Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 4

• Archives: 1 * 2 * 3

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)

The US Navy disagrees with you on that -- RADM LH and CDORE are two different names for the same grade, for an identical situation where one fell out of use and was replaced. -- CaptainMike 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Commodore has in the past been a rank based on current assignment, usually to someone below the rank of admiral. E.G. a person with the rank of capt that has command over multiple ships or small task force for a given purpose. Somewhat like Warrant Officer falling between the highest non-com and 2nd lt. Another analogy might be where an officer is referred to as Capt when commanding a ship, but holds the rank Cmdr or Lt Cmdr, such as on smaller craft (PT boats). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.26.154.84 (talk • contribs)

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 Cat^Talk|@ 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)

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)

"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)

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)

The TNG Companion definitely regarded this as an error in "Family", although given the weight of evidence since, it would have to be a retcon.. Morwen - Talk 12:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I was the one who started the "Chief" Miles O'Brien thread above, thanks for the correction. I just read the article, and as it sits, it looks like a good reference, albeit a bit confusing as written. Tarkaan 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

TOS-era Films

The colour of the shoulder tabs and sleeve stripes indicated department not rate. The rate insignia were worn above the sleeve stripe. There were two grades of petty officers wearing octagonal pins and a crewman grade called Able Seaman (a term used by some Commonwealth navies) indicated by a squarish pin. Also, the Fleet Captain pin is a fan creation. --213.33.5.189 17:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Enlisted rank insignia

Ben Standeven, this page is meant to be more of a gallery displaying all ranks without jumping into too many details. Details are presented in the linked pages. The reason why enlisted ranks page looks like the one here is because it was a fork of this. Perhaps the enlisted page can be made different so that information is better explained there. I will attempt this there now. --Cat out 08:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Spike / rank "Yes" insignia "No"

I am <!-- -->ing out the ranks that use Spike's page as their source. It is a personal website with "no one stand[ing] between the writer and the act of publication" and does not meet WP:V. Will insert N/A in lieu of these insignia. Only exception is the "these ranks come from Spike OR encyclopedia -- not sure which is which. If a rank is mentioned in a novel or some such, I'd suggest placing "Mentioned" or somesuch in the box with a <ref> to the book, stating the rank is mentioned but the insignia never seen. --EEMeltonIV 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your action. That site does meet WP:V. And FYI I would check your copy of Star Trek encyc. --Cat out 16:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how this is a WP:RS that meets WP:V, particularly what step or process there is between the creator's material and the act of publication. Even Husnock mentioned how he wanted to replace these citations with something more concrete when he got back home. The burden of proof is on individuals who add or restore material, and I contend Spike's doesn't meet that threshold. --EEMeltonIV

Is there a reason to doubt the obvious info? I am not reinventing the wheel you know. --Cat out 16:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Please explain how Spike is a reliable source that meets WP:V, particularly what step or process there is between the creator's material and the act of publication. Even Husnock mentioned how he wanted to replace these citations with something more concrete when he got back home. The burden of proof is on individuals who add or restore material, and I contend Spike's doesn't meet that threshold.
2. If you agree that it requires a citation, then it isn't "obvious info," is it? "It's common sense" and "Everyone knows it" tend to be poor cover words for synthesis/original research and non-NPOV -- issues that already weaken many of these Star Trek articles. --EEMeltonIV

Lets get one thing straight what Husnock did do and didn't do or said is none of my concern. I expect people to actually help with an article rather than demand work. I can easily source it, but you need to be helping with this as well. --Cat out 14:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I read a Wikipedia policy somewhere that if you're using a published work as a source, you can link to a website which replicates that source, as long as it's clear that the website is not the source. Let's take a look at Column IX (Mike Okuda II, 1999) at [3]. Its source there is listed as "Third edition of the ST Encyclopedia". If someone with that edition can check that those ranks match up with what's in the book, I'm perfectly happy to see a ref like "st: encyc, 3rd ed., images available online at _weblink_". Quack 688 05:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unknown or N/A

These are shifty labels -- does "unknown" mean the insignia is unknown, or it's unknown whether the rank at all exists? Does N/A mean "not available" (i.e. we just don't have the image) or "not applicable" (i.e. there's no insignia for the rank)? I'm in the airport now and in a few hours will have my encyc. at hand to help with this, but if someone beats me to it, or if we can hash things here, that'd be swell. --EEMeltonIV 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

unknown means rank exists yet the insignia is not known and cannot be reasonably assumed (via conversations and logic: if a fleet admiral rank exists so must admiral and vice admiral ranks and etc).
N/A means rank does not exist at all and no information exists on its existence.
--Cat out 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be articulated in the article. Additionally, the "unknown"s need a citation as to where they're mentioned. --EEMeltonIV 16:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you requiring citation to every word. Is there a reason to doubt the existence of the rank "admiral" when the rank "fleet admiral" is mentioned? --Cat out 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, shouldn't we go ahead and suppose that there's a "lieutenant commander" grade between "lieutenant" and "commander"? Filling in the blanks, while logical, is OR. I happen to believe that, yes, there is an admiral's rank. But I am not a reliable source (ditto you), and my (and your) basis for believing there is such a rank is OR. --EEMeltonIV 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with EEMeltonIV on this one. Any ranks that aren't mentioned should have a blank box or just a ---- in them. It should be stated at the top of the list that "Unknown" means the rank's been mentioned (with source listed), but no insignia's appeared yet. Quack 688 05:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to mention ''insignia<br>unknown''.
A fleet admiral or full admiral issues orders to the enterprise on any random episode. Anyone watching an average episode knows that. OR allows reasonable synthesis. If a poll establishes a city to be 40% Women, you can safely conclude the 60% is male. While original research, this is allowed.
Guys if you are going to expect me to do all the work (for citations) you might as well nominate article for deletion. I do not have the patience or tolerance to deal with it. Help out and do not be a burden, OK?
--Cat out 10:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No one suggested you do "all the work (for citations)" -- hell, didn't you see at the top of this section where I wrote that soon I "will have my encyc. at hand to help with this"?

That said, based on the thumping "Alternative ranks" and "Warrant officer" and whatnot took, I'd think you'd want to be more careful about the "it's common sense" or "it's 'reasonable OR'" track.

This statement -- "A fleet admiral or full admiral issues orders to the enterprise on any random episode. Anyone watching an average episode knows that" -- is pretty much baseless and an example of WP:OR (and I think demonstrates a general lack of familiarity with the series; most times an admiral appears, it's a three-pip vice admiral). Anyhow, which "average episode" of Enterprise indicates these ranks' existence? Where besides Spikes Page of Ranks and Pixie Dust do these grades appear?

The problem with "insignia unknown" is that it implies the rank exists; we just don't have information on the badge, pin, or widget used to represent it. Quack 688's idea of an innocuous ---- is probably the best way to go. For those ranks where we know the grade exists but don't have the badge, we "insignia unknown" works but we still need a citation. And for insignia whose rank denotation is unknown (e.g. Sloan's insignia in Inquisition), we should just lay out a table with the insignia and episode appearance. (Sorry -- not really -- but I'm not inclined to cite someone's recollection of Okuda's appearance at a con talking about the rank as a reliable source. Does anyone know of some other spot that's documented this appearance/assertion that that rank = fleet captain?) --EEMeltonIV 01:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of alternate ranks article is in violation of wikipedias policies on OR, I have my hands full with that so I cant help out much here. So I will not be paying too much attention for a while. Wikipedia isn't a website expected to follow canon, thats a fansite thing. --Cat out 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies between material in article and encyclopedia

So, how do we tackle these:

• TOS films
  • lieutenant commander is the one with with two nubs (a la LTJG) rather than one bar going across.
    • Do both insignia appear? The article cites TVH as the source for that insignia -- which one does Valeris wear?
    • Put both in
  • "Captain" where (presumably) "Lieutenant" should be printed - fixed in third edition
  • Encyclopedia's rear admiral insignia is article's commodore - article reflects 3rd edition material
  • Encyclopedia's admiral insignia is article's rear admiral - article reflects 3rd edition material
  • Encyclopedia's vice admiral insignia has three chevrons (none on bottom) - article reflects 3rd edition material
  • Encyclopedia's fleet admiral insignia is article's admiral insignia without the four gold pips - article reflects 3rd edition material
• TNG+ admirals insignia
  • Five-star "fleet admiral" in line with what's here
  • All others are simply "admiral, four star", "three star", etc. - but don't differentiate between "vice admiral", "rear admiral", etc.
• What we identify as the DS9 SCPO insignia, the encylopedia identifies as "chief of operations"
• Encyclopedia also labels hollow pip and provisional insignia with one black bar as "chief warrant officer"

I'm looking at the 1997 hardcover - I believe there's a more-recent edition. Can someone with newer version delete or strike out inconsistencies eliminated by newer version? --EEMeltonIV 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down a copy of the encyclopedia. Can you do me a big favour and tell me if column VII of [4] matches up perfectly with the actual 1997 hard-copy encyclopedia? Before we start looking at specific rank problems, it'd be nice to confirm that Spike's page is accurate, and check that we're talking about the same things. Quack 688 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my version aligns with column 7. And it looks like the third printing is closer to what's in the article now. It looks like Spike's would be an apt place to provide a link to, although the language needs to be tweaked to more clearly reflect that the information and insignia appear in the Encyclopedia, and that Spike's is just a more convenient and more accessible way of checking that.

Lacking an encyclopedia or other publication that covers the Enterprise era, though, not sure whether Spike cuts the mustard there. --EEMeltonIV 05:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a reference style like this?

1.^ Star Trek Encyclopedia, 3rd edition. (Images available online at Spike's Star Trek Page).

Regarding the ENT ranks - agreed. If the insignia actually appears on the show, we can name the episode. If the rank's named, but not actually pictured on screen or in a printed source (e.g. Admiral Gardner), we can list the rank with an "Unknown". Quack 688 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. For enterprise fleet admiral and admiral ranks there is a trivial pattern to follow and we do have a source website for it too so it is not original research. I agree with 'unknown'ing the TOS and TMP ranks since their pattern can be quite a number of designs.

This is a difficult topic to find sources. For the material like enterprise era pips, we are stuck with spikes site where else for other ranks there are a number of tech manuals and etc we can rely on. And for enterprise era we only have 2 non-canon pips that we can safely put here. The Lt. JG and Lt. Cmdr ones we can leave as unknown.

--Cat out 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question. The Lt. Cmdr. rank with the two nubs did never appear onscreen (neither did the Fleet Captain pin). Originally, Bob Fletcher didn't create a pin for Lt. Cmdr (as evidenced by his uniform notes). He fixed this oversight in TVH with the introduction of the one-bar design. The bald headed Alien officer at Starfleet Command (played by Michael Berryman) wore it for example. --212.183.36.148 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Where is that coming from? Nemeck in the latest Star Trek Magazine ascribes Valeris's insignia to a costume error, which had wrong colours of strap and collar as well. Morwen - Talk 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a costume error. Valeris was refered to as Lieutenant in dialogue but wore a Lt. Cmdr. rank pin. --212.183.35.108 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Apparently that was a holdover from her being Saavik. But I'd like to know where Bob Fletcher's notes are, still! :) Morwen - Talk 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I own a copy of them so if you got any questions ask away. They can also be ordered from the webstore of Roddenberry.com IIRC. --212.183.37.142 05:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Upper and lower halves

Can anyone point to a reliable secondary source that clearly states that later Starfleet has (i.e. uses the terms) "upper half" and "lower half" for two separate rear admiral grades? --EEMeltonIV 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What does trek encyclopedia say? --Cat out 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia labels the TNG Admiral ranks as 1-star, 2-star, 3-star, 4-star, and 5-star admirals. That's pretty much useless as TNG episodes have established Rear, Vice and Fleet Admirals. The lower/upper half terminology is derived from circumstantial evidence only. Picard was offered a promotion from Captain to Admiral (not Commodore) in "Coming of Age". Also, the only two Starfleet officers (Jameson and Quinn) who wore the Admiralty braid insignia without additional pips (which seems to be the lowest Admiral rank) where referred to as "Admiral" not "Commodore". --212.183.32.112 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate the encyclopedia now... :( --Cat out 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, "Lower Half", "Upper Half" never established on screen, not in Encyclopedia. Any source for this at all, other than just making the analogy? By the way, where is the idea of silver pips for TNG season 1 coming from? I just got TNG season 1 on DVD, so I am going to check. Morwen - Talk 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If there inst a source, this will be problematic since we do have a source for the insignia. We have spikes site as a source.
I dont have the dvd version so I cant tell clearly. They looked silver to me.
--Cat out 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we even need to be using Spike's as a source - there is plenty of published material about this in the Star Trek periodicials. But even Spike's has 1st season TNG pips being gold. Morwen - Talk 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, my eyes tell me they are silver but they are several pixel wide images to me (might be reflection from lights). So take a look at the dvd as you suggested.

--Cat out 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pips are blatantly gold in "Encounter at Farpoint". Morwen - Talk 17:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed silver pips off article --Cat out 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Why are episode citations replaced with encyclopedia ones? --Cat out 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because citing episodes directly is a really really bad idea. Episodes rarely establish a solid link between insignia and ranks in dialogue. Episode citations should, if really necessary, say a bit more than that, such as "as seen on the collar of Captain Picard at 02:23 into the episode, and throughout the episode". Morwen - Talk 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But we shouldn't trust the Encylopedia blindly either. Especially the rank section is lousily researched. --213.33.22.144 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To be sure. But there have been >100 issues of the UK Star Trek Magazine and god knows how many of Star Trek Communicator, that the material is out there (much like the truth). The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture had some good stuff regarding the TMP rank insignia and costumes (unfortunately I am back with parents until New Year so won't add anything from this yet). We have a claim regarding "Second Lieutenant Commander" which i'm inclined to remove, as we don't know what issue of Starlog (if this is accurate at all). Morwen - Talk 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Why are we replacing when we could be doing a dual citation (Both episode and encyclopedia). Or a triple citation to spikes cite for easy reference. --Cat out 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There's such a thing as beating a horse to death. Unless there's a bit of dialogue that says, "Gee, it's nice to see you wearing those four pips on your collar, Jean-Luc -- it means you are a Starfleet captain, and other captains also wear that insignia," citing an episode isn't concrete. The Encyclopedia codifies our inferences. Spike's is also linked for ease of "don't believe us? this other site says the same thing!" access, although I still think it's kind of dumb (both linking and some inferences on Spike's). --EEMeltonIV 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. I am speechless at your approach to this topic. I am going to be removing every image that is cited from an episode inline with that then. Every rank insignia that hasn't been on the encyclopedia must be removed. How do we know archer was wearing the captain insignia? --Cat out 14:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Get over yourself. If I thought that was a worthwhile approach, I'd've axed them already. But, yes, I'd much prefer there to be a published secondary source to cite rather than the episodes. --EEMeltonIV 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment - since we're dealing with canon ranks now, we need to pay a bit of attention to canon policy [5]. In cases where there's a clash between on-screen material and a written work, the on-screen material takes precedence. Because of that established precedence, while the encyclopedia refs definitely add to the article, I don't really like the idea of removing references drawn directly from episodes. I'd prefer a dual citation in such cases if that's the way we have to go. Quack 688 17:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that we're dealing with "canon" ranks -- rather, we're covering those that are verifiable, moving toward content in the article that can be cited not (solely) through primary sources (e.g. episodes) but rather through secondary sources. Unfortunately, the often-flawed Encyclopedia, tech. manuals, etc. are the best we have. When there is a conflict, I think it's best to present the conflicting (and cited) data and let readers decide on their own which to pay heed to. One of many problems with relying on primary sources is that information drawn from them are only apt for that particular occurrence/instance, whereas a secondary source offers broader generalizations. Based on Encounter at Farpoint, we could conclude (and probably even get away with citing, as we've done in some instances here) that Captain Picard's rank insignia has four pips; it's the Encyclopedia and whatnot that offer a firm footing for saying that all Starfleet captains wear four. (Now, whether Wikipedia gives a hoot about allll captains, when really only Picard and the other stars are notable, is another matter that I'll conveniently gloss over because I have a plane to catch back to Virginia.) --EEMeltonIV 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I went off on a tangent and forgot to add that paying heed to (Paramount's definition of) canon to the exclusion of non-canon information verges too close for my comfort to non-NPOV. Certainly by owning the studio, the franchise, the rights, etc., their perspective carries plenty of clout, and certainly anyone actually involved with the show needs to play in their sandbox (knock on wood). Still, as with a conflict between a primary and secondary source, if there is notable non-canon material out there -- and I'd contend that several of the popular games and some of Pocket Books' series continuation, um, series qualify -- then we should include it, too. I realize you're not actually arguing against this, but when folks mention "canon," I like to use it as a springboard into this stump speech. --EEMeltonIV 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I think I get where this is going - fair enough. How about turning canon into a background question, like this:

- Appears only on screen: use episode as source

- Appears on screen and in book, no conflict: list both sources - episode first, book second. (We don't have to scream "CANON!" to explain this order. Indeed, we could "convieniently gloss over" why we list the episode first, then the book - call it a standard we use, that just happens to be consistent with canon.)

- Appears on screen and in book, but has a conflict: again, include both sources. Let the reader figure it out

- Appears in book: use book as source, mention it hasn't appeared on screen Quack 688 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dorian Collins

According to the internets, she was made an acting "Chief Petty Officer" in "Valiant", not an acting "Petty Officer 1st Class". this is about the best screencap I can find of the collar. I can't see an extra dot there, so it appears she is a Chief Petty Officer, but wearing the insignia what we identify as Petty Officer 1st Class. How do we sort this out?

(note the Encyclopedia doesn't have any speculation about what these pins mean, just has O'Brien's meaning "Chief of Operations") Morwen - Talk 12:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We know from the show itself what the pin means. I could care less about what encyclopedia says. The alternate rank insignia article was to sort such complications. --Cat out 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But the show contradicts what we have! Morwen - Talk 18:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better screencap [6] showing 2 dots. --213.33.12.132 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So she is wearing in fact exactly the same insignia as O'Brien, right? Morwen - Talk 18:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, seems to be the only kind of enlisted insignia they ever produced. There's another female cadet in "Valiant" wearing it as well. Speaking of enlisted insignia. O'Brien refered to himself as "Senior Chief Specialist" in "Shadowplay" while wearing the hollow pip insignia. --213.33.14.131 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. DS9 companion says the DS9 writers didn't like the term "petty officer". Gah. This is what happens when people write articles first, then try to backfit them with references, afterward, unfortunately. Morwen - Talk 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's totally in line with current Navy terminology. For example a Senior Chief Petty Officer who works in the Navy as a sonar technician can be refered to as Senior Chief Sonar Technician. A Petty Officer 3/C working as Sonar Technician can be refered to as Sonar Technician 3/C. That's the reason why Yeoman 3/C and Specialist 1/C where mentioned in TOS. Some minor notes: A Bolian Petty Officer was mentioned in "Field of Fire". The TMP gray and blue triangles where not seen onscreen and frankly I have no idea where they come from. The yellow one was worn by a couple of background characters. The coloured TWOK shoulder tabs for Petty Officers are balderdash. The tabs indicated department not rank. --213.33.14.131 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Another weirdness: we have the same insignia for "Vice Admiral" and "Fleet Admiral" in the Enterprise Mirror universe era, both cited just to "In a Mirror, Darkly". There are two Admirals, in that two-parter: Admirals Gardner and Black. I am guessing they both have this insignia. Were they identified as Vice Admiral and Fleet Admiral in dialog? Morwen - Talk 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Black was just refered to as "Admiral". Gardner was specifically refered to as "Fleet Admiral". They had the same shoulder boards. Black wore the same sleeve stripes as 3pip-Admiral Forrest. We didn't get a look of Gardner's but I suppose both of them wore the same uniform and nobody bothered enough to create different rank insignia. --213.33.14.131 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In todays militaries it isn't uncommon for admirals to wear same insignia. Some other identification might be there we do not know about. It may be a uniform anomaly as well. We had quite a number of Fleet Admirals with Vice Admiral insignia on TNG. --Cat out 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" admirals

Watched this, taking notes about insignia and ranks. There are three admirals seen on screen.

Admiral Quinn wears this one -> <- it has no pips

The Vulcan Admiral, Admiral Savar wears this one -> <- one pip

The other human Admiral, Admiral Aaron wears this one -> <- two pips

There is no dialogue in the episode suggesting Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral, or the like. The closest it comes is that Admiral Quinn, who is supposedly a "Rear Admiral Lower Half" and the most junior type of admiral there is, is at one point referred to as a "senior admiral". So, what is the source equating these rank pips to these ranks? because the episode certainly doesn't : the episode works just as well if 1 pip = Vice Admiral... Morwen - Talk 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect a...wait for it...conspiracy. --EEMeltonIV 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all three rank insignias should be removed from the article. There is no exclusive dialog (Something like: "Oooh! Quinn! Isn't that the admiral insignia for rear admiral?") that ties the rank insignia. Then again such a dialog has never happened on any star trek episode since it would be moronic. --Cat out 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, may I note, what is the deal with the licence tags on those images? Some of them are quite complex original designs. The simple TNG pips are obviously non-copyrightable, but the TOS movie era admiral insignia? No way. If a really bad representation of the Enterprise is deleted due to copyvio, then so should these, frankly. We can make a case for fair use, mind : but this for example is in no way an uncopyrightable design. Morwen - Talk 17:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the proper location for the discussion. Be as dense as you like. --Cat out 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Credit

File:Baj6.png

the Bajoran insignia.

What would be the proper location? While I don't really care whether they are "copyrightable", it bothers me that artwork that I did years ago is credited as "authored by" someone else. I don't care about the copyright but i'd like credit for the work i've done. -- CaptainMike 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the images here are ones that have been redrawn by Wikipedia's own image-makers, based on drawings in the Encyclopedia (presumably drawn by Mr Okuda), which were based in turn by Paramount copyrighted designs by Messrs Theiss, Blackman and suchforth. I'm confused here: are you Mike Okuda? This is really the only way I can interpret your claim to this being "your artwork", but it doesn't like you are. If not, can you name specific images you think have been ripped off from your fan art? is it just these admiral insignia ones? Morwen - Talk 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should take place in commons (where images are). We would gladly credit you but I need some evidence (a citation would do) on who to credit for which images. I do want to point out that images here may look similar to your images if similar tools were used to draw them. --Cat out 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the "simple" pip images are really copyright-inconsequential -- you can't copyright a circle! However, some of the renderings are definitely my work, taken from my site at captainmike.org or memory-alpha.org (i'm not Okuda, just a Mike who is a fan artist).

I noticed I am credited on the "The Cage" officer stripe -- even though i was never informed it was being reused on WP.

I'm not really seeking much more credit at this point, but i think we need to streamline the way graphics are added to this page to avoid this kind of confusion (based in part on J. Wales' comments on our copyright statuses). In particular, I've had to have this fixed before for Image:Baj6.png -- which was created by me for my site, but released into public domain by Cool Cat as the author, after it was resized. The Commons description has since been fixed. This was a problem as the image was originally someone else's and i had to get permission to edit and reuse it in the first place.-- CaptainMike 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be Cool Cat. Something seems to have been messed up somewhere regarding copyrights, glad it has been corrected. --Cat out 16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Star Trek insignia are PD-ineligible. Even if they were copyrightable, paramount would own the copyrights. Crediting you is something nice we can and should do but you still need to give us some evidence that these images are "yours". Perhaps you may want to continue this discussion at Commons:User talk:Cool Cat? --Cat out 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear from the community here, actually, since the misgivings about the PD tags was not added by me, but Morwen, on this page. I hope you don't think this is "dense" -- like i said, credit and copyright on something so simple is inconsequential, however i'd like better practices here, from now on.

In particular, the TNG rank pips are graphics I created for http://memory-alpha.org ( http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Starfleet_ranks ). When I saw they were being reused here, I replaced Memory Alpha's with altered versions and tried to maintain the license. You'll see that all of the TNG pips on Memory Alpha, verifiably licensed as being created by me, are the same as these images, but rotated to a distinctive angle.

Its also possible that these images were created anew based on the TNG LTJG insignia shown above, but the base image (with recognizable "brown" shading on the hollow pip) remains my work. I don't really care about credit on those, since my site is credited here on this WP page. But the shading I did remains recognizable.

The TOS stripes are also recognizable, although I rendered the shading based on a "trace" of Spike's old graphics -- which he has since replaced. These were also the basis of the Memory Alpha TOS stripes, but again, those have been rotated and reshaded. I don't really care for credit, however, i really want to point this out, since the Commodore stripe is incorrect, this needs replacing anyway. -- CaptainMike 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The license is PD (for being ineligible or else Paramount owns the copyright not you or anyone else). Circles cannot be copyrighted. I do not know weather you created them or not but thats really irrelevant copyright-wise. PD means I can do whatever I please with it. I am not even required to credit anyone. That is what Public Domain is all about. If the object in question is PD recreating it no mater how difficult or tiring or expensive it may be is still PD. However I also want to credit any and everyone involved with the creation of the image as an extra for their hard work even though it isn't required by law.

Please make it easy for me, who is the original author on what image (on occasions you say you aren't even the author). What is it exactly that you expect get done? Please post this info on that commons page so it is easier for me to source (I want to avoid interwiki linkage)

--Cat out 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you are still on about copyrights -- i've already stated twice above that i do not seek copyright license for any images, and i've already stated twice above that the simpler insignia do not seem copyrightable.

• Original author of TNG pips shown here: CaptainMike, as a contribution to Memory Alpha (not in public domain) (said use altered and discontinued).
• Original author of TOS stripes shown here: CaptainMike, traced over images from Spike's Star Trek Site, for use on Memory Alpha (not in public domain) (said use altered and discontinued).
• Original author of Bajoran pins (used elsewhere on Wikipedia): Robert B.K. Brown, for publication on (defunct) Frank G.'s Bajoran Insignia page. Images as seen on Wikipedia were altered with permission by CaptainMike for use only on captainmike.org. (not in public domain)

What I expect to get done: in the future, when rank images are taken from websites and published on Wikipedia, regardless of copyrightability, that said images credit the site or author who originally created them.

I don't expect any changes to be made to the existing insignia, i'm just saying that we should change the practice going forward. -- CaptainMike 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rank insignia

I am removing all rank insignia that dont source encyclopedia off of the article. --Cat out 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And some that are in the Encyclopedia, such as the 2365 onwards admiral pins. Is Larry Nemeck's column in Star Trek Magazine an acceptable source to you for the TOS movie Lt. Cmdr? Also, some of the insignia were replaced with "rank exists" (such as the TNG season 1 admirals) when actually, it was the association of the insignia to that rank that in question, not the insignia. I shall try and fix up some of this after you've finished. Morwen - Talk 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The official show itself is original research as established here, the alternate ranks afd established that the encyclopedia is OR as well. So I feel all insignia should be removed. We may just speedy delete the article as well since no matter what we do article will be original research or every rank insignia will have to be tossed as speculation. --Cat out 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That AFD established no such thing. I refer you to my earlier comment. If you have genuinely changed your mind about whether we should have this article, then by all means feel free to deal with it in a whatever wise and considered manner you consider appropriate. Personally, I feel there are enough secondary sources out there we could have a good article about Starfleet ranks and insignia. As it stands, the article isn't even close to it, but hey. Morwen - Talk 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Article was deleted for being original research when sourcing the Encyclopedia. I cant believe Encyclopedia to be a valid source. We cant use secondary sources as per that. Since primary source citing has been converted to encyclopedia, this article is pure OR now. --Cat out 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a tiny amount of that article was sourced from the Encyclopedia (which was the Encyclopedia version of the TOS movie Lt Cmdr emblem), the rest of the article was the problem, and there it was being mainly cited directly to episodes, without any annotations as to where or what to look for, to fan websites, in some cases to an unlicenced fan publication, for others to a roleplaying manual which was so bad that it caused Paramount to shut down FASA's licence. So the AFD proves nothing. Please don't think the grapes are sour. Morwen - Talk 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, let's just have another look at WP:OR and think about this for a moment.

Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it.

...

Examples of primary sources include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

OR is when a fan draws their own little pictures - we're just using what's shown on the screen, in the primary source. Let's try and use a bit of common sense here, hmm? We see Archer with the same rank insignia every week. When we see Columbia's captain, she's got the same bits on. If there's evidence of a conflict, fine, take the picture off. But you don't remove information on the basis that another source might contradict it in the future.

If we remove claims of this level, then by that reasoning, we can't say McCoy's a genuine doctor. Everyone calls him "Doctor", but that might just be a nickname. In our world, Navy medical officers are real doctors. Maybe in Star Trek, they let paramedics become medical officers.

Now, what about verifiability?

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

If we make the claim, "In the series Enterprise, four bits = captain", anyone can watch an episode to confirm it. Therefore, it's verifiable. Quack 688 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has been ripped apart by particular users due to infighting and vendettas. One of the main contributors was run off of Wikipedia I think with threats of legal action. As it stands right now, this article has been so badly destroyed it has no hope of being saved. It was once a good article with a lot of good information but just a few pictures with nothing else. Delete the thing if it stays this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.24 (talk • contribs)

It's easy to fix. All the old info's still in the page history. All we have to do is discuss what bits to bring back, and where to put them. If we can't say categorically which "Conspiracy" admiral's ranks mean what, then don't try to put them in the "rear/vice/full admiral" classification. But they should still be pictured somewhere. If ranks like O'Brien's CPO insignia have been thrown around to mean other things, fine, put them in the "contradictions" section until you get a definitive source. But ranks that have been shown to represent something on screen, and never challenged in any other episode or book, should definitely be put back in the article. Quack 688 06:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on a rewrite at User:Morwen/ranks2. It was frankly a very poor article two months ago - it even had an entire type of rank insignia which doesn't even exist (TNG silver pips for officers in season 1). By the way, what you say there is not entirely accurate, and the contributor you speak was suddenly posted to Iraq where there is no Internet, not "run off". Morwen - Talk 10:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

to find/to do

• Enterprise insignia
• do something with the Vice Admiral insignia from TOS
• fix the TMP images
  • should Rear Admiral be looking like 1 wide stripe?
  • I inspected the movie. It is 3 stripes in the costume, but they are sewn without any substantive gap between them
  • also Commander insignia too close together
  • can we get a cite about those triangle things?
• some source we can cite regarding Bob Fletcher's actual notes
  • i see no reason to doubt Spike on that one particular page which provides the comparison of varying sources
  • make the freaky MCPO2nd class insignia which the Encyclopedia shows: easy is just a copy and paste of two ones we do have already
• I have a feeling that in "All Good Things" they retconned O'Brien's pips by having him wear two silver pips. can we check this or source this?
• sourced speculation regarding Kosinki's insignia being Warrant Officer
• show Encyclopedia's ideas regarding Chief Warrant Officer for TNG and Voyager (hollow pips)
• sourced speculation regarding O'Brien's new insignia and how it might be projected up or down
• some source that links the TNG season 1 admirals to specific ranks
• something that notes that the reason why Commodore vanished in TNG is because the USN abolished the rank
• something that notes that the rank of RA(LH) is never mentioned by that name, and that indeed we never see a 1-pip admiral after TNG season 1.
• who designed each of these systems
  • presumably Theiss, Fletcher, Theiss, Blackman
• oh, and the pilots stuff
  • in the first pilot officers (including the captain) wear one solid stripe. a chief petty officer wears a strange grille pattern.
  • in the second pilot, an extra stripe is added for the captain
• so the initial aim of not having too rank-dependant got diluted?

I'm pretty sure none of this is in any of the sources I have access to at the moment, although y'know, quite hard to tell. I hope to have access to the Star Trek Fact Files soon, I hope to find at least some of this there. We'll see. Morwen - Talk 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That Kosinski thing's been bugging me for a while - I haven't seen any reliable sources which say that's a WO rank. I haven't got the episode, but I looked up a copy of the script. Commanders Riker and Argyle both call him "sir" when he first arrives, then switch to "Kosinski" or "Mr Kosinski". Real life commissioned officers simply don't call warrant officers "sir" (unless they're former enlisted pers themselves, of course, the habit's hard to break :-p )

Kosinski, on the other hand, doesn't call anyone sir. That first greeting from the commanders, followed by the total lack of rank references both to and from him afterwards, suggests he's a civilian specialist attached to Starfleet - that makes sense, given that he's conducting high-level warp field research. Pure OR on my part, of course, but a WO position simply doesn't fit with the language used. Quack 688 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you mention this, I watched the episode over Christmas and was rather surprised by them calling him "sir" (also rather surprised at seeing no-pip Admiral Quinn being called a "senior admiral"). But, then, he does wear a Starfleet uniform. Possibly writer intent was to have him a civilian, but the costume department put a uniform on him, as that wasn't clearly stated in the script? Morwen - Talk 11:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't forget there's families on Starfleet ships too in this era. A uniform and a rank that says, "Don't be fooled, I'm actually a civilian" would distinguish the "I work for Starfleet" civilian specialists from the "I'm just here cause my other half works here" civilians. Quack 688 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Brien wore one pip in AGT (exactly as in the pilot episode). --212.183.47.161 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So, was this edit just entirely spurious then, not even a grain of truth? Morwen - Talk 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Morwen, you seem very up on pointing out things that Husnock has done wrong with this article. Did you catch that the edit to which you so refer was made almost two YEARS ago? What do you have against this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.24 (talk • contribs)

Hello again our mystery editor from .ae! Well, that nonsense that had been in Wikipedia for those two years, which makes it a matter of some concern. Now, the question is, did the person who added it make it up, or did it come from somewhere real? Because, if it came from somewhere real, it would be good to mention it in the text. Believe me, I am only trying to improve this article. Morwen - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to let Husnock's dispute on this subject end for now. Continuing it could only hurt him in the RFAr, and he doesn't need friends to fight his battles for him as he is more than capable of doing so himself. The page will still be here when he gets back and anything 'lost' can always be recovered from the history when references are available. Dragging out a fight on this now, with no new evidence, doesn't do anyone any good. --CBD 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a 1988 interview with Bill Theiss where he gives this rank structure (it makes no mention of silver, but does establish CWO, in his mind at least):

One black pip = Chief Warrant Officer

One gold pip = Ensign

One gold + one black pip = Lieutenant, Junior Grade

Two gold pips = Lieutenant

Two gold + one black pip = Lieutenant Commander

Three gold pips = Commander

Four gold pips = Captain

Ooh, interesting. Is that a WP:RS? It looks good to me. Morwen - Talk 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I also found a fan's Star Trek list which mentions this:

NOTE: During seasons one or two, some of the pips were in silver.

I've found no evidence that silver was considered doctrine at any time in TNG's history, but the costumers might have put silver pips on people sometimes just cause they ran out of gold, or they didn't know any better. If we do find episodes where silver was used, we can mention that it was sometimes used in the first two seasons, but we shouldn't establish it as an official system.

One other thing - I think we should make more of a mention of the breast insignia/comm badge worn throughout the years. Especially in TOS, where it varies based on ship and on service branch. I think that falls under the category of "ranks and insignia". Quack 688 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I recently added some material in that area. We might want to find and upload some examples of the TOS assignment patches (thinking the ones for Enterprise, Constellation and Starfleet Command). I'm not really sure where insignia ends, though: do the "x year service" pins used in TOS movies count (which Mr Scott's Guide explains, or at least tries to)? Morwen - Talk 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole silver pips-issue results from bad lighting. --212.183.45.27 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is posible. --Cat out 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that it looks excellent and well cited. I am tempted to nominate it for WP:GA status but that should possibily wait till Enterprise ranks are added (or should they be excluded as not Starfleet?). Eluchil404 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise was Earth starfleet and was the predicesor to the UFP starfleet --Cat out 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So...

Having spruced up this article, anyone want to join me in focusing attention on Starfleet enlisted ranks and insignia? --EEMeltonIV 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather Good

This is a rather good article but should focus more on the real world history of how these insignias were thought up and created and by whom. Maybe also notes about the variations that have appeared in fan literature. I took a long close look at the entire history of the article and also caution about the concept of article ownership. That appears to have been a very big problem both with the original two people who wrote the article to start with and about three to four people who have dominated most of the edits since then. Newcomers appear to face reverts and heavy handed comments instead of polite discussion on how to improve the article. Something to think about, I feel. Until next time. -38.119.112.189 12:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one answered me on my thoughts, so I will expand. I think we can merge the Starfleet uniforms article into this one and create one damn fine Wikipedia article on the real world history of Star Trek uniforms and insignia. I have many ideas on how to do, beginning with a new name. I might need to create an account, which I somewhat hesistant to do since I enjoy the non-permanent nature of ip posting. I would also invite everyone who has worked on this article, regardless of past grudges or conflicts, to help with the grand endeavour. Thoughts? Lets get to it. -38.119.112.189 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise ranks

I am curious why these were ever removed from the article. Can we put them back in? -38.119.112.189 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite a published, secondary source that delves into what the insignia means, and sure thing. Lacking that, the content (which I nevertheless believe is 100% accurate) isn't verifiable and thus shouldn't be included. Again, difference between Wikipedia and Memory Alpha. --EEMeltonIV 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you should just blank the whole thing. The insignia are very clearly established. I'm sure there is something somewhere that lists them, if nothing else then the scripts of the program and the costume notes from Paramount. I'll give you the LCDR thing (for now) but not this. Those insignia need to be in here. -38.119.112.189 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Until you can find the "Somewhere that lists them", please don't re-add them. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds material, and you aren't providing a citation other than "well, it just must be true." Perhaps among Star Trek fans, which is why they are uncited at Memory Alpha, but a non-fan/casual user should be able to verify the information presented in an article with a reliable, secondary source -- which you aren't providing. --EEMeltonIV 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

According to an e-mail I just got from a buddy of mine, this book is supposed to come with an insignia chart. Not sure if thats true, but that would at least be a printed source. I think the costume notes from Paramount could also count as a primary source if there would be anyway to get them. -38.119.112.189 23:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Re-add them once the book hits the stands so that you have a published source to back up the assertion. --EEMeltonIV 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that those ranks are correct. Production and script notes from the Paramount Pictures costume department can be your source for now and I'll look around for books. If nothing else, the narrative about the insignia should stay; blanking the entire section borders on WP:POINT (I personally think) since this is good information. -38.119.112.189 04:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You've once again added material without citing it. Where's your copy of the script? the notes? the production material? I will not revert, as that would be against the whole 3RR, but as you did with Fleet Captain, you are glossing over WP:V. What part of this policy do you find so hard to understand, or why do you think your edits are exempt from it? If you simply have trouble with the mechanics of citing the material, tell me your source and I'll cite it for you. --EEMeltonIV 04:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the sourcing is a little bit shaky, but let us investigate and look around and I'm sure something will come up. I also suggest getting other editors involoved as one of them might have a source. BTW- I am impressed by your demeanor in this conversation compared to the last. You are not engaging in any comments which are sarcastic and are simple presenting cold hard views. Good for you and sorry from this end if the FC conversation got too nasty. See my note there and get the protection removed. I will probably also get an account established so I can start working on this a bit more. -38.119.112.189 06:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Valeris

Yes, she is a lieutenant commander. However, giving precedence to one insignia over the other -- i.e. putting one image in the table and not the other -- is non-NPOV, as it's making a subjective judgment call over whether information is "more" true than another. Better to present both sets of published sources and information and let readers make their own decision. --EEMeltonIV 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I investigated it and the main LCDR pin appears in the live action production backed up by the costume notes of Robert Fletcher who invented the insignia pins in the first place. That pin should be considered canon and the other one mentioned in the conflicts section. There are many versions of alternate pin designs but the charts seem to be sticking to the offical versions from the live action/people who worked for the show. -OberRanks 11:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference adding

I need some help adding refs to the article. When I tried, it created a mess of bad text at the bottom of the page. -OberRanks 11:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to explain how to do this? -OberRanks 00:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Roddenberry: all crew are astronauts

Can anyone dole up a citation, or at least suggest a source to get a citation, for Roddenberry's idea that in TOS, the ship's crew are all officer-grade/-trained astronauts? --EEMeltonIV 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its in a book called "Star trek memories" or "The Real Star Trek". One by Shatner the other by one of the producers. Can't remember which. -OberRanks 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's in "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield, It is filled with production notes and memos. If Roddenberry wrote a note saying such a thing during the making of the original series it would almost certainly be there. I'd look it up myself but my copy is boxed up preparing for a move. --Wingsandsword 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

TOS film alternate enliste rank insignia

The additional table I think adds unnecessary clutter, especially if all it's there for is to illustrate a change in color scheme. Also looks like in its current setup, it overlaps or axes the 24th-century stuff. I think it's sufficient to clearly articulate it in the writing. --EEMeltonIV 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not put MCPO2 in table with others?

So long as it is cited to a reliable source, is there a reason not to include it there? --EEMeltonIV 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it doesn't seem to be a conflict so much as it is, one source saying the rank exists, and another source not mentioning it one way or the other. --EEMeltonIV 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The same source that sites that the rank exists has incorrect info on what the other ranks look like and therefore isn't a completely reliable source. Check out Spike's Star Trek page and you can see that the authors of the encyclopedia have the incorrect Lt Commander insignia pictured. I have a copy of the encyclopeia and it is incorrect there as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.113.221 (talk • contribs)

Spike's is a fan site and not a reliable source. As for what is correct/incorrect - these are non-npov terms; the article is presenting published information from several sources, and readers can decide on their own what is correct or not. --EEMeltonIV 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)