Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia/archive1

Starfleet ranks and insignia

 * Second candiacy: Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 1

This is the second FAC case. Article was significantly improved and past objections on article to be canon rather than fanart is (in my opinion at least) met. Minor issues have already beeing fixed. All parties involved with earlier FAC will be notified. Thats all I got for now. --Cool Cat My Talk 30 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
 * Correction, this is the third time this article has been placed here. Round one can be seen at Featured_article_candidates/Ranks_and_insignia_of_Starfleet.

THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN CLOSED AS OF 3 JULY 2005


 * I still want to support this nom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
 * Support - very comprehensive, I found it interesting. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
 *  Tentative Support - much improved from the last time. Still has issues with graphics layout (viewing this on IE), and there should be a sentence and wikilink to Star Trek canon in the introductory paragraphs, but that's the extent of the objection here. Will switch to firm support if these can be addressed. --khaosworks July 1, 2005 01:24 (UTC)
 * I added the Wikilink. The setence reads as follows: Starfleet ranks and titles have evolved through both live action productions, official publications, and the fanon of the Star Trek Expanded Universe. The most official ranks established are those which appear in Star Trek films and television productions, with ranks appearing in publications from Star Trek producers considered "secondary", but nevertheless still officially established Starfleet titles.  The least official of all ranks are those which appear in Star Trek fan literature, such as magazines and websites published by private persons with little or no affiliation with the Star Trek series.  Such ranks are considered conjecture, yet occasionally may find their way into semi-official Star Trek sources (an example being the rank of Branch Admiral). As for the images, what images seem to be causing you the most problems?Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the Enlisted Ranks section. The Petty Officer graphics do not flow with the text (the larger graphic is aligned to the right as well), causing a huge blank space. I also note that some graphics do not seem to initially want to load - this may be because there are too many graphics and IE times out or something. --July 1, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
 * I am having many images not even show up, so it could be a Wikipedia problem. I will check into the page and see what I can do. And if your first objection is solved, then I request you to strike out that section, please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
 * I cannot fix it without screwing anything up. I need to copy this template so I can see what magic I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 05:41 (UTC) Ok, I fixed it, I hope everyone likes. If not, I got a few more tricks up my sleeve. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
 * Support, interesting article. [[Image:PhoenixSuns 100.png|20px]]Phoenix2[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|20px]] 1 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
 * Support once again an even more improved article. -SocratesJedi | Talk 1 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to support, but one thing I still don't understand is the "public domain" tag on recreations of the insigna by Wikipedia. Do the creators of Star Trek really hold no copyright whatsoever on the design? Phil s 1 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
 * As I understand matters, such a design may be patented or trademarked but it cannot be copyright, although a specific representation of it may be copyright.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)


 * The reason why they are public domain is that I drew most of the images myself, so I released them into the public domain so there were no issues about copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. A curious topic but one well-covered.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC) I have made my support conditional on the fixing of Taxman's list below.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 2 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
 * This one has been through the mill: I think it now meets our criteria and would support but for one caveat - query whether all of the images taken from live action programmes have a sufficiently "free" copyright status. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
 * Object. (Taxman Talk July 1, 2005 13:17 (UTC)) Certainly much improved. I will not continue to object after the following issues are handled. There are a lot of them as you can see, but I think they are all fixable. 1) Still needs a clear explanation of which sources are official and which are not. It mentions that some are and some aren't but only says which is which for a few of them from what I could see. 2) Still a lot of unsourced claims and pure opinion. That is not acceptible under the NPOV and No original research policies. Since this same objection has been leveled many times on this article, I thought I would list out every instance I could see in order to facilitate fixing them. These need to be restated factually and many of them need sources to back them up, or failing that, they should be removed. So here we go:
 * "Since promotion to Commodore is not mentioned, it may be assumed that the rank was no longer in service."
 * "It can therefore be assumed, unless additional information is promulgated by Star Trek producers or through official sources, that subsequent to the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation the rank of Commodore ceased to exist."
 * "An episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, entitled "Inquisition", may have shown a modern Fleet Captain insignia"
 * "...as "Deputy Director", the title possible indicating that the position of a Deputy Director of Starfleet Intelligence would hold a rank equivalent to that of a Fleet Captain."
 * "Based on the rarity of the rank of Fleet Captain, it may be assumed that the rank is an honorary title, bestowed .."
 * "In such cases, it can be assumed that Fleet Captain is not a prerequisite for promotion but rather a special rank bestowed under certain circumstances."
 * "This gives rise to the interesting theory that Pike may have been a Captain in title only, but was actually a Commander or possibly even a..."
 * "...was most likely a Captain at some point in his career..."
 * "Spock may have been permitted to wear full Commander insignia as a "spot promotion", due to his position as Enterprise First Officer, or the insignia oddity may have been a script oversight."
 * "One may assume this is similar to the practice onboard modern day U.S. aircraft carriers where..."
 * "In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, although not referred to in the dialogue, the characters of Uhura and Sulu become Lieutenant Commanders as is evidenced by an examination of the Motion Picture era sleeve stripes." - several examples have been given for characters referred to by ranks other than what the rank looks like, so this is another assumption.
 * "This may have been a protocol of Starfleet whereby the rank of Lieutenant Commander may be verbally shortened to Lieutenant. This would also explain the nomenclature of Valeris during the time frame of Star Trek VI. Alternatively, accidentally calling a Lieutenant Commander “Lieutenant” may simply have been a script error."
 * "While simply a costume error, Star Trek fans have speculated the existence of a new rank known as "Second Lieutenant Commander", senior to a Lieutenant yet junior to a regular Lieutenant Commander" Just give a source for this one.
 * "This was, perhaps, a means to distinguish Ensigns in the Motion Picture from Crewman, since..."
 * "Information from the prequel series Star Trek Enterprise indicates that in this earlier period of Starfleet history, Lieutenant Junior Grade did not yet exist as a rank." Just because it is not seen, what evidence is there that it doesn't exist?
 * "...the statement from "Divergence" may have been a plot error or an indication of the point at which Lieutenant Junior ..."
 * "Fan apologists have suggested that the case of Kim was owing to the isolation of Voyager in the Delta Quadrant, while the suggested lack of a Lieutenant (junior grade) rank in Enterprise may explain Sato and Mayweather. Others have suggested that Voyager..." - Needs sources
 * "When Star Trek was first created, Gene Roddenberry allegedly had stated that, within Starfleet, there were no enlisted ranks since..." - Needs source
 * "An alternate "shoulder tab theory" indicates that such tabs indicate membership..."
 * "Due to the plot of Star Trek Voyager, it can perhaps be assumed that the ship has very few enlisted crew members..."
 * "As O'Brien was seen wearing a hollow pip insignia, fans have speculated the insignia of higher warrant officer ranks extending..." - Source needed.
 * "Earth Starfleet possibly also maintains the ranks of ..."
 * "It is possible, however, that the Starfleet Academy students in Star Trek II were senior cadets, most likely fifth year or graduate level students, given the advanced nature of their training."
 * "...one possible explanation of Wesley’s uniform is that the grey tunic was a sort of “junior youth” uniform similar to the present day Sea Cadets or the Cadets of Junior Naval ROTC. Another explanation is that the uniform is indeed a established Starfleet uniform..."
 * "Wesley’s field commission as Ensign was apparently revoked and he began wearing the standard uniform of a Cadet."
 * There may have been more I missed and there may have been some of these that were sourced but it wasn't clear, so that would be easy. There were a lot more that were of the form "evidenced by this=> foo result", of which many are also opinion, but weren't nearly as egregious as the above. - Taxman Talk July 1, 2005 13:17 (UTC)
 * Do you think we can use footnotes to satsify the requirements? If so, me and others will try to start crawling for sources and where everything is taken from. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is a different way of saying "some people have said...", these sentences are cop outs. The sentences need to be changed to include who is assumeing this information. Conditional support if this is adressed. Also is there any information on who designed these insignias? If there is this should be included in the article somewhere. MechBrowman July 1, 2005 23:13 (UTC)
 * I am checking Google now, but not much has been found. I also could not find any designer, so far. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with MechBrowman. They need to be written as facts instead of opinions. A source of who made the claim would be a great way to do that, and footnotes as a way to cite that source would be fine as long as they are quality sources. - Taxman Talk July 2, 2005 03:48 (UTC)

Changed to Support -Husnock 1 July 2005 15:49 (UTC): I might as well support an article I worked so hard to create. HOWEVER- I respect what people said last time about the article not having enough real world info. Also I really appreciate the fact that it has been far too soon since the last FA was closed for a renomination. Its not good form to just keep renominating and renominting until one can get it past. A few months should actually go by. In addition, this will probably (again) draw a huge amount of fire from anti-Trek people or people who feel fiction subject articles should not become an FA. Those people are welcome to their opinion and, in fact, I understand where some it out comes from. If that doesnt happen, I will vote to support but I did not renomiate this. -Husnock 1 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
 * Link (Legend of Zelda) is a FA and was on the main page; I didn't see anyone protest against it. As long as we keep a reasonable proportion of different kinds of featured articles, there is no problem with articles about fictional subjects. This has been discussed before. I fail to see how this is going to "draw fire from anti-Trek" people any more than Libertarianism drew fire form conservative Wikipedians/readers. Phil s 1 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
 * The last two FA nominations drew heavy criticism, name calling of the article, attacks on those who worked on it, among many other incivilities. I would hate to see that happen again.  I actually find that interesting Legand of Zelda didnt draw such protests.  I guess we will see how it goes here.  BTW, I now vote support! -Husnock 1 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)


 * Support - this article is more comprehensive and better supported than any other piece on Trek rank and/or insignia I've ever seen before. John Elder 1 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm as much of a Trek fan as the next guy, but I don't beleive this article is 'Encyclopedic' enough to be featured on the front page. The Link article mentioned above probably shouldn't have been featured either, though it did provide a break from the more serious subjects offered. Also, whereas the Link article held appeal for a mass audience, Starfleet ranks would only be of interest to those familiar with the show. I suggest instead featuring an article on Trek itself. Autopilots July 1, 2005 20:25 (UTC)
 * Inactionable: So what is the suggestion for improvement? An opposition to a featured article candidate must give a point which it opposes and a measure to correct the article otherwise it may be considered inactionable.  General dislike of the article is not, within itself, sufficent.  Per Wiki policy: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page.  This was a problem with the last nominations in that some people simply opposed the article for even existing but offered no points or measures to correct. -Husnock 1 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
 * Husnock is correct that this objection is invalid. Philosophically, we believe that any article that can survive VFD should (in theory) be featurable. The purpose of the actionability requirement is dual-fold: to encourage people to give feedback (with specificity) so as to encourage improvement to the article, and to combat objections which don't meet with that philosophy that any VFD-survivable article can theoretically be become a featured article. &rarr;Raul654 July 1, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
 * This article seems to me as being the first one to actually test the idea of any article that hasn't been successfully VfD:ed can become an FA. So far it has been vehemently opposed on both grounds of principle as well as actual article quality. If the discussion concerning this article isn't enough to state at least somewhat of a precedent then I would like you, Raul, to explain how we set such a precedent. /Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are mistaken. When this article was last nominated, there was a discussion about the matter at hand on the talk page, following which all those (except for yourself) who had opposed on grounds that it was "too crufty" agreed that it is not a valid objection, and reworded their objection to provide actionable criticism. Look at WP:FA has a number of articles about entirely fictional subjects, so the claim that this article becoming a FA would set a precedent is false. Phil s 2 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)
 * Every FA is a potential precedent as long as it doesn't violate the FA criteria quite obviously. Just have a look at a lot of the FAC's; the serious ones are bound to contain at least one comment about what was (or wasn't) approved in previous FA's about a similar subject. And for the umpteenth time: this is not about fictional subjects being invalid as FAs. It's a matter of pretty extreme cruftiness. Seeing how some participants view an FA as something that should be handed out mainly for mere effort, not objective quality, I'm thinking we should actually try to have some sort of paragraph about cruftiness even though I loathe instruction creep. Insisting that anything that survives a VfD is eligable for FA is just not a useful criteria and is to me a pretty obvious invitation to some serious point-making. I'm myself extremely tempted to polish up pure pseudo-articles like differences between the Norwegian and Danish languages and demand that it be FA'd just to see what happens. /Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 14:03 (UTC)
 * The place to argue policy is the village pump, not here, thank you! Borisblue 4 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
 * I would actually be very interested in seeing the Norwegian/Danish difference article be made into an FA. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
 * Well, I hate to tell you that such an article is even less merited than the one we're discussing. /Peter Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll concede to the inactionable label, though I must disagree with that established policy (a debate for another time and place) Autopilots July 1, 2005 21:44 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, the place is the village pump Borisblue 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
 * Strongest support possible: I actualy forgot to vote. -_- --Cool Cat My Talk 1 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
 * Nominators could vote? i didn't vote for my Carl Friedrich Gauss nomination either!
 * I believe that when a person nominates, they also give a "hidden" support vote. I personally think, just like with the WP:FPC, the nominator should place their intent to nominate and support after they place the reason why. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
 * Support It is an excellent article, that has only gotten better through the revisions and prior FAC processes, and it is clearly the finest article on the subject out there. --Wingsandsword 2 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
 * Object, per Taxman. Ambi 2 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
 * Object, per Taxman's comments and refer to Peer Review because this is starting to get old. The same objections, both normal and "inactionable", seem to be appearing in every nomination and they are still not amended. Re-nominating the same article so soon, despite deep controversy and extremly poor behavior from one of it's most avid supporters against valid objections, is as far as I see it a very real abuse of our trust. This whole affair is only a few more personal attacks and high handed edits from becoming a very real disruption to make a point. Once more I would wish that the authors of these articles tried concentrating on something with real substance and informtion value, like the main Star Trek article or maybe something about medals or ranks. /Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
 * I agree, even one of the people working on the article was surprised about its nomination. So, let's send this to peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
 * I dont think its fair to say people abused wikipedia by working on the article or that this was nominated to make a point or disrupt wikipedia. For the record, I did not renominate this article.  Also, who has behaved poorly?  Has someone associated with this article broken Wiki rules and regulations?  No user name was mentioned above, so its unclear to what is being spoken of. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
 * Well, since I've already pointed out to you exactly what I'm talking about before and because of the obviously offensive nature of your posts (without a hint of remorse), I assumed you didn't want me to bring it up again. But here goes .  You accused me of being biased, "narrow-minded" and of being a liar shortly before 'removing'' the objections and comments of others from the FAC without any consent. /Peter Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're down to petty mud-slinging. I clicked on the links you have above and none of them are inappropriate.  I stated that your statements were untrue and narrowminded.  I nver said "you are a liar".  A person can make untrue statements without knowing it and therefore not be a liar.  I did it at the Hanoi Hilton article and was promptly corrected in that what I said was a falsehood.  As far as "removing comments without any consent" that is a LIE although, to be fair, maybe you didn't realize it (although I think you probably did).  The comments you spoke of were moved to the discussion page of the first featured article candidate and were done so with the full consent of all involoved: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia.  The move to the discussion page was discussed on the talk page (a discussion to which you never contributed) and then moved over becuase the discussion had gone outside the scope of the FAC and was then a discussion about the very validity of a fiction article as an FA.  You never voiced an objection, never stated on the talk page you wanted the comments back in the main article, and nver reported it.  I've tried to be civil, here, but everyone can pretty much see there is some kind of personal dislike for both me and this article.  Bringing up stuff that happened two FACs ago, then saying my comments here are "offensive", what are you trying to prove?  It looks like (at least to me) that you are attempting to discredit one of the article supporters by making accusations.  Give it up man.  If you think I'm behaving badly, there are numerous pages to report me to admins for blocks or bans.  I think people are tired of hearing about it and even mroe so since you once again drew this back to me even though I wasnt the one who even renominated this page. -Husnock 3 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
 * The links were from a previous FAC. If there was a problem on how that was dealt with, then tha is when, in my view, they should have been handled. But now, its back to personal attacks, which I want to remind everyone on here, it's a no-no to perform on Wikipedia. So, if we got issues to settle, take it to the talk page. Let's use this main space to see if the article is worthy or not for Featured status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a certain level of geektitude that, while fine for wikipedia, I do not think needs to be advertized on the front page, particularly if the project really wishes to be taken seriously and win over the skeptics. I'm sure this will be dismissed as "inactionable" or some such, and the vote will likely be discounted, but, well that's my 2 cents anyway and I at least wanted to say it. For full disclosure here, I will also point out I don't really care for the whole featured article thing in general. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
 * Inactionable Inappropriate FAs can in fact be banned from the main page. So the "irrelevant for main page" objection is null. Borisblue 2 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
 * If enough people complain that it is not suitable for the main page, I'll mark it as so. &rarr;Raul654 July 2, 2005 18:37 (UTC)
 * The FAC candidacy is not a simple vote. This listing allows us to improve article, I want to hear all concerns. Later we can fix it. Objections that are objecting the existance this article does not belong here. Any article on wikipedia can be a FA. The only articles that cant be a FA are the ones inaproporate to be on wikipedia which should be placed on a VfD. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
 * Why should the VfD, which apparantly is a simple vote, be used as a guideline for FAC, which isn't? A VfD is dependent on timing, how many ultra-inclusionists that happen to be watching that particular week and (sadly) the prestige or experience of whoever wrote the article. This is as far from quality control as one can get. Are you saying that this 100% populistic section of Wikipedia should decide the only basic criterium for what constitutes a valid FAC? What would be the point of this? What would it say about the notion of this being "the best of Wikipedia"? /Peter Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
 * Raul also says that any article that survives VFD would be, in theory relevant for FA. What do you mean there's no quality control? I've been working my butt off for over a week fixing flaws nickpickers found in my Carl Friedrich Gauss FAC. There is quality control, lots of it but that is, and should be restricted to the article's content rather than its topic. This is FA policy. If you want to argue for a new policy the place to do that is the village pump, not here. Borisblue 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
 * Todos, this FA nomination should be closed. It was way too soon after the last one and, while massive corrections and updates have been made, this is still going to draw fire and a lot of controversy.  Lets close the FA now and mover to peer review. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's close it now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
 * Anne Droid: With two votes you are the weakest link. Goodbye. 
 * Fine. FAC is closed, this doesnt mean the article is bad, just there is enough room for improvement to shut this FAC. I hope we establised the leftover problems better. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
 * (Via edit conflit with coolcat) I didn't want to remove this nomination until I checked with Coolcat (the nominanator). He said it was OK with him to withdraw the nomination, so I have removed it. &rarr;Raul654 00:59, 4 July 2005 (UTC)