Talk:Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on November 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  Star Trek Portal |
Contents |
[edit] Galerified list
Hey, I converted the galery like table to an actualy gallery. --Cat out 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the save
I hope it doesnt upset the massively large amount of people who wanted it deleted. I thank you in any event, I just don't want people to cry foul play. -Husnock 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Bad idea. This shouldn't have been closed early as a "keep" with legitimate concerns raised and (so far) a consensus to delete. Friday (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
I've redirected this to Starfleet ranks and insignia per the discussion in the Afd- keeping this stuff together (rather than a seperate article entirely intended to be OR) should help address some of the concerns raised there. Friday (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am reverting you no-consensus is no consensus. --Cat out 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, the "redirect" appeared to be an attempt at blanking the page. This material was on the parent article long ago and was moved out becuase the main article wS getting too long. This article has the chance to become far better sourced and expanded if people would give it a chance. -Husnock 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? I'm not implying that I closed the AFD as a redirect- I didn't close it at all. A previous AFD does not bind our hands on what to do with the article afterward. If anyone has reasons to oppose the redirect, let's hear them- but reverting it due to the AFD being a "no consensus" makes no sense at all. Friday (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose the redirect because I do not see a reason for a redirect. Starfleet ranks and insignia article is far too large for any kind of merger. Lets avoid drama please. --Cat out 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we can get other opinions from editors whose baby this article is not. As for the reasons why much of this content is inappropriate- we don't really need to repeat the AFD discussion again, do we? We need reliable sources- which isn't other Wikipedia articles, and it's not some random guy's website. Friday (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd like to help, feel free to do so. You are welcome to find better sourcing if you can. I do not see a single instance in the article which wikipedia articles are the source.
- I'd like to add that I am completely uninterested in discussing weather or not this page is to be a redirect. I want to work on this article and do not want to waste time with redirect drama.
- --Cat out 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The ones I'm talking about are the Wikipedia articles about episodes, listed under "references". As has already been discussed, the reason there won't tend to be proper sources on this stuff is that it's just fan speculation. Friday (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, reverting my edit and then saying you're completely uninterested in discussing the merits of my edit or your revert, is very unhelpful editing behavior. If you don't have enough opinion on that topic to want to talk about it, that's fine, but in that case, why the revert? Friday (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh... I'll make this really easy for you. Those links cite the primary source, the show itself. NOT the wikipedia article. See: {{cite episode}} and how it is used throughout wikipedia. The rank appears on that particular episode or is mentioned on it or the epsidoe is somehow relevant... Whichever applies.
- I do not wish to discuss the redirect thing any further. Now that doesn't mean that I lack an opinion, does it?
- --Cat out 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we can get other opinions from editors whose baby this article is not. As for the reasons why much of this content is inappropriate- we don't really need to repeat the AFD discussion again, do we? We need reliable sources- which isn't other Wikipedia articles, and it's not some random guy's website. Friday (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose the redirect because I do not see a reason for a redirect. Starfleet ranks and insignia article is far too large for any kind of merger. Lets avoid drama please. --Cat out 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion review
Hi all. To ensure you're informed, the administrator's closing verdict of the recent AFD on this article is presently under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please note DRV is not a second AFD on the article; the discussion should focus on whether or not the closing administrator made the correct decision based on the discussion within the AFD. Proto::► 15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Getting rid of OR
I don't think this whole article should be deleted, but there's a lot that needs to be cleaned up if you want it to survive another AfD process. Two points I want to re-emphasise from the AfD. First, I'm very suspicious of the four designs for TOS flag officer ranks. I don't have a copy of the ST Encyclopedia here, so I can't check, but I'd strongly advise that you make sure that one or two designs from another website didn't slip in there. Second, the costume error section has to go. It's an error, nothing more. If we open to door to highlighting costume errors on Wikipedia, we'll have war movie articles discussing how a background character's campaign ribbons aren't in the correct order of precedence.
Regarding ranks in general, I'd suggest you apply criteria like these:
- Ranks named but never seen (e.g. something from the novels): Give the name of the rank, but don't make up a picture, just stick an "Unknown" in the image side of the rank table.
- Ranks seen but never named (e.g. Kosinski's insignia): show the insignia, say it's unknown. You might be able to say that it could be warrant officer, provisional, civilian, or none of the above, but you can't just call it "Chief Warrant Officer 4th Class". And you definitely can't make up nine other insignia based on that one - that sort of extrapolation is going too far, and suggests that the whole article is conjecture.
- Ranks seen, and named, but from non-canon sources (e.g. FASA ranks, book covers): show both name and insignia, and list the source. Quack 688 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with lead
"Alternate ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia which have never appeared in Canon, a live action Star Trek production, but have been mentioned so frequently in literature and fan sources that the existence of such ranks is considered part of the Star Trek Expanded Universe."
Passive voice strikes again -- "is considered" by whom? Do we care about his/her/their opinion (i.e. it's more than just fanboys)? Can said consideration be cited?
It may be better rewritten as "Alternate ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia that have never appeared in canon, i.e. a live-action Star Trek production." and leave it at that. Not sure how that affects WP:N, however. --EEMeltonIV 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citing existence of rank / origin of image
What's-his-name just axed an image for a rank mentioned in the novelization of Emissary. The literature section should probably have most of those ref tags moved the rank column rather than the insignia column -- save for publications that actually show the insignia. I'm not familiar with which shows/doesn't show which, so leave it to someone else. --EEMeltonIV 04:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Problem images should also be linked to the talk page so they dont get orphaned and deleted. -Husnock 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I have never actually read most of the sources; but I've put the tags where I think they belong. I can personally confirm that the Officer's Manual gives both rank titles and insignia for all the listed ranks (and also several NCO, OR, and Warrant Officer grades). Also I wasn't sure about the Ensign First Class rank from the novel. Ben Standeven 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warrant Officer
Saving this here until it can be verified so folks don't delete all the images as orphans. Klingon Covert Officers Manual is the source for some of this, Emissary novel, and W.N.O.H.G.B. as well. -Husnock 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- The images are on commons and being an orphan is not a reason for deletion there. No need to be alarmed. --Cat out 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conjectured warrant officer insignia
| Rank | Chief Warrant Officer 1st Class | Chief Warrant Officer 2nd Class | Chief Warrant Officer 3rd Class | Chief Warrant Officer 4th Class | Warrant Officer |
| TNG 1st season |  [1] |
 [1] |
 [1] |
 [2] |
 [1] |
| TNG, DS9, VOY |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Thanks for putting this here; I wasn't sure how to do it. Ben Standeven 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non-canon literature insignia citation
I dislike the redundant dual citation :( --Cat out 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting suggestions
I think the article would look a lot better visually if the latter box, containing the admiral insignia, were not "floating", as it is quite wide and squashes the references rather. Does anyone agree and know enough css/wiki/table-fu to do this? Morwen - Talk 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just set it to "gallery" instead of "infobox bordered"; but now the cell boundaries are gone. Ben Standeven 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, just "bordered" seems to do the trick.Ben Standeven 04:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canon DS9 FCAPT insignia
As far as I can tell, the only name the four pips with bar below rank has never been named as Fleet Captain. The only name given was Deputy Director.--Kevin W. 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree -- the insignia itself may be canon, but Okuda's statement doesn't warrant (oh, that word) citation under the "canon" column. --EEMeltonIV 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do we have a source which published Okuda's statement, or is this just a Wikipedian who heard it or hearsay? Morwen - Talk 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Eh...Husnock's recollection. :-/ Perhaps it's documented somewhere more tangible. --EEMeltonIV 20:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do we have a source which published Okuda's statement, or is this just a Wikipedian who heard it or hearsay? Morwen - Talk 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoted from a newspaper out of Tyson's Corner. When I get home next year from the Mid-East I'll try and find it. -Husnock 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tables
Tables need to be fixed. They are floating at the right hand side of the screen and making the text get "bumped down". That was Coolcat's deal, he is now out of the project...so he says. -Husnock 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
