Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: They are not though. At least nothing suggests they are. --Cat out 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TNG S1 Commodore, DS9 Fleet Captain/Deputy Director 

message: This article will soon be gutted, more or less.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so sure of yourself. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Why has the enormous body of text been removed?  It seemed quite useful to me.  Ingoolemo talk 04:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Starfleet uniform" redirect 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Issue with "Chief" Miles O'Brien 

message: :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.
# Cannon ranks supreceed semi-cannon and non-cannon resources (tech manuals, magazines, fan sites, etc).
#* Support --Cat out 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly do we agree on?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can folk here work together from this point? If they can, I'll unprotect. --Doc 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so, there's new material to work with. Bryan 23:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK, unprotecting. Please discuss contravertial changes with others before making them.--Doc 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Branch admiral (fanon -> canon) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fleet Captain

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Which makes the article very diffcult? Dont know what to do. --Cat out 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiably/reliable source redux 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Warrant Officer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TOS-era Films 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Enlisted rank insignia 

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

text: Here's a better screencap  showing 2 dots. --213.33.12.132 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So she is wearing in fact exactly the same insignia as O'Brien, right?   Morwen - Talk 18:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dorian Collins 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  So... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rather Good

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Enterprise ranks

message: 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)
thread_title: Valeris

message: 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)
replies: text: Anyone care to explain how to do this? -OberRanks 00:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference adding

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Roddenberry: all crew are astronauts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TOS film alternate enliste rank insignia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why not put MCPO2 in table with others?