Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 1

message: Since insignia pictures are now being added to this page, I recommend moving the page to Ranks and insignia of the Starfleet.  Ill give it about a day or two for comments and then conduct teh move if noone disagrees. -Husnock 6Mar05
:Why is it *the* Starfleet? It is never referred to in that way within the Star Trek universe. Adam Bishop 00:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point...Ranks and insignia of Starfleet?  Sounds good to me. -Husnock 8Mar05
-Done. Ranks of Starfleet --Cool Cat My Talk 08:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's too late for me to suggest that Starfleet ranks and insignia might be an aesthetically better sounding title? :) func(talk) 17:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Followup to this.  The page ahs actually been moved three times already and the proposed title is, in fact, very close to a previous one that was moved to this title.  Its been at this title for some time and further changes will cuase redirect problems.  Since there is nothing erronious or incorrect about this title, let us simply leave it here.  Thats my view. -Husnock 23:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already moved it during the FAC, and that was probably a pain to change all of the links. I agree with Husnock on this one and we should keep it the way the title is now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: I think we should revert the next generation admiral pips to the previous versions.  An examination of what is worn by characters in the show reveals that the "box" surrounding the pips is only wide enough to hold hold the particular number of pips being displayed.  The pics we have up right now appear as if the "box" is a standard size, leaving empty space to the left and right of the pips.  Also, if you examine the flag officer pips closely on the show, you will notice the background of the "box" is actually black.  For all these reasons, I think we should go back to the pips that were up about used two days ago.  Comments? -Husnock 12 Mar 05
Hmm, guess you are right, working on modifications. Are you sure they were black, your pips had red bg.. Its easy enough for me to modify... --Cool Cat My Talk 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Next Generation Admiral Pips

message: To answer a question about this, Star Trek: The Motion Picture had no rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade. This is established in several offical sources from the producers of the film, most notable a book entitled "The Making of the Motion Picture" (by either Roddenberry or some other high up Star Trek person) and a  book called "Star Trek Phase II".  These same sources indicated that Kirk was a Rear Admiral in the Motion Picture and that there was no longer a rank of Fleet Captain. -Husnock 22Mar05
----
An anon user keeps on putting information into the article the Enterprise has a Lieutenant J.G. rank.  If so, I have to ask for a source.  I looked on the internet for all info about the epsiode mentioned (Divergence) and could find no mention of this character.  Here is the cast list off a Paramount webpage I located.
Cast:
* Scott Bakula as Captain Jonathan Archer
* Connor Trinneer as Chief Engineer Charles Tucker III
* Jolene Blalock as Sub-commander T'Pol
* Dominic Keating as Lt. Malcolm Reed
* Anthony Montgomery as Ensign Travis Mayweather
* Linda Park as Ensign Hoshi Sato
* John Billingsley as Dr. Phlox
Guest Cast: 
* Terrell Tilford as Marab
* John Schuck as Antaak
* James Avery as General K'Vagh
* Ada Maris as Captain Erika Hernandez
* Eric Pierpoint as Harris
* Kristin Bauer as Laneth
* Wayne Grace as Krell
* Matt Jenkins as Tactical Officer
If there was a LTJG in the epsiode it would contradict all pubs and literature about the series.  I'm not saying there's not, this just needs to have a source since its such a glaring contradiction. -Husnock 18:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be fair, I put the info about Divergence back in but made it clear tbat the rest of the Enterprise series indicated there was no LTJG rank.  Interesting if there was, however.  Can we get a picture of what the rank looked like? -Husnock 18:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieutenant Junior Grade 

message: Has anyone had this page cause their browser to crash?  It hapepned to me twice today while the computer was loading the page. -Husnock 01:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser Crash 

message: I reverted a statement put in the article about LCDR existing in early Starfleet with the source given that the rank was mentioned in a recent episode called "In a Mirror Darkly".  I watched this episode less than a half hour ago and dont recall, at all, hearing anything about Lieutenant Commander.  Did I miss something? -Husnock 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup to this.  I plan to view this episode again tomorrow night to see exactly what was said.  I could be wrong.  We'll see. -Husnock 07:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind the fact that what you see in the screen is actual text. Although the quality i got does not alow me to read whats on there. I did create a conj. rank for lt cmdr for now.--Cool Cat My Talk 02:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonight's Reverts 

message: I think the new cadet insignias look nicer. objections?--Cool Cat My Talk 02:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new cadet insignia but removed the Original Series Admiral stripes.  Such insignia was never seen in the Original series and any additions would be pure conjecture.  As I was fighting for in the beginning, this article should be kept clear of guesswork and ranks that fans have speculated on.  Maybe adding some of the hypothetical Admiral ranks in the lower section would be good, but tehy should be kept out of the main table. -Husnock 03:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good old Cadet image unnecesary

message: Since apparently the Enlisted insignia of the Earth Starfleet are visible in the DVD release of Enterprise, could somebody be kind enough to create graphics of them and an entry for them within the regular enlisted rank in insignia table? --Wingsandsword 02:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All info I have on the matter states enlisted in Enteprise have no insignia, but I'll get the DVD and take a close look.  If its there, well add it.  Just need to be careful taking pics off fan pages that were invented by fans and not actually on the show. -Husnock 03:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting from the article "Prior to the release of the Season 1 DVDs, enlisted insignia was small and difficult to read onscreen, but the greatly enhanced picture quality of the DVDs makes it possible to clearly see this insignia. Rank for enlisted crew is denoted by a small Starfleet arrowhead symbol with varying numbers of straight lines directly to its left, the number of lines presumably denoting different enlisted grades (crewman 1st, 2nd and 3rd classes, for example). (For instance, in the episode "Strange New World" as the crew are looking out the windows at a nearby planet, several enlisted crew's rank insignia can be clearly seen.)"  I don't have the DVD, so I just asking for someone who does to review the scenes in question and possibly add Enterprise to the big Enlisted rank chart along with the Motion Picture, Film era, TNG and DS9 insignia, especially if they can create a reasonable depiction of the insignia.  Of course, if close inspection of the DVD reveals they aren't there, then removing the above text from the article would be appropriate instead. --Wingsandsword 16:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there is insignia but the only folks who ever appear are Crewman.  I couldnt find anybody on the Season 1 DVD that was a Petty Officer and was wearing Petty Officer rank.  I added in the Crewman stripes, though, and updated the article. -Husnock 04:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Enterprise Enlisted Insignia

message: I invite someone to nominate this article for Featured article status.  A lot of work and dedication has gone into it and I just did a major upgrade.  Im working on Enterprise enlisted insignia, theres just not that much out there about it.  That shoukldnt hold us up though, I say let us pursue making this a featured article. -Husnock 05:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: I changed back to the old Pilot episode stripes as the new versions lost the "sheen" effect which was the result of the fabric which the stripes were made of.  It also didnt match the thick stripes used on the conjectural Admiral box. -Husnock 23:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to make thick ones, but I ditched the border around the thick stripes, screwing things up. Plus, I was not trying to draw the sheen anyways, but if you like this version, that is fine. I will speedy delete the ones I did. Zscout370 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have always thought the pilot stripes were pretty neat and wished they had written more Original Series epsidoes where the old velor uniforms could have been used.  Only "The Cage", "The Menagarie", "Where No Man has Gone Before", and "Charlie X" showed these uniforms.  They are a lost relic of Star Trek as the insignia was a "one stripe for all" concept menaing all ranks used a simple insignia of one stripe since they were all astronauts with no distinction in rank, only position.  There is by the way, a single publicity photo of William Shatner wearing the modern Original Series yellow shirt with the old style velor stripes.  Its pretty cheesy as he is holding in it a flashlight in place of a phaser.  Grace Lee Whitney is in the photo too.  Its a very rare picture. -Husnock 23:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the new images, I am just redrawing the squares and triangles, and I am also using a program called pngcrush to make the file sizes a bit smaller. But, I do hope the article becomes featured. Zscout370 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stripes

message: This way its better as page loads faster, and when all images next to each other add up its the same size. SO save bw hdd space at both wiki server and at remote user viweing the page is my reason to use multiple images. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Small cadet ranks

message: I think this page has a lot of good information in it, but its organization is an utter mess. Looking at it right now, it has:
* A table showing the rank insignia for admirals
* A table showing the rank insignia for regular officers
* A text section talking about fleet admirals
* A text section talking about The Original Series, followed by more text sections for the other series and movies
* A table showing "Conjectured Admiral Insignia" - how do you conjecture admiral insignia for the two Trek pilot episodes which had no admirality in them at all? And note that this table's rows and columns are backwards from the tables above (here, the ranks are columns, and the series are rows). That's just confusing.
Then it talks about Fleet Captains, then jumps all the way down to Lieutenant Junior Grade, then ... I'll stop here. The article is a confusing mishmash; sometimes it seems to be organized by rank, other times it seems to be organized by series.
I propose that it be completely reorganized. It should take each rank one at a time, and discuss that rank thoroughly before moving on. Start with Fleet Admiral; show the insignia, talk about the occurrences of it. Then move on to Admiral; show the insignia, talk about it. And so on down the line. - Brian Kendig 20:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should also have a separate section of conjectured ranks too. Pretty much, that is one of the main complaints of the FAC. I am trying to work on the images, but it feels like I can work on them with no problems now.  I also think there is a picture overkill, do we have to have this much screen shots to make the article decent? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding sections on every officer rank.  The reason there were none for Captain, Commander, and Lieutenant was that those are the "ordinary" ranks with which there isnt that much too say.  In response to FAC comments, a large intro will be written and then additional sections about the various ranks.  Tables might be moved but, I think, under no circumstances should be broken up. -Husnock 22:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest too that if this FAC does fail, then I would suggest adding it to WP:AID. That will get some others attention. I would also try to find out what everyone's objections are and try to work on them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize the page? 

message: I had to revert the lengthy lists of officers placed in the article by Coolcat.  A list of all characters who have held Starfleet ranks is not what this article about it.  Mentioning the first few who were seen in the position is noteworthy and this in incorporated into the test of the article.  Also, if names are previously mentioned in the text as having held a rank, no need to repeat such names in a list.  I believe there are several articles listing Star trek characters, maybe even creat eone like List of Starfleet officers or something like that. -Husnock 21:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was still typing, generaly its nicer to discuss things before reverting. I am annoyed as my browser crashed and I lost work. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Realise that this is a cooperative effort. Please allow me and others to contribute. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest to avoid reverts in the middle of edits, make a single edit and paste in material when its all finished rather than several small ones a few lines at a time.  It also keeps the edit summary clear.  Also I think there are several other articles that deal with the same subject you are talking about.  Might want to merge. -Husnock 21:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am creating a list based on rank. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of officers

message: I still think this is the right course of action, the issue arosed about different browsers causing an issue was accurate, a simple width=700px fixed that. However, you will keep reverting and this really is pointless. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change to 700px on the flag officer template was not reverted by me.  I did revert a change to 350px since the columns were crammed together without enough room for the rank words.  The current size actually looks pretty good. -Husnock 23:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Smaller images adding up to insignia

message: I am pleased to announce that this article is now, as far as my book goes, FINISHED.  Its been completely updated, expanded, pictures added, and now I hope the final decesion will come to make this a featured article.  Thanks to everyone who contributed. -Husnock 04:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ARTICLE FINISHED!

message: While Ive given up on the FAC, it continues to draw objects and attacks from people.  How sad.  In my view, this is actually a society article about how the television production Star Trek developed a set of ranks and insignia and applied them to several films and television series.  There are already indications people are talking about wanting to delete the article as "pure fiction" and "fancruft".  I will, of course fight that to the bitter end. -Husnock 20:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, then anything that was created about Star Wars can be attacked for fan-cruft too. Pretty much, anything we do can be whacked for crufty articles. Plus, what you can do is transfer everything from here to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki. The link is on your talk page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I try and stay away from Memory Alpha! :-)  Besides, they have their own article over there.  I linked it to this article. -Husnock 21:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine. I signed up on Memory Alpha, so if those guys need anything from us, I can provide it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Society Article not "Fancruft"

message: Am I the only one who sees the insignia as all messed up? They "wrap around" in their cells. Can't they just be made into single images??? func(talk) 23:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am doing that. Give me a few days and everything should be fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. :) func(talk) 04:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: After all those people who jumped up and down and stated that the article was "pure fiction" about a "topic which doesnt actually exist", and should therefore never be a featured article, Wikipedia now has the article Dalek as s featured article on the front page.  With, I might add, no inline citations! :-o  I might eventually go ahead and resubmit the article one of these days.  The first nomination unfortunately drew some pretty negative and nasty people.  That one guy who called the article a "petty collection of images" insulted it further by adding an article on his talk page about why the article was nothing more than Star Trek fans getting off.  I will be a good Wikipedian and not retaliate to that since Wikipedia is not a Battlefield but that is the prime example of a personal attack on an article.  Shame, shame.  Oh well.  Nothing more to be said.  This is still a great article. -Husnock 14:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too.  It's sad, but it appears that the FAC was denied largely because a double-standard was applied because some people apparently rabidly hate all things Trek and the fans of Trek.  Regardless of what they may say, this is an excellent article and one of the best on Wikipedia.  At least if they ever try the VfD that some implied, there are Featured Articles on fictional topics to prove that it is completely acceptable subject matter.--Wingsandsword 00:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took a look at the Dalek nomination page and they didn't have any problems over there with people stating the article should not be an FA becuase it dealt with fiction.  We already had our first person expresss such views on the newest nomination.  But, anyway, the Dalek nomination made it with 4 supports and 1 object which was handled.  We are almost there with the new nomination.  I hope this gets promoted to FA status.  I see no reason why it shouldn't. -Husnock 21:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalek but not Starfleet 

message: I added a picture of Tuvok but it is not appearing in the article except when hitting in the "edit" and "show preview" button.  Even after saving, the picture appears to be invisable.  Can anyone else see it? Strange. -Husnock 19:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to wait for about 5- 30 minutes for wikipedia cache to refresh. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisable Tuvok Pic 

message: For the record, I really like what Coolcat did with the pictures of the Captains.  Good for him. -Husnock 02:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a very small modification by changing to the "later" Sisko picture that showed the most recent uniform style.  This way there is a pictrue of a Captain in every type of Starfleet uniform.  Also added one space so that the Commander line wasnt spilled over by teh pictures.  The section looks great. -Husnock 02:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Pics 

message: Will this be the last time this is done? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who moved the page (CDThieme) obviously paid no attention to the comments and remarks up above.  I am tempted to move it back, but at least the user went though and changed the redirects so we dont have any double-RDs.  So, this is now the 4th page move by my count.  No doubt someone else will come along and say we should change it to The ranks and insignia of Starfeet.  Just wait. -Husnock 23:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I change it back or leave it the way it is? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User mentioned above went through about the articles and changed the redirects.  Would be a very big pain to change them all back.  Should stay here...unfortunately. -Husnock 00:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Moving pages is a really big deal, and should never be done without discussion, (except in obvious cases of mispellings and wrong case, etc.). CDThieme did not present a good example of Wikipedia's "be bold" sentiment. func(talk) 01:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe CD saw the earlier talk and decided to move. But, I wish for CD to come here and explain what is going on to us, so we will not be scratching our heads for the entire night. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, you did fix the various redirects.  Hats off to you.  The move is fine with me.  I just hope we don't move it again.  Four times is enough. -Husnock 05:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. I prefer the new name and I don't think that having to do a bit of work changing links should stop people from moving pages. Wikipedia is continuously growing and changing. The primary goal is to make articles better. If that means moving pages and altering links a few times, then that shouldn't be a problem. After all, the redirects take care of moved pages and it isn't a great deal of trouble updating links to point to the new article. There are plenty of people that can modify a link here or there, it's all part of the fun! Be bold! Marky1981 10:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Again?