Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 5, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
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
  • Archives: 1 * 2 * 3

Contents

[edit] 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)

it should be noted that Commodore and Rear Admiral lower half are the same rank-64.59.249.179 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not though. At least nothing suggests they are. --Cat out 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 CatTalk|@ 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Wikipedia:Verifiability is just as important, if not moreso. Verifiability is a content policy, assume good faith is merely an interpersonal one. Bryan 16:45, 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.
And as I've said repeatedly, I'm perfectly fine with having my additions corrected. That's not the issue here. Bryan 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
So join me, if you please, in making Wikipedia better by integrating those citations in here. That's all I was asking for from the start. Bryan 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One other solution(? or approach, at least) may be to limit the content on this page to what's appeared on screen, and to move the Joseph, Mr. Scott's Guide, extrapolated ranks, etc. to the conjectural ranks page. I'd suggest putting that link more prominant -- a {{see also}} link at the top, along with a more emphatic link to Canon (Star Trek). --EEMeltonIV 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy with that as well (although I agree with Improv's comment below that "canonicity" alone shouldn't be a deciding factor on what information Wikipedia covers, I also think it's quite reasonable to divide fictional information up based on the sources that the information came from). Especially since that way the work I did on creating "Mr. Scott's Guide" and "Star Fleet Tech Manual" versions of the insignia that differed from the ones that were here before will still be useful. :) Bryan 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly do we agree on?

Please do not make lengthy posts in this section. This is not a straw poll either.
This is intended to help us identify the exact disagreement.
  1. Cannon ranks supreceed semi-cannon and non-cannon resources (tech manuals, magazines, fan sites, etc).
    • Support --Cat out 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support, though significant non-canon or contradictory sources should be mentioned somewhere too Bryan 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      Hmm the linked "conjectured ranks" thing should be the home of such ranks IMHO. --Cat out 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support, seconding Cool Cat's addendum --EEMeltonIV 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. We may be better off in citing exaclty which episode certain ranks appeared (or tech manual etc if on screen apearance isnt avalible).
    • Support Though I do not think it is maditory to cite like that, I feel its a nice extra we might as well go for. --Cat out 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Bryan 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support the non-parenthetical portion; if a non-screen appearance doesn't exist, mark as "Conjecture" on the grid and link to Conjectural Ranks article --EEMeltonIV 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. On screen appearances are an acceptable primary source.
    • Support --Cat out 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Bryan 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support "Yes, absolutely, I do indeed concur, wholeheartedly!" --EEMeltonIV 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Can folk here work together from this point? If they can, I'll unprotect. --Doc 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe so, there's new material to work with. Bryan 23:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
They are both admins, protection doesnt really mean anything for them (though I am at a disadvantage). I do not believe protection is necesary. Though, I ask all parties to discuss the issue before jumping to an edit-war. Let's sail through this together cooperatively. --Cat out 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, protection means quite a great deal to Admins. It is also stated in the policy that an Admin shall never protect, unprotect, or edit a protected article in which they are a party in the dispute. -Husnock 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, unprotecting. Please discuss contravertial changes with others before making them.--Doc 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not rouge even though the removal of references sometimes makes me see red. :) Bryan 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No you (plural) got it all wrong. If you (plural) are follwing the rules volunteerly you (plural) will not revert war. At least thats my assumption. --Cat out 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. Even going to two reverts like I did in this case was a mistake I was kicking myself over while offline today, I'm usually far more patient than that. Bryan 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from WP:ANI

I may be getting into a revert war kind of situation so I'm hoping bringing it up here may get some attention. Over on Starfleet ranks and insignia a while ago (yeah, fancruft, but hear me out :) I did some fact-checking and referencing using a couple of old tech manuals I've got, adding references to some rows on the table of insignia and changing a few that didn't match the source. It seems that the tech manuals aren't considered good sources in the Trek community, though, and so the table's being reverted to its original unreferenced version. I'm perfectly fine with the notion that the tech manuals aren't the ultimate "authority" on such things, that's just what I had available at the time. The issue I'm having is that no other authority other than a vague "that's not the way it was on the show" is being cited as sources. Could anyone who's interested pop over to Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia and check if I'm really the lone voice of reason rather than the lone voice of Nutzo the Verifiability Clown? Bryan 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this doesn't belong here. I'm sure there's a Star Wars project somewhere. Other that try filing a WP:RFC on the article. Thanks. --Doc 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Content issue that should be handled at the article talk page. No urgent administrator attention necesary IMHO. --Cat out 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start any sort of formal review process or discuss the contents here, I'm just trying to get a few more eyeballs from an outside source to come have a look at the situation. Bryan 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's generally accepted tech manuals, books, games or anything not produced by paramount/(viacom?) is not cannon. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of that, as I've said repeatedly. That's not the issue here. The issue is replacing cited material with uncited material. Bryan 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should be canon-aware/respecting anyhow -- that represents the wrong frame of mind for what we're aiming at in an encyclopedia. For much of the time this is a concern, it's a red flag for an article (why do we have an encyclopedia article about ranks in a scifi show?), and in the rare other articles, it's trivia and/or original research. It's one thing to have an article on Spock or Kirk, both of whom have some general interest and influence on culture outside the series, and quite another to have stuff like this. Canonicity might be a great concern/guideline for things like Memory Alpha (where articles like this have a more solid reason to exist), but it is not and probably never will be a concern/criterion/guideline for wikipedia policy. --Improv 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Relying on non-cannon is like relying on blogs to write articles about contraversial topics. Cannon (primary source) is always preferable IMHO. --Cat out 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's quite reasonable to point out what's canon and what isn't, and to give a more prominent position to canon information (at least in every concievable circumstance that I can think of offhand), but on the other hand if a non-canon source is sufficiently notable in its own right then IMO the information contained in it deserves a mention too. The tech manuals are a bit more significant than a blog post, IMO. As another example several years ago I added some information to various Doctor Who articles that was taken from the non-canon FASA roleplaying game, clearly labelled as such, and there's been little controversy about retaining it in the articles since then. Bryan 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm. we are talking about star trek ranks. This stuff is quite complex with on screen uniform errors alone. Article is too large to contain all alternatives.
Non-cannon can get messy really easy. Commodore rank is a good example. Lets write the article strictly relying on cannon and then consider non-cannon to fill in the blanks. I believe cannon covers everything with the exeption of some admiral ranks for pre ST:II series (which are covered in the conjectured rank article).
--Cat out 00:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting sources

This is ment to otganise discussion. Start a new section of each conflicting source

Just a heads up, I removed all "citation needed" tags as anything not cited needs citation. --Cat out 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tos-era movie ranks

This set of rank pins was designed by Robert Fletcher and was really used in the Star Trek movies. Everything else is incorrect.
footnote from [2]
I think that establishes cannon, no? --Cat out 10:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These are the images that I created on account of differences between the insignia that were here when I first found the page and Mr. Scott's Guide when I fact-checked them: Image:Star Trek Film OF3a.png, Image:Star Trek Film OF1c.png. So those two should be cited to Mr. Scott's Guide and, if that's not an appropriate source for this page, moved to the "conjectural" ranks page. Bryan 15:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Both of them are already there... Your version seems to be better than existing images. --Cat out 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the article has the citiations needed tags added. Here are three rock solid sources to clear that up: 1) Enlisted Colored Triangles from the Motion Picture are seen and spoken of in the actual movie. Should be pure canon there. 2) Colored shoulder tabs for enlisted personnel seen and spoken of throughout Star Trek II through VI. The article on enlsited ranks goes into detail about the should tabs and what they mean 3) The Lieutenant Commander rank pin is firmly established in Star Trek VI. The second version is an alternate used in role playing games and is already covered in the conjectured ranks article. -Husnock 20:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also to add is that the Next generation admiral boxes for five ad one pip never appear on camera, but are stated to exist in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. There, they are lsited as "Admiral 5 Star" and "Admiral 1 Star", matching up to te terms of Fleet Admiral and Rear Admiral (LH). -Husnock 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the alternate LTC pin is from the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Also, the NCO article says that 'An alternate "shoulder tab theory" suggests that such tabs indicate an enlisted crewman's department rather than rank.' So it seems that there is no on-screen support for the claim after all. For its part, the Encyclopedia uses squares and octagons for rank insignia, rather than colored rectangles.
Actually, I'm a bit perplexed by the citations here; each book seems to be accepted as a source for some ranks, but other ranks in the same book are relegated to the conjectured article. What's going on? Ben Standeven 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Typically, when an on screen apperance contradicts a book, the on-screen wins. In cases where a rank never appears on camera, it is up to the diligent researcher to see if it was ever discussed in the dialouge. If not, and the rank appears in a tech manual, then the officalness of the tech manual must be weighed, i.e. who wrote it and what company. if the rank is entioned in a hardcore Paramount Picture publiction (like ST:ENC) or something written by someone directly associated with the production of the show, then it is generally considered offical (but its still a judgement call). Third party works, fan websites, etc, usually have the rank banished as conjectured to the conjectured rank article. This is the way the article was created and worked ove the past 2-3 years and it has been a pretty good system (once you get past the argumnts from some if this article should even exist at all!) -Husnock 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Husnock, What i currently done is to make more obvious citations, I'll need your help especilay with enlisted ranks and warrant officer ranks. Also fleet captain rank and several admiral ranks need clarification. --Cat out 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
People are careless. Thats what's going on. They can't even publish a book right. They even conflict their own screen appearance... Welcome to the world of Starfleet ranks :)
We will have to improvise with secondary sources and follow the on screen pattern (judgement call).
I think at starfleet HQ on that TNG conspiracy arc the 5 pip insignia might have been used. I'll be checking
--Cat out 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No luck. 5 pip perhaps never made appearance, but I think in the light of secondary sources and pattern, I think its an acceptable rank. --Cat out 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conjecture vs. some fan site?

So, what's the difference between a rank that is conjectured to exist (with a link to that separate article) and for which some fan created a website and made up some insignia? We have a TOS-era fleet captain rank that never appeared on screen and was never mentioned, yet we have an insignia for it from this guy Spike's page. If I create EEMeltonIV's Rank Chart and make up some business for a TMP-era fleet captain rank (also never seen on screen and never mentioned), does that warrant putting it on this page? How is Spike any different from a fan extrapolation? --EEMeltonIV 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down will ya. I am using spikes site temporarily (until a more official source is avalible). I am doing many other things such as juggling the entier commons deletion archive. I think citing some fan site is better than any disclaimer.
As for the tos/pilot fleet captain rank, it might be perhaps better to present it as a conjectured rank insig.
Husnock what do you think?
--Cat out 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Three striper Fleet Captain rank from the Pilots has been around in Star trek literature for a very long time and it is a natural extension of the two stripe regular Captain rank. I do not have access to all my material back home, but the 3 stripe rank is referenced in some pretty offical material. Also, we cant put "N/A" becuase the rank itself would have had to exist as both Pike and Garth of Izar held it during the era when the pilot uniforms were still around. Its survived long enough in this table, no reason to move it just now. -Husnock 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I will have to wait for your return. Dont get killed ok? Thats an order. --Cat out 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The "calm down" isn't necessary -- it just strikes me that a fair amount of stuff that you're going to the trouble of layouing out and citing here, in the end, is fan conjecture/extrapolation that should eventually move to the conjectured ranks article. All that said, what may work best would be to fill in this page's tables as completely as possible, then copy-and-paste them into the conjecture article -- axe the on-screen ranks from the conjecture article and the conjectured ranks from this article. My two strips of latinum. --EEMeltonIV 18:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You do realise two strips of latinum worths much much more than $.02 at current exchange rates I hope. :)
I believe a semi-cannon source (official paramount publication) is an acceptable source to be presented here asuming it does not conflict cannon.
--Cat out 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I still think that there are a slew of ranks here that should have some "Conjecture" or "Logically they muuust exist, but they just don't happen to have ever shown up or been mentioned in a canon source" somewhere -- if not under the insignia itself, then in the Spike reference footnote. Otherwise, there's no compelling reason not to drop in all those alternative/bogus versions on the conjectural ranks page (which would just suck). Any thoughts on an effective but not particularly intrusive way to do it? Would it be appropriate just to put Conjecture under the relevant insignia? --EEMeltonIV 00:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there an alternative rank for the tng fleet admiral rank? Conjecture should only be a consideration on conflicting sources and no cannon referance. --Cat out 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If not "conjecture," then what would be an appropriate label for the insignia that never actually appear or are mentioned on the show/films? "Extrapolation"? --EEMeltonIV 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branch admiral (fanon -> canon)

"One of the most significant such ranks is that of "branch admiral", which is mentioned in a Star Trek roleplaying manual and later speculated to have actually appeared in the Next Generation pilot episode, "Encounter at Farpoint"." Speculated, eh? Sounds like something to be cut. The "one of the most significant" language, though, suggests there are other examples. Can someone please drop in another example, or add more substance to the branch admiral/TNG connection? --EEMeltonIV 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It was in the novel of Encounter at farpoint and also appears in a FASA roleplayng game. I've seen the rank referred to several time sin other pubs/manuals and there is an unconfirmed report that at a conventation before he died, D. Kelley actually stated that McCoy was the Starfleet Surgeon General and a Medical Branch Admiral. I think the rank is way too established to simply cut from the article and it is listed on a the conjec rank page. -Husnock 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that ranks is closer to cannon than any other conjectured rank. And can stay for that purpose is just being an example among other reasons. As for the wording, I have nothing to say either way. --Cat out 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is this rank speculated to have appeared in this episode? Isn't this easy to confirm? Does anyone have the season one DVD? Jecowa 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet Captain

I confirmed that I have planety of material about this rank at home, which I will access next year and massivly expand the Fleet Captain rank article. For the record: Fleet Captain TOS and Pilot insignia is verified from costume notes drawn by William Ware Thesis, the creator of Star Trek rank insignia. Its also mentioned in tons of fan literature and there is supposed to have been a doctored picture for Star Trek Chronology showing Garth of Izar wearing three stripes of Fleet Captain (it never made it into the final version but is in the draft). The F.C. rank insignia should absolutely say on this page. -Husnock 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand the reson of the rush. Husnock we can wait till you return back to your star trek stuff. --Cat out 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was observing the zeal of another editor in cutting things out and removing ranks. This article has attracted such major edits in the past, some for good and some for bad. The total deletion and removal of the Fleet Captain rank would be bad. -Husnock 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Petty Officer TNG

On "Star Trek TNG - 4x02 - Family" o'brien is explicitly adressed as a "Chief Petty Officer". Dont know what to make of it though. --Cat out 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably means he holds the rank of Chief Petty Officer! The episode was written that way to clairfy O'brien's status as an enlisted member of Starfleet. Worf's dad also makes a reference to having been a former Chief Petty Officer, having been enlisted, and having had to "work for a living". The dialouge was very much on purpose by the producers to settle the question about enlisted personnel in starfleet. -Husnock 22:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes so thats on screen (and cannon) appearance of the rank. I am not certain however what rank he had. Nor the insignia. --Cat out 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
O'Brien was supposed to be a Master Chief Petty Officer with two full gold pips. His transition to DS9 messed up that idea, due to plot holes and script errors. The first 2-3 years, he jumped back and forth between a Warrant, Ensign J.G., Chief, and at last Senior Chief Petty Officer when he got the new collar device. -Husnock 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Which makes the article very diffcult? Dont know what to do. --Cat out 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of lost you there. The article accurately shows the MCPO rank as two gold pips. O'Brien's script error ranks are also talked about over in the enlisted rank article. Should be fine the way it is. -Husnock 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It just bugs me not being able to cite enlisted ranks like officer ranks (direct citation) --Cat out 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiably/reliable source redux

I think this is a great page, well-laid out and generally well-cited/-researched. However, I'm scratching my head over several of the sources here, some of which have come up before for discussion/debate.

  • Spike's Star Trek page (right now footnotes 1, 11, 14 and 29) - WP:V says that fan-created/personal sites don't meet the threshold for reliable sources except in articles about themselves. Since this isn't Wikipedia's Spike's page article, I don't think it's appropriate to base information in this article off of that page.
    • I'm wondering, though, are editors using Spike's page to give credit for the actual image file (i.e. rather than a screen cap or some such)? or citing Spike as a reliable secondary source? If the former, that info should go on the image page. If the latter, see above.
  • Wholly fan conjecture (footnote 5) - this seems to violate WP:OR. Yes, I realize I made and linked the The Cage fleet captain insignia.
  • Encyclopedia and/or Spike (footnote 9) - We should differentiate between which insignia appears in the Encyclopedia and which is on Spike. The former are okay, the latter please see the first bullet re. Spike
  • Insignia that appear but whose denotation is not stated (footnotes 23 and 27) - yes, I wrote 23. Perhaps we should have a separate row for insignia that are worn but whose actual grade isn't stated on screen. Making the link between insignia and what they represent also seems to be WP:OR.

Overall, like I said, this is a great article and, to be honest, I don't take exception to any of the suppositions (i.e. I agree with the leaps of logic and conjecture -- I even made some of them). However, the fact that some of these on the face of it are suppositions and conjecture violates Wikipedia's policy on original research and verifiability. Unfortunately, I'm only in a position here to whine about it since I don't have any of my assorted Trek stuff where I'm living now. Still, some suggestions/thoughts:

  • Can someone(s) with a copy of the Encyclopedia see if they can replace some of the <ref> tags that point to Spike with <ref> tags that point to the Encyclopedia? If not, then those ranks should be moved to the Conjectured Ranks page.
  • Are there instances where a rank is mentioned on screen but an actual insignia not seen? (I keep thinking there's gotta be some first-season TNG where someone mentions a commodore or somesuch.) If so, we should more clearly articulate that the rank exists but the actual insignia is never seen.
  • Fan (website) extrapolations (i.e. insignia generated based on other ranks' pattern) should be removed -- perhaps, though, they can find a home over at Memory Alpha, where conjectures such as these more readily find a home.

--EEMeltonIV 16:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. The Encyclopedia has four pages of this stuff. It shows and labels the following insignia

From TOS:

  • Enterprise badges for Command, Science, Engineering, Medical. Also "The Cage" variant of Command.
  • Constellation badge, Command
  • Exeter badge, Command
  • some kind of badge representing USS Anteres
  • Starfleet Command emblem, looking rather like a 10-petal flower
  • United Earth emblem from The Cage (rather like UN flag, but only with the Americas)
  • for the sleeve emblems it shows
    • Commodore/Command (as our image)
    • Captain/Command (as our image)
    • Commander/Science (as our image)
    • Lt Cmdr/Redshirt (as our image)
    • Lieutenant/Command (as our image)
    • Ensign and Crew: represented as a blank sleeve
  • we get Kirk's and Bones' medals and stuff, probably from dress uniforms

From the Star Trek II to Star Trek VI era, we get

  • the main starfleet insignia, in three different variants
    • the one we have at the top right for officers
    • then a silver simplified version of this, for enlisted cerw
    • a weird version of security, entirely within a circle (from Star Trek III possibly?)
  • it shows the Fleet Admiral, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral, Commodore as we have them
  • it shows Fleet Captain, Captain, Commander, Lieutenant, Lt JG and Ensign as we have them
    • it disagrees with our version of the Lt. Cmdr emblem. Ours has one unbroken bar going horizontally: the Encyclopedia has a broken vertical var, looking like a combination of the Cmdr and Lt JG badges kind of.
  • enlisted ranks, it has MCPO, SCPO and CPO the same.
  • it provides MCPO (2nd class), that we do not have
  • it further provides PO 1st class and Ables'man emblems, which are a further succession of the devices. PO first class is the CPO one without the gold hat, and Ablesman is a diamond.
  • it shows some random rippons to represent years of servcice and suchforth, but does not explain their significance

From TNG era:

  • it shows only the post-2nd season admiral pins, agrees with one we have. it does not explicitly call the categories of Admiral below Fleet Admiral anything other than "1-star" to "4-star" admiral here, although it does in the TOS part.
  • it shows the normal TNG officer pips from Captain to Ensign. There is no Fleet Captain.
  • an empty single-pip is supposedly a Chief Warrant Officer (we have 4 classes of Chief Warrant Officers, none which each have varying numbers of hollow pips)
    • it identifies the design we identify as the Senior Chief Petty Officer, as being "Chief of Operations". it has none others in this sequence
  • it shows voyager provisionl ranks from Captain to Chief Warrant Officer. one black stripe for the latter, which we do not have.

Hopefully this should be enough for you to do the needed sourcing. I note the article currently makes no mention of the whole different ships having different emblems in TOS thing. Morwen - Talk 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lt. Cmdr emblem., I believe our image is based on the one that appeared on the show. The encyclopedia one is shown on the conjecture page. --Cat out 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Which episode? Was that emblem actually specified in dialogue as being the Lt Cmdr emblem? Frankly, without the Encyclopedia and other sources, the idea that these decorations represent ranks is speculation. This is the problem with citing episodes directly as sources. Morwen - Talk 16:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The article sources it. I am not certain if it was mentioned in dialog or ending credits... I'd have to check. If Encyclopedia contradicts cannon then the data there belongs to the conj. ranks article (which it is to my knowledge). --Cat out 11:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warrant Officer

What do you mean by "until it is moved somewhere do not delete it off"? The "expanded" article was deleted as conjectural WP:OR and I didn't see you add any citations when restoring this material or on your deletion appeal. Burden of proof is on the editor who adds or restores material -- please meet it. --EEMeltonIV 01:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had asked about citations, I would have researched it and provided them. I can think of two right now out of Pocket Books and a Star trek manual. This article should never have been deleted. Also, looking at the delete page, it seems to be filled with people who are pretty much against the subject, I saw several sarcastic comments like "Memory alpha is that way", etc. There was no "does not cite references" tag, no "citations needed" tag simply a delete notice with no discussions or consensus. Where does this hatred of this article come from? Probalems on Fleet captain (Star Trek) and now with Warrant Officer? Lets talk about things first before deleting articles, please. -Husnock 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStarfleet_ranks_and_insignia_84e9.html"