Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 3

This is an archive, please do not edit this page, instead comment on Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia

Flag ranks?
As well, is it sufficient to say Flag ranks and insignia and not Flag Officer ranks (which appear in The Star Trek Encyclopedia) ... in the article? My Webster's dictionary indicates flag rank, or flag officer (with general officer), for use with positions of captain and above, and using FO alone seems out of whack. And how about diffs/categorising between commissioned and not officers (with ensign being the lowest of the former)? Thoughts? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article
With regards to the discussion above about the TOC and how long the article is, an RFC is a good idea. I also deny the claim of article ownership as the changes the user was making seemed to go against previous dicussions and concensus which were brought up during the FAC nomination. In any event, to solve the problem, the article may need to be split into:

Or something along those lines. Thats a huge edit and I will not attempt it until getting some feedback. -Husnock 15:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Starfleet ranks and insignia
 * Starfleet flag ranks and insignia (really necessary?)
 * Hmmm; this was an initial suggestion to segregate the ranks logically. Given the recent splits, this may now be unnecessary.  However, an article so entitled may still prove useful as an overview for flag ranks ... particularly if compared to contemporary ranks.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fleet Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Vice Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Rear Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Commodore (Star Trek)
 * Starfleet officer ranks and insignia (really necessary?)
 * Hmmm; as above, this was an initial suggestion to segregate the ranks logically. Given the recent splits, this may now be unnecessary.  However, an article so entitled may still prove useful as an overview for regular officer ranks ... particularly if compared to contemporary ranks.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Captain (Star Trek)
 * Commander (Star Trek)
 * Lieutenant Commander (Star Trek)
 * Lieutenant (Star Trek)
 * Lieutenant Junior Grade (Star Trek)
 * Ensign (Star Trek)
 * Warrant Officer (Star Trek)
 * Cadet (Star Trek)
 * Starfleet enlisted ranks and insignia
 * Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia
 * Starfleet ranks and insignia (other) (really necesarry?)
 * Starfleet provisional ranks and insignia (This need to be merged with other officer ranks and then perhaps deleted? Really rpovisional ranks are no diferent than actual ranks aside from being ptovisional.)


 * This is something I was also thinking of for inclusion in a potential RfC (though I've changed two of the proposed articles above for consistency); the article is clearly too long and unwieldy.  I also reject your claim that these proposals are against consensus, since one doesn't currently exist regarding the current proposals (the FAC nomination failed more than three months ago): you and I having a discussion and agreeing or disagreeing isn't at all a consensus, and the claim that your solitary reversions are made based on consensus (and in possible contravention of cited Wp guidelines otherwise) is inappropriate and may smack of ownership.  Wp is dynamic, after all.  I will post an RfC based on these discussions and we should be guided by that.  Thanks for your consideration.  E Pluribus Anthony 16:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes and no, we need to have a list of ranks as a seperate entity and description pages for each rank. Article is colosal at the moment. We need a list of ranks wih no to limited description of the actual ranks which can happen in a seperate page. Something like Captain (Star Trek).-- Cool CatTalk 12:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting: I think the five splits/subarticles proposed above would be a starting point – with a main article retaining top-level notions/content in a concise format (with brief descriptions and charts) – but also support your proposal, CC. I've amended the above listing to embrace the ranks that should be rendered as headings for a table of contents and/or split into subarticles.  I guess we would have to ensure (easy enough) that we don't split the article to death and must determine if any, some, none, or all of these are worthwhile.  I'm all for whittling down this article that, while great, is too long and unwieldy.  E Pluribus Anthony 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No objections since december means I get to put up an airshow! Well all proposed subpages above now exists. Ill be working on the to make them more article like (as none have an introduction atm) -- Cool CatTalk 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Apropos, the proposed RfC is rather moot now.  To that end, I'll work on some appropriate introductions for each of the articles.  Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bulk of the work complete

 * OK I am mostly done, article on this page is redone and it should no longer be referances as an "article". It is now a list and can be a featured list.
 * I need help move referances. They are all in this article but they should go to their proper article. It is a rather tedious work and Ill throw it at one of you guys.
 * One problem though.... what should I do with the rank insignia that appears here?
 * -- Cool CatTalk 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that all articles need to be tagged with a category perhaps. And also a navigation template. Ideas? -- Cool CatTalk 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Feature Films insignia
Is it OK to tilt these images 90 degrees? They really mess up the table in my view. -- Cool CatTalk 23:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Errors
http://www.st-spike.org/pages/uniforms/errors/errors.htm

Found this at random while looking for provisional ranks (better images if they exist), what do you think?

Chakotay
It states in the article that Commander Chakotay was in fact a provisional Lieutenant Commander. The problem is that I never heard him titled as anything other than a full commander, and in the title sequence, it states that Robert Beltran played Commander Chakotay. Christophe T. Stevenson
 * On his collar he wears a LCDR pin. It is also standard practice in most navies (on which Starfleet is based) to address Lieutenant Commanders simply as Commander (to shorten). -Husnock 16:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Navy people are generaly too lazy to give the full adress. You got to see the Italian army titles they take a hole line. -- Cool CatTalk 12:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Added subheadings
Hello. I have been bold and added subheadings for the officer ranks. I see on this talk page reference to a FAC discussion. I don't know what a FAC discussion is (and there is no link provided), but it is clear that the headings are necessary. I completely agree with User:E Pluribus Anthony's comments from earlier. Lbbzman 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

colours of shirts?
I'm curious about the colours of shirts in mid-TNG era. Would a typical Chief of Security and Chief Tactical Officer wear wine or mustard? Was there a reason why Worf and Geordi changed colours? etc.--Sonjaaa 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes them "petty"?
The use of the various "petty officer" terms has always struck me as being silly. Basically, the teleplay and screenplay writers only want to use two words in dialog: "crewman" and "chief", so why not create a system where everyone can be called either a crewman or chief:

Master Base Chief Base Chief Master Ship Chief Ship Chief Master Deck Chief Deck Chief Master Crew Chief Crew Chief Crewman 1st class Crewman 2nd class Crewman 3rd class

70.20.209.146 05:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's really not relevant here. Creating new ranks from scratch is certainly not what this article, or wikipedia is for.  The term "Petty officer" is rarely used in everyday conversation in the modern navy, instead their rating is used.  The term "Chief Petty Officer" is also quite canonically used in Star Trek (in dialogue to describe Miles O'Brien).  They are called "petty officers" because they can issue orders, but lack a commission or the status of a commissioned officer, hence they are "petty" in comparison.  The term noncommissioned officer is a more generic military term for the same position.  --Wingsandsword 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured lists
As one of the major contributors of the featured list: List of Oh My Goddess episodes. I'd like to suggest this article can aslo qualify in my view. Please see that page to have an idea on characteristics of a featured page also see Featured lists for criteria.

However this should only be attempted after several layers of cleanups in the aftermath of breakdowns. -- Cool CatTalk 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the page is ready for a featured run. Aside from minor fixes (I dont see any) that should be pointed out during the FLC process. -- Cool CatTalk 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Images in need of updating
Alert to all users who have written on this article. The rank insignia images need to be updated as to thier source or they may be attacked as possibly unfree images. I, for one, think such nominations are bad faith since most insignia pictures are so widely distributed (some over 40 years old) that they are Public Domain. And copyrighting a pip or a stripe or a circle is ridiculous, in my opinion. See for what I am referring to. -Husnock 21:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have been through the archives of this page, and cannot seem to locate the extensive discussuion about copyright to which you refer. Could you please tell me in which archive it is, and under which subheading it can be found. The JPS 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The featured article sub-page, on the top of this page, will take you into the area where these discussions took place. There is an archive page within that page where images were further discussed.  The entire point here is that stripes, pips, and circles drawn within a box cannot be said to be copyrighted by Paramount.  The motion picture pins are a bit harder to define since they were created by Paramount Pictures but are geometric shapes which can easily be created on any graphics program in today's age.  If these were actual photos ripped off another website, then I'd be all for questioning the images.  But they are simple graphics pictures and should not, in my view, be targeted as unfree images. -Husnock 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. It's very possible, then, that the images are OK. This must be confrmed at PUI, though, before the tag is removed. The JPS 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image tag for ranks proposed
I played around with this and think this would be a good tag to start using for Star Trek ranks. My knowledge of how to propose it is limited though. Opinions? -Husnock 22:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This image, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship
 * Hmm... I'll play with the wording a bit. -- Cool CatTalk 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! I believe most of the rank images cannot be copyrighted in the fist place. (copyrighting The motion pictures insignia is not something that can be done for example). I bet 100$ on the fly some one drew yellow circiles before Paramount Pictures -- Cool CatTalk 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Images gotten from other sites (such as I did recently) will require permission. I believe since thy allowed us to use images on wikipedia they wouldn't mind. Although I do not want to bother them too much. -- Cool CatTalk 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, except we need to modify the actual template. It can be found at: Template:PD-StarTrekRank -Husnock 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done? -- Cool CatTalk 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is in good shape. I need to find out the procedure to get it posted as an actual image tag.  I left notes on the main image tag page. -Husnock 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag images with PD-StarTrekRank? -- Cool CatTalk 06:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Husnock, thank you for going to Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags. This is an appropriate place to discuss your tag. You will get objective advice from people with expertise in this area. The JPS 08:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)