war about this, then I guess we can go that way although this copyright paranoia is very silly. Most of these pictures are circles and stripes which were not ripped off any websites but rather simple drawn by various users. I cannot possibly imagine that Paramount Pictures has a copyright on three silver circles drawn next to eachother or two gold stripes worn on a sleeve. As fasr as the movie pins, thats a bit more tricky but I've beat that one to death in numerous conversations and, if needed, will try and provide some message from the Star Trek producers saying that the image sof these pins are free and clear to reproduce. They were, after all, invented in 1982 and have appeare din countless books, magazines, etc, etc since then. I will not be available to edit Wikipedia until April but people should just assume good faith instead of calling for the destruction and gutting of this article, as was indicated above. -Husnock 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Text

Why has the enormous body of text been removed? It seemed quite useful to me. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It was moved to sub pages (assuming you are refering to text explaining individual ranks). As it is article is around 32+k --Cat out 22:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Starfleet uniform" redirect

Starfleet uniform redirects here, but this article doesn't contain any information about the uniforms themselves. Why is this? If there's another article that does (or should, at least) contain that information, it should redirect to that instead; if none exist, I believe it's a notable enough subject to have its own article. CameoAppearance 06:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue with "Chief" Miles O'Brien

"Many fans assumed an error when Sergey Roshenko referred to Chief Miles O'Brien as a Chief petty officer, being accustomed to the title of "chief" being given to an officer in charge of a department (example: Security Chief or Chief of Engineering) and the fact that O'Brien wore pips that indicated Lieutenant Jr. Grade rank."

With apologies to anyone if this is an inappropriate edit. Actually, according to this particular Wikipedia page, Chief O'Brien could easily be wearing the rank of "Senior Chief Petty Officer" and therefore could be called "Chief" in the course of his normal routine. This is further emphasized in DS9 where he is repeatedly referred to as a non-com. Is this a correction someone might propose?

I think on TNG the non-com rans were simply not well thought, I think there is adequate referances out there for that. On DS9, non-com was finaly established. --Cat out 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Heavy citationing needed

"The following is a compilation of the ranks and insignia of Starfleet to include official ranks from series productions, semi-official titles from Star Trek publications, and conjectured ranks from Star Trek fan publications." I don't doubt this, and indeed I am very impressed with how comprehensive this article is, but since these insignia apparently come from a very wide range of sources there needs to be much more extensive use of wikipedia:footnotes showing where each of them came from. I'd stick some {{citation needed}} tags in there but they'd make the tables look extremely cluttered at the moment so I figured I'd hold off for now. Anyone want to take a stab at it? I've got a few of the source books mentioned but haven't looked in them for years. Bryan 00:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There, just did a little bit myself. I should also note that all of the TOS insignia in the Franz Joseph technical manual are mirror-image to the ones that are shown here, but I decided not to fix that at the moment since the other ones are unreferenced and so I'd rather not change them all. Bryan 04:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think if you could make referances to few other ranks presented (if one source can apply to the entier) it would be much better. --Cat out 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of Star Trek reference books to work from so I probably won't be able to cover most of the remaining unreferenced ones. I've got the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the DS9 technical manual, and one or two others that slip my mind right now. I'll do what I can but collaborative assistance is always welcome. Bryan 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my star trek resources do not even include tech manuals. We can rely on on screen appearances for at least some of the insigs... --Cat out 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Star Trek Film OF5a.png

Is this the commodore rank or the fleet captain rank? Was the other commodore insignia fannon? --Cat out 21:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Scott's Guide showed that insignia as being for commodore and didn't provide an insignia for fleet captain (or any indication that the rank even existed, for that matter). I have no idea where the other commodore insignia came from, the insignia were all unreferenced when I started. I figured Mr. Scott's Guide trumped "who knows?" as a source. :) Bryan 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be prudent to establish that as a conjectured rank insig. Tho I'd be more confortable with such a thing after we figure out the source determining where the fleet capt. and comodore insig came from... --Cat out 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mr Scott's guide is not canon. Robert Fletcher, who designed the uniforms of the movies, created a different set. (You will also know that this book has TOS set in the early, not mid, 23rd c.). [1] Also, Franz Joseph's Commodore is clearly wrong, as the TOS commodore had a wide stripe in ALL episodes where they appeared. 216.79.34.196 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. Canonicity is of far less concern than verifiability is on Wikipedia. Rather than removing sources and returning to an unverified version, please provide new sources to support the changes you wish to make. If you can find sources that contradict each other and they're both significant (which technical manuals like this certainly are), then the proper approach should be for the article to make note of the discrepancy rather than ignore one of them. Bryan 04:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, cannonicality (on screen appearances) is by nature verifiable from the primary source. If thats how they appeared on the show, thats the way we should present it. Since there is nothing suggesting that its a costume error I am inclined to restore the older image. --Cat out 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with using episodes of shows as primary sources, I'm the original creator of Template:cite episode after all, but the citation should be specific enough (and the cited example unambiguous enough) that I would be able to pop a DVD into the player and, upon watching it, go "ah, I see. That's correct." The problem is that the original version of the table doesn't actually do that, and still doesn't for many of the cells. So how am I supposed to confirm any of it?

Furthermore, when significant sources disagree with each other IMO we should definitely make note of that disagreement in a prominent way. If the details are provided in the articles on the specific ranks then a simple footnote in those cells of the table indicating that the tech manual is inconsistent would be okay. Bryan 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a conjectured rank article. This isn't a case uneque to commodore rank. It should be discussed on the commodore article.

You are welcome to cite it as evidence. Commodore (Star Trek) cites a number of examples.

--Cat out 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "conjectured rank" is an appropriate label for a rank that's in multiple sources that just happen to disagree on the specific representation of their insignia. But yes, I agree that a more extensive discussion of inconsistencies should be saved for the more extensive articles on those ranks - I'm just suggesting a footnote here on the overview page for those, to indicate where such inconsistencies exist. Bryan 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think such a thing should be reserved to on screen inconcistencies. Another thing would be for cases where ranks that made no onscreen appearance but were covered on various tech manuals etc in a conflicting manner (like various tos admiral rank theories). I just want to evade redundent foornotes for poorly written tech manuals that dont agree with cannon. --Cat out 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that much is debateable and I'm perfectly willing to compromise on it. But what I am completely unwilling to compromise on is verifiability. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that you guys actually take the effort to put in citations like I did. Fiction-oriented articles on Wikipedia have enough of a bad reputation for this sort of thing as it is. Bryan 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What appears on screen in a live action Star Trek production would outweigh anything in a tech manual, publication, etc. This is since it is directly from the producers of the show and can be said to be the final word. On grey issues, such as ranks spoen of but not seen, manuals come heavy into play. However, when a manual offers an insignia entirely different from tha which appears on screen, the on screen version would take precedence. -Husnock 13:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Cat out 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the last good version I could find. The material was heavily damaged and a lot of incorrect stuff added. This was followed by four "self reverts" by Cool Cat, adding template errors. Time to go back to what works and put in good info, not restore a bad version of the page. -Husnock 14:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Now look here. I am not arguing that the tech manual should take precedence over what appears in the show, that is a total strawman argument. What I am arguing is that if you're going to put up a list of insignia like this the sources for those insignia should be properly cited and verifiable. Otherwise how am I or any other random joe who comes along supposed to be able to confirm it? Reverting away from a version that's been fact-checked and cited to a pile of unverified material is an overall degradation of the article. I'm going to revert yet again, and I insist that if cited insignia are to be changed the person who changes them should at least have the courtesy to put in as much effort as I did in the first place and find a source to verify his changes with. Bryan 16:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the article where it says: "Live action sources". The specific rank articles also give specific sources for which episode established what rank. If you insist further, here are a few:

• Ensign Pin: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
• Lieutenant Pin: Dark Page episode of ST:TNG
• Commodore TOS insignia: The Menagerie
• Admiral TOS conjectured: Never appeared on screen, never discussed on the show, several versions exist from several soruces. Covered in the conjectured insignia article.

To be blnt, this article is far too heavily researched and is th result of 3+ years of work by very dedicated people to allow it to be changed to a highly debatable version. I also cite the Wiki policy that disputed edits can be reverted immediaetly. I formally state your edits from the original version of this page are disputed. -Husnock 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it isn't necesary to cite exact appearances but it cant hurt to do so either. I'd reccomend sticking to cannon... Please lets end the senseless revert war. --Cat out 16:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It also might a good idea, before changing an insignia, to simply discuss it here first and show what graphic is being suggested. -Husnock 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To be equally blunt, how am I supposed to tell whether it's "heavily researched" or just made up by fans doing original research? Its called Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith As a major contributor to this article, I can assure you nothing was "made up" here. -Husnock 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) I also point out that the tech manuals I referenced are already listed in the references section as generic references, so if there's a problem with them why are they there at all? Because some of what they say is valid but the material you are posting cntradicts live action productions. I'm all for ending revert wars, but I am also really concerned with verifiability here and went to a lot of trouble to improve the article in that regard. My fact-checked and cited version of the article remained in place for almost a full month before an anon reverted it. If I had not been deployed, I would been here the very same day with these arguments -Husnock 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) So don't expect me to accept that I'm in the wrong here. If you want to stick to canon that's fine, but please cite where that "canon" information actually comes from. If you've got the sources available, as you list a few above, why don't you put them in like I've asked? The sources are ALREADY listed in the rank specific articles. Please look there. -Husnock 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) -Bryan 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I know nothing about Star Wars stuff. But Edit Wars are bad. So sort this out here - before I set my phasers to kill. Thanks --Doc 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, shoot. Just when the sources I was asking for started getting presented but not actually integrated into the article yet. Hopefully this will be brief. Bryan 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)