Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starfleet ranks and insignia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Star Trek Portal
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
  • Archives: 1 * 2 * 3 * 4

Contents

[edit] Separate table for color-variation enlisted ranks

There was a brief exchange on my talk page about this, but to open it up: Flans44 would like to maintain a separate table in the first "Conflicts" section to illustrate that some pieces of some enlisted insignia are gold rather than silver. That area of the article is already cluttered, and because the two different color schemes can both be cited -- just to different sources -- I consolidated them into the single table with <refs> for each image. Flans44 reverted, saying he/she liked the other format, but hasn't provided a more compelling reason for keeping them separate. I've since consolidated them again, contending that they are minor differences, that a separate table creates unnecessary clutter, and really there's just no need to present them separately. If anyone wants to pluck them apart again, please explain why here. --EEMeltonIV 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for and origin of separate images?

On a related note -- are those alternative images necessary? For such a minor bit of proppery -- never worn by notable characters, never seen as more than just a brief flash on the screen -- do we need to have four pictures showing such minor color differences between them? Yes, the article should be thorough, but I think this may be delving into minutiae.

Additionally, where did the photos of these pins come from? I've read Flans44's addition as stating that the alternative color scheme is introduced in and only appears in the encyclopedia -- so where did these tangible devices come from? --EEMeltonIV 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These came from auctions of screen used pieces on ebay. Apparently they were used in Next Generation and Next Gen movies as they were resin recreations of the metal pins that were used in the original cast movies. I don't think it is clutter. In this case it just seems to be your opinion against mine. They should be sepatated as the pins used in the TOS era movies followed the original Robert Fletcher notes and these would go in the conflicts section as they do not and were used at a later time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)
Please sign your talk-page comments with ~~~~. Can you article a rationale for why the pictures are necessary at all? They are minor color differences for minor insignia worn by minor characters in a minority of the films in a make-believe world. Having an article on these bits of costuming is already I think pretty tenuous -- is this information essential, or is it (like most of the other details in the two conflicts sections, really) just trivia? --EEMeltonIV 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a source to come to for information. Information to one person may only be trivia to someone else. Nearly all of the content in reference to Star Trek on Wikipedia is about a make-believe world. I don't understand why this information should be excluded. People come here for information so why should any of it be omitted? The information and corresponding pictures are a good reference for people to have access to as there are so many conflicting sources of information out there.--Flans44 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and WP:TRIVIA seem to apply -- for such a minor piece of information, a clutter-creating gallery of four images nearly identical to the ones presented earlier I think is too much. My first inclination is to delete them, but I'm willing to compromise and include the images if they're presented in the original table -- they're still cited, and relocating the sentence to articulate Fletcher's notes and the Encyclopedia's material is an appropriate introduction. --EEMeltonIV 05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Many of the images are tagged PD-self, but is it proper?--Jusjih 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Stripe

We need to get the graphics back for the Chief Petty Officer stripe seen in the pilot episode "The Cage". It was displayed on the Enlisted ranks article, but that article is now gone thanks to the recent mass deletion campaign. I can't find the graphics for this insignia anymore. Can anyone help? -OberRanks 11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Am still hoping for an answer to this question. Also am curious about the reference for the LTJG stripe being seen in an episode when it was previously mentioned observation in an episode is not a valid source because thats original research (something I kind of dont agree with). -OberRanks 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can cite a reliable, published, secondary source that says, "This stripe is for the chief, and that stripe is for the LTJG," then by all means add them back in. However, drawing a conclusion that certain stripes indicate certain ranks based solely on what *you* (or any viewer) sees in the show is original research. I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusions about what the ranks mean, but it is Wikipedia policy for any sort of inference like that to be substantiated by a reliable third-party source. When we can't find such a source, a reasonable alternative might be to link to Memory Alpha in the external links section. --EEMeltonIV 15:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont think you understand...LTJG is already in the article placed in there by someone else with a reference as being seen in "The Naked Now". By the guidelines you have attributed, this should not be allowed, but somehow it has been. My other question was not about adding in the Chief stuff right now, just getting the picture back (it was previously seen on an article since deleted). I'm with you about the sources, thats all fine. Keep up the good work with the article. -OberRanks 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot rank insignia

I added a new section about the pilot rank stripes seen in "The Cage" and "Where No Man has Gone Before". It was blanked without explantion, simple a cold line that read "please cite sources". The pilot episodes themselves are the sources: Ofifcers wear one stripe, the second pilot has Kirk wearing two, and a Communications Chief appears wearing his own type of stripe. Then there was a 1960s publicity photo of Kirk wearing the new TOS uniform with the old pilot stripes. I am not well versed yet on how to do inline citations but thats where the material comes from if someone wants to cite it in for me. -OberRanks 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"The pilot episodes themselves are the sources" - unless the dialog explicitly states that's what the stripes mean, then your conclusion is WP:OR, hence its removal. --EEMeltonIV 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I drew that conclusion based on the LTJG stripe being referenced as appearing in "The Naked Now" with no other source. I also don't think its too unreasonable to state that "officers in the first pilot wear a single rank stripe on thier sleeve" as its very obvious from a simple observation. Would be much the same as stating "a plane appears in such-and-such film" if a plane did in fact appear in that film.
And, if we need a book source for this, its explained in "Inside Star Trek: The Real Story" by Solow and Justman. I think the book might also speak about the "everybody's an astronaut" statement that G.R. once made. -OberRanks 12:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I will assume good faith that the book does articulate the rank scheme and will create an inline citation for it. However, the bit about the publicity shot with the mixed insignia I think is unnecessary trivia. --EEMeltonIV 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to bring a "real world" perspective into this article (something I feel it badly needs), i.e. the evolution of the rank insignia through the years. The pub shot was in a Star Trek calandar, 1995 or 1996 I think. Someone could check. Thank you for creating the other citation. -OberRanks 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan admiral insignia

Fan-created work is non-notable; "alternative Starfleet ranks" was a deleted article, and putting it here is crufty. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. And, as an afterthought, there is no citation for its use. Flans, please stop showing ownership of your obscure additions. --EEMeltonIV 04:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Does a Fan Admiral come along when its hot? :-) It might be a good idea to at least entertain saying something about the evolution of Star Trek ranks in fan literature, that would not be crufty but actually a pretty good addition. I for one have given up on this article. Too much fighting and the article on Memory Alpha suits my interests just fine. I leave it to you guys. Good luck. -OberRanks 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
EEMeltonIV I believe you are the one showing ownership for this entire article and are being a control freak about what you think should go here and shouldn't. I agree with OberRanks, it fits in with the context of the section and is a good resource. -[[User:Flans44|Flans44] —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Starfleet Dynamics is vanity fan fiction; it does not qualify as a reliable source. Fan-made and conjectural insignia are non-notable and not encyclopedic content (NB this AFD. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- so what if someone made this pin? So what if there's one variation of NCO insignia with different-color stripes? Beyond the TOS material, this article quickly devolves into simply describing the insignia that appear on screen, which is just plot summary; delving into minute differences between insignia, or a fan-published alternative, is trivia that misses the point that articles about fiction should do more than just describe content and instead explain notability, development, etc. --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the revert warring and discuss the changes to the article here on the talk page. Remember the burden of evidence "lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Dreadstar † 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Meltron did you go tell the teacher that someone is changing YOUR article in a way that YOU don't like. I guess you own the place. Dreadstar, I tried discussing it here and melton didn't reply. EEMeltonIV just kept changing it himself. He seems to own this. I'm not the first person he has run out of here never to return. -Flans44 5:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If discussion has failed, then follow the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process. Edit warring isn't the answer. I'm not taking any sides here, just here to stop the edit warring. And please discuss the editorial contents of the article instead of commenting on the other editors per WP:NPA. No one owns this article, so just hash it out here.
The main issue I see here is that the disputed content has not been properly sourced, and so falls under WP:NOR - per WP:V, the "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Dreadstar † 06:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
One more interesting thing to review might be this older discussion on the subject of non-canon content: Wikipedia:Non-canon Star Trek. Dreadstar † 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is simple: Non-canon material officially licensed by Paramount should be included. Pure fan-created material should not. JIP | Talk 09:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that the fears of article ownership are based on some very real concerns. A lot of peope (including me) have at one point or another become very defensive about this article and protected it from changes by others and there have been some nasty edit wars. Others have claimed downright hatred for it and its been up for deletion at least twice. Not sure what to do about all of this. I guess just wish everyone merry christmas. -OberRanks (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with Captain (Star Trek)

  • Against — The Captain page is a reasonably important and very notable rank. Additionally the captain page is sourced, and has detailed informations, where as the Starfleeet rank & insignia page is basically just a listing of everything throughout the ages. --ShakataGaNai 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The Captain page does not have very much information, and I would say is almost a stub. There aren't separate pages for any other Trek rank, why Captain (including Admiral).
      • All of the ST series feature a captain as a main character (with the exception of Sisko who starts as commander and becomes captain later). This is simply one rank that gets alot of focus, and airtime. --ShakataGaNai 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
        • But, the article itself is a prime candidate for PROD or AfD due to the fact that it contains no real-world notability. The article is written in-universe, and needs to be written in primarily real-world status. I dont think enough information can be found for real-world Captain of star trek that it can stand on its own. This way the article can be saved rather than nominated for deletion. Ejfetters 07:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- No other ranks in Star Trek have their own pages, why should Captain? In addition, fairly non-notable. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Believe it or not, I am agreeing with a merge proposal. While ShakataGaNai is correct, there is not enough information/content nor enough importance that it cannot simply be its own, large, section in the master article. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article has been so badly gutted and destroyed that its existence is even now in question. A rule of thumb should be that this article should discuss real world/costuming/production notes about Star Trek insignia. Everything else to Memory Alpha. I gave up on this article long ago. -OberRanks (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdraw merger proposal, I have give up as well. Ejfetters (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Images

This article is missing far too many images to be useful. I suspect the images have been deleted, thanks to the mass of people who don't realize that deleting things is not the answer. I request people grow up and look at the "what links here" page before deleting things. In the meantime, would someone care to re-upload the images? ih8evilstuff (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the image deletions. The problem is that the rationale for deletion of the images was sound (unlike most deletions, such as pages, etc.). This whole article, though, probably should be deleted for notability and license issues with the images and instead readers directed to Memory Alpha, where the purpose is more Trek-oriented and the licensing is a little more ... relaxed. Realize, I am a total inclusionist, but this page is one of those few what purpose does this serve? pages that really canot be referenced well or written out-universe well. Just a thought. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single outline pip/hollow pip on TNG

I have seen it once, but don't remember the episode. It's missing from the list. It was worn by an officer on the Enterprise, specifically a woman, but her rank isn't mentioned. Shouldn't this be included? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Because there's no way to say what it is/was or anything and it'd all be speculation/original research)

[edit] Sleeve Stripes

The complete deletion of all the sleeve stripes from the pilot episodes, the original series, and the motion picture I feel needs to be revisted. I never bought the story about how these were *all* copyright violations against Paramount Pictures. The article stood for years without a single complaint until it was hit heavily with a flurry of claims that the insignia pictures were all stolen by such users as Coolcat and myself. Without ruffling feathers here, I think someone should perhaps create some public domain sleeve stripe images and put them on the article. It would improve it greatly. -OberRanks (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I completely agree. This is a load that they were removed! -Flans44 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)