Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starfleet ranks and insignia

[edit]

THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN CLOSED. For a debate on the validity of this article as a Featured Article Candidate, please see the FAC's talk page

This is a renomination of the article formerly named "Ranks and insignia of the Starfleet". Original nomination page was closed 20 May 05. The resubmission has been after addressing the following concers:

  1. Table of contents was considerably shortened
  2. References were updated and put ito proper Wikipedia format
  3. Conjectural rank information was purged leaving only ranks which have been mentioned in a live action or literature source
  4. Photos added extensively thoughout the article
Is this article based on fictional material? Yes. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that against a "Featured article" requirements? No. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are objecting this on the basis of it being "fictional" I personaly don't want to hear about it. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. Suggest if you don't want to hear objections, don't read fancruft FAC nominations. — Xiong熊talk* 17:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Valid objections are one things. Calling an article names becuase you don't like is something completly different. I believe you also referred to this as a "petty collection of images" last time. Now its "dribbling bits of fanwisdom". Your comments are very clearly inactionable. -Husnock 19:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image quality of rank insignias can be better but that would be pointless as we have to use small images so that people with slow connections can see the page without waiting a decade. Also insignia is notvisible on screen remotely close to current size unless you zoom on dvd, etc. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Star trek isn't a random tv show. It inspires us engineers to develop the technology. This show is one of the most known thing on planet earth. Every one knows "photon torpedo" "Mr. Spock", "beam me up scotty" even if they dont regularly watch the show. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as before, excellent Everyking 05:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong object ; my major previous objection, the lack of inline citied sources, is still valid. Things like " some publications " absolutely need an inline cite. With all the changes the TOC is again overwhelming, the lead section too long (3 paras max) and the article is now bloated with more detail than necessary (that is what daughter articles are for; see Wikipedia:Summary style), making the article a longer read than necessary (the 10KB lighter version I first read was much better). This nom is also very close to the previous failed nomination. --mav 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will make the corrections you mention, but really don't know what to say to the statement that the article is now "bloated". Brekaing the article up would lose the very inforamtion that makes it worthy of being a featured article. In addition, there has been almost no change to the text since the last nomination. All was done was adding several pictures which is what featured articles should have. So, I see the "bloated article" objection as inactionable unless you can expand upon it. As of now, the following corrections have been made:
  1. Shortened opening paragraph
  2. Shortened table of contents
I will be adding the citations you ask for this weekend. Will this at last be acceptable? I hope so. -Husnock 14:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TOC has now been reduced too much. Some subsectioning is needed. That is the trouble with longer than necessary articles; it is becomes increasingly difficult to have properly subsectioned sections without also having an overwhelming TOC. Oh and this version was much more tightly on topic and is the version that I gave high praise to in the previous nom. See your talk page for more. --mav 15:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The version you mention is nearly identical to the version we hav enow except that we added pictures. The pictures are important for an FAC. I feel it would only draw objects and complaints if we removed all of them. I feel they should stay. -Husnock 16:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have "re-expanded" the Table of Contents. It is now halfway between what it was before the first edit and what it was after the major shortening. It is now only has two levels with no more than 3 sublevels for some portions. I feel this should be good enough. Inline citations will come this weekend. -Husnock 16:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks. :) --mav 16:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am also pleased to announce that in-line citations have now been added throughout the entire article. I hope this will change your objection to a support. -Husnock 05:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this objection has been handled in that the table of contents has been shortened and inline citations have been added. The other point you made, about the article containing too much information, I do not know how to change that. if the last part is inactionable, can we assume your vote to object has been handled? -Husnock 08:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can change that by summarizing the larger sections and moving the detail to daughter articles. Thus it is an actionable objection. Making sure articles do not go into unnecessary detail and that they cover subtopics in other articles is a specific FAC criteria (see #6 at Wikipedia:What is a featured article). You may have noticed a page size warning when viewing the edit page of the article. Our guideline on page size is linked from there. You should read it. I also noticed that a significant amount of prose was hidden in templates. This is non-standard. Also non-standard is the use of templates to hide tables, but I can let that slide. Search for 'some publications' - it still needs a cite. --mav 16:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please look again and give a specific for any mateiral that is not cited. I went through the article line by line and added footnates everytime a publiction was mentioned. The rest of what you say...well, I'll see what I can do about breaking up the article without losing the content.-Husnock 19:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph under the Lieutenant Junior Grade discussion. Taxman mentions that other parts need cites as well. --mav 21:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All conjectural info has been removed and the term "some publications" has been purged from the article. even gave you the "daughter article" you were asking for! -Husnock 00:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good. Has a better title now, as several people had requested. CDThieme
  • Support: A great article, and a good example of what can be found here. The change since the prior FAC have really improved the article, and some sections have been vastly improved. --Wingsandsword 07:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With the various changes I have contributed to the article, I have realized that an article of this caliaber can easily be used to show what Wikipedians can do with just a little tweeking and conversing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very informative, and I don't believe it to be fan-cruft. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in every way possible -- and the repeated nomination is simply invalid. I'm sure I could nominate any page here a few dozen times, and eventually it would pass when nobody was looking, or after I'd rounded up a few of my buddies to plump for it. No intrinsic change has been made to this page, nor can it ever be improved to FA status without becoming something altogether different from what it is: fancruft, an elaboration of details from a fantasy universe. Every time I see this come up on FAC, I like it less. The addition of character headshots makes it much worse; they are irrelevant to the topic of the page, which is ranks and insignia. They tell you in the Army, You don't salute the man; you salute the rank. Dribbling little bits of fanwisdom in among the images does not an article make. Nothing about this page is notable. Nobody outside Trek fandom could care less about anything here; so far as I know, nothing about it has ever had any effect even on other fancruft, such as Empire ranks and insignia, let alone on anything in the Real World. There is not even a description of the Vietnamese sweatshop where they sew the things up. Everything about this page is hermetically sealed, contained within a fantasy universe. Move to Wikifan or, failing that, Delete. — Xiong熊talk* 17:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  • I submit this entire vote is inactionable as it simply expresses a strong distaste for the article based on personal feeligs, offers no points to improve upon and it makes statements like "nothing about this page is notable", "dribbling little bits of fanwisdom", "everytime I see this page I like it less", "nor can it ever be improved to FA status". I have also just noted the racial comment that this article was put together in a "Vietnamese sweat shop". Clearly inappropriate thing to say, not valid reasons at all for oppoing an article. -Husnock 19:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there are a few actionable elements in there. 1) Not renominating without fixing issues brought up only a week ago has been mentioned by others including me, 2) He believes there is excessive minutae and the article cannot be featured without reducing that, 3) believes the character headshots make the article worse, 4) the real world aspects of the topic have been ignored. All of those save the first are currently actionable, because changes can be made to fix them. - Taxman Talk 14:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel that any objection to an FAC which bashes the article and calls it nasty names should by its very nature be inactionable in accordence with Wikipedia:Civility. Xiong has atatcked this article both here, on the previous nomination, and on his user page. The most recent addition was a statement that "this article stinks" (see talk on his UP). But, this is a horse beat to death and sent to the glue factory. I reported this to admins, was (rightfully so) advised to calm down so I did. Xiong's opinion's, however, mean very little to me. He made up his mind about this article a long time ago and at the level of name calling and bashing there is nothing I could ever do that would put this article past him as a successful FA. I have actually withdrawn the nomination, but am leaving the page active to get constructive feedback upon the request of others. -Husnock 15:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Much work still needed. The rank pip graphics (especially in the "Officer insignia" page) still wrap around for me (using the "Classic" Wikipedia skin); for example, the "Captain" pips appear as three dots over one dot. The images don't line up properly, especially under the "Captain" section, where the text and pictures are forced into one very narrow column with way too much whitespace at the left. I don't like that the insignia for the ranks are given all together in a table before they're discussed; I feel that the insignia for a rank should be immediately above the discussion of the rank. I don't understand why "conjectural and alternate insignia versions" are given from dubious sources ("Hollywood Pins"?), or a Mirror Universe episode (the "Lieutenant Commander" conjectured pips), or when they conflict with known canon (like the five-pips "Fleet Captain"). Some headings are pushed aside by pictures (Wesley forces the "Provisional Ranks" heading rightwards, and Tucker pushes "Lieutenant Commander" over) when a "br clear=all" should be used. It's not clear from the tables which insignia are badges and which are sleeve stripes. However, on the plus side, I do like the use of all the pictures; it helps convey the long and rich tradition of Star Trek by showing a sample of the sheer number of characters in it. - Brian Kendig 18:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those issues have been handled, most important of which is the removal of conjectural and alterate ranks. Also, getting rid of the tables would be a very big deal and conflict with other opinions about the article. Are you still having format problems with the browser. -Husnock 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry your browser is being such a bad boy! You make a valid point if there are such problems with the pictures. I'll see what I can do. as for as the conjectural sources, define "dubious sources"? I felt I cited where all those pictures came from. Hoolywood Pins, BTW, was a big company in the 1990s that supplied rank and insignia Star trek patches to major convetions and they were connected to the costume department of PAramount. Maybe a link to what they are on a separate article? Anyway, Ill work with your objections. -Husnock 19:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Husnock - change your screen resolution to 800x600 for a while. This is the resolution that most people on the Internet surf under. Then you will see that the insignia in the Officer insignia table are scrunched together and the screen shots in much of the article, especially in the Captain' part of the ==Officer rank information== section, squeeze the text in between them. The width of the Flag Officer insignia table also caused horizontal scroll. --mav 22:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My browser is Safari on Mac OS X 10.4.1. It's not being a "bad boy", it's rendering the page as it is presented; nothing's telling it not to wrap the pips. I believe the solution is not to turn the "four pip graphics in a row" into "one single four-pip graphic" (this would mean that every insignia would require its own graphic, greatly increasing the image count on the page), but instead to force the table to a specific width, or else make the tables less wide. As for "dubious sources", I had no idea what "Hollywood Pins" is (it's not described in the article) and I don't feel that selling an insignia pin at a convention makes the insignia canon. Overall, between the layout problems (images making text and headings flow incorrectly) and the organizational problems (listing a bunch of ranks in a table apart from their descriptions, then listing a bunch more ranks in another table apart from their descriptions, etc.), this article does not yet represent Wikipedia's finest work. - Brian Kendig 22:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Browser issues are, without a doubt, one of the most valid objections I have seen and that has pretty much convinced me to abandon this as an FAC. Others have asked to keep the nomination open, so I will. As far as Hollywood Pins goes, they were one of the primary costume providers for Star Trek VI. I actually knew a women who worked for them. It was a huge company in 1991 but went out of business (rather quickly) in 1995. I will link Hollywood Pins to its own article and describe this. Someone also questioned the validity of Star TRek Encyclopedia as a source. That books was published by Mike Okuda, who works directly for the Star Trek show, and his publications I would consider one of the most offical sources available. -Husnock 15:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. First and foremost, conjecural ranks (and massive, unsourced conjecture in general) do not have their place in the article, at least not in the form seen in the article; a short and concise mention of such ranks is enough. Presenting them as virtually equal with canon ranks is not acceptable in my eyes. My second concern is about images (I know I have on occasion said I don't normally consider images when voting on an FAC, but I feel the (over)use of (bad) images in this article inappropriate): The sheer amount of extremely low quality live action picture adds nothing and breaks formatting in all my browsers (Camino, Firefox, Safari), the most popular Mac browsers. This article's merit rests almost solely on the images of the insignia; just as we have objected articles in the past for their high list-to-prose ratio, I object this article in part because anyone who reads this without seeing the pictures for whatwill lose about 50% of the information provided by the article. Trust me, there is an increasing number of Internet users who don't have access to pictures, for whatever reasons. Anyone who's worked in the accessibility "business" will know what I'm talking about. Finally, I might be an idiot, but I still do not understand how images such as this are in the public domain? Do the Star Trek producers hold no rights whatsoever on all these designs? (Various sources) is also not a valid source information. At least provide the address of the mirror you found the image on, and show you have done a minimum of research to find the original source of the artwork. Phils 20:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're not an idiot! The copyright status of the movie pins, as far as I know, is as follows. Thye have been recreated and recopied in dozens, if not hundreds, of books and manuals and, in the modern age, on the internet. Paramount does not, as far as I know, get a royalty on the use of rank pin images when theya re used. Also, in the copmputer age, some of them are pretty easy to create on a computer. A good example would be that the U.S. Army does not get a royalty for the use of Army Colonel insignia in films and TVs since the insignia itself, is immensly common. Also, movie pins were created in 1982, almost 25 years ago. I think the original copywrights dont apply anymore. This was actaully beat to death quite heavily in the nomination page|last nomination. I suggest you go there for more coverage on the topic. -Husnock 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Copyright doesn't work that way. Ease of reproduction does not invalidate copyright; neither does a lack of copyright prosecutions (although you might be able to claim doctrine of latches if they do come after you). Copyright on corporate works lasts (IIRC) 135 years these days, so the copyrights won't expire for quite some time -- and even under the original copyright law, they'd be protected for another five years. And the point about the US Army is a straw man argument: the Army (and the US government in general) is unable to create copyrighted works. --Carnildo 00:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't call you names! -Husnock 00:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see no name-calling there. I was characterizing your reference to US Army ranks as a "straw man argument", because US Army rank insignia are not copyrighted, and therefore referring to them in a copyright discussion is misleading. --Carnildo 01:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To quote from the article you so thoughtfully linked: "the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous". Sidesteps? Misleads? Mischaracterizes? Sounds pretty insulting to me. I was answering your question to the best of my knowledge. I also dispute that Army insignia is not copyrighted. The copyright law is actually quite complex especially for unit patches, badges, and medals. The Medal of Honor is absolutely copyrighted. Rank insignia probably isnt copyrighted but I have read some documents through my work at the National Personnel Records Center which states before World War II they might have been. -Husnock 01:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In your case, it probably wasn't intentional, but it's still sidestepping and misleading. And the Medal of Honor isn't covered by copyright. As the article indicates, it was originally covered by a design patent, and after that patent expired, it, and other military medals, are covered by a special non-copyright law: 18 USC 704, part of the criminal code. --Carnildo 02:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I kinda like the screenshots. Would it be OK if just one example per rank were kept? Once this article is redone in summary style, that will probably be needed anyway. The images in the wider tables are also too wide. This results in the page looking nasty at anything below 1024x768 screen res. --mav 21:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Resubmitting this 7 days after removing it from the FAC page is inconsiderate to the editors who have spent their time reviewing the article, especially when the past objections were not fixed. Specifically I commented the conjectured ranks are "original research and are given way too prominent of placement in the article." And you say you've fixed that, but the reality is far from it. There is still an entire section on conjectured admiral ranks with only two different fan websites of unkown quality supporting it. As I said before the sources used "would have to have some reasonable level of quality, such as a published fan magazine. A geocities (for ex) homepage listing a made up rank certainly doesn't qualify as something that Wikipedia should be covering, unless that website is demonstrably popular and widely recognized." Good job going through and providing citations, but there are still many comments that appear as author opinion, not collation of sources. I'd list them out, but I think there are enough other problems to work on first. After sifting through a lot of this I presume "conjectured" in the other tables means that rank never appears in official Star Trek sources. That is really unclear though. Much better would be to state or make clear somehow that it never appears in official sources. And is the Star Trek Encyclopedia an official source? If not, that should be made clear. The article still needs a much clearer separation of what are official ranks seen in official sources and what is not. That would help cut down on the bloating of the article, which is clearly too long, with too much minutae. The criteria do call for using summary style, and moving excessive detail off to daughter articles. As a side note, which has nothing to do with this article meeting the criteria, and would not lead me to continue to object to the article it if did meet them, it does sadden me some that so much effort is put into Wikipedia articles on pure fancruft with no redeeming social value. - Taxman Talk 20:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Social value is entirely subjective. There are probably more people who care about Star Trek than category theory, a topic I am sure no one here would dare describe as "mathcruft" or "minutiae" (although only a fraction of the world's population knows about it). Phils 10:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, which is why I separated my opinion on the topic from my take on whether this article is of featured quality or not. - Taxman Talk 14:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an extremly thorough and interesting article complete with appropriate citation. It has my full support. I am, however, concerned about its quick renominiation, but that does not diminish my support. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan, and I've written my share of what people consider fancruft, but here's what I think needs to be looked at:
  • The headshots - way too many of them, and why are they there, exactly? Are they actually necessary?
  • Conjectural ranks - takes up much too much space for what is basically non-canon information. If they are adopted in a widespread manner by fandom and thus fanon, that needs to be mentioned.
  • Real world info - What impact has this topic had on Trek fandom or the real world in general? Are these ranks iconic? Have they passed into popular culture? Notability is a problem here, but I'm not sure what could be done to redress this.
  • The O'Brien mess - this is probably the most significant thing, in my view, about the ranks in Starfleet, since for years and years there was so much fan debate on O'Brien's rank pins and their implications before they settled it in Deep Space Nine. Basically, the production team were inconsistent and making it up as they went along, but right now the information is buried in a couple of paragraphs in the Enlisted Ranks section. It should be teased out and given a bit more prominence, perhaps.
The "O'Brien Mess" is actually pretty well explained in the "Enlisted rank Information" section and the aritcle links to the main article on Miles Edward O'Brien which is where the problem whould be brought out in more depth. Can I get you to pull back this objection? I see the intro as covered as to O'Brien with the article on the character covering this in detail. -Husnock 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Miles O'Brien, it actually covers the rank issue in less detail than this article. However, I will withdraw my objection on this point, although I still feel that the discussion could be organized better. --khaosworks 00:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The reason I'm registering this as an object and not a mild object is that I think that it needs reorganising and cleanup to make it read more coherently. Splitting it up into daughter articles, or splitting up the ranks themselves into smaller sets of images might be an idea, since at the moment there's a hell of a lot of images and adjoining text to plow through and refer to each other. The information is not cleanly presented, and thus it becomes a hard read, so in all good conscience I cannot support it as the "best" Wikipedia has to offer. --khaosworks 21:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object (withdrawn, see below). Where to start? Resubmitting this article doesn't change what it is and must always be. Some good work has gone into it, but it's still fancruft. I can tolerate it in the encyclopedia but I don't want it on the main page. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't want it on the main page" is purely inactionable. And thank you for "tolerating" it, but your personal views on articles are not a basis for denying one as a featured article. -Husnock 00:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marking an FA so that it never is put on the Main Page is completely actionable. Wikipedia is thus marked and this article, if it passes, will almost certainly also be thus marked. --mav 14:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But the fancruft objection is fundamental inactionable, no? Notwithstanding the issues involving resubmission, articles are supposed to be reviewed here for "style, prose, completeness, accuracy and neutrality." I think this article is outstanding in a large number of those categories, which is why I supported, even though it relates to a specific fictional universe. Will you reconsider your objection and present one that is more actionable? I would like to think that all articles in Wikipedia could be brought to FA status given enough investment in time and talent into them. Why exclude any given category of article if it is a well-done work? -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably it is inactionable, but what can I say? Those are the grounds on which I object. In the interests of civility and good relations, I could offer some more constructive criticism, but this would probably just be a rehash of what others have said: conjectural ranks, nothing much to connect the hermetically sealed fictional universe described with the real world, excessive distracting and irrelevant screenshots, etc. For the record, it doesn't seem to display properly in my browser either (Firefox, Windows XP, 1024x768). "Why exclude any given category of article if it is a well-done work?" Well, call me an elitist, but I don't subscribe to this view of the featured article system. For an article to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" I think it should be about a 'serious' topic. What constitutes a serious topic of course relies on subjective judgments, but in my opinion a collection of made-up details about what is already a fictional topic does not qualify. We have already had to endure Dawson's Creek on the main page today. I think we can tolerate the presence of fancruft (up to a point), but we shouldn't be showcasing it to the world as the best we have to offer. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A direct quote for the criteria for Featured article candidates: "If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page". Why object when you know it is inactionable? -Husnock 01:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calling an objection inactionable allows it to be thrown out on a technicality. You can go ahead and ignore my objection (although note that I did also make some actionable criticisms), but this just dodges the question of whether the article is really suitable for featured status. My objection stands, even if you choose to disregard it when tallying up the votes. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zscout370 asked me on my talk page what I considered to be a serious topic. I think just about every article on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2005 qualifies, with the possible exception of Dalek and Dawson's Creek, although both of those have a greater claim to eligibility than this one. If this article was about Star Trek as a whole I would probably consider it eligible, but it's actually about a minor aspect of Star Trek, padded out with fan conjecture. Which particular articles I consider featurable is my personal opinion and is not really relevant to the question of how Wikipedia should conduct its FAC process. I am more interested in establishing the convention that not every article is entitled to be featured, however well-written it might be. It seems a little odd to me that while we take into account an article's content and argue furiously over how best to format references etc., we're unable to question the subject matter because such complaints are not actionable. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular articles I consider featurable is my personal opinion and is not really relevant to the question of how Wikipedia should conduct its FAC process. This makes no sense. It's akin to saying "Which particular people I consider eligible to vote is my personal opinion and is not really relevant to the laws applicable in my country". If you want to discuss fancruft on FAC in general, please join the discussion here, though. Phils 10:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is thorough, well-researched, and extremely informative. In my opinion, it meets all the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Featured article status should be based on the quality of the article, not one's opinion of the subject matter. I understand the concerns over triviality of this topic; however, I feel that a high-quality article merits feature status even if one does not find the topic interesting. There also seems to be some confusion between featured articles and those featured on the Main Page. While all articles featured on the Main Page must be featured articles, the converse is not true: not all featured articles will be featured on the Main Page. I agree that this article is probably not the best candidate for the Main Page, and I would support marking it not to appear on the Main Page, but dislike for the article's topic is clearly not an appropriate objection to featured status itself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I don't understand the relationship between the "conjectured" and "N/A" texts in the boxes. They both seem to go where insignia should, in which case I don't see what's being conjectured (or by whom). And Admiral Morrow is overlapping with text. Mark1 05:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first few tables show that the rank that was actually used or witnessed on various ST programs/movies. Conjectured ranks will be shown below, though I do wish if we provide a link to the bottom. The N/A shows that we do not have it, or it was not used. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has just been fixed. -Husnock 23:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I believe this article to be in breach of criterion 6 on Wikipedia:What is a featured article; the headshots and lists of names of characters to hold certain ranks, as well of the inclusion of conjectural ranks that cannot be verified meet my definition of too much detail. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • After discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates I withdraw my previous inactionable objection, offer my apologies if commenting on broader questions of the FAC process was inappropriate here, and object on the grounds that the article describes in more detail than is sensible the intricacies of a fantasy world constructed by some fans around a fairly two-dimensional work of fiction. It is not appropriate to go into vast amounts of detail on a topic like this, where fans have filled in the gaps, and the article spends its time talking about a conjectured system, much of which never existed in the original fictional work. Also, it doesn't render properly in my browser, and my set-up is in no way unsual. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional object. Some of the headshots should not be included because they don't relate to the subject. For example, a picture of the first lieutenant commander to appear in Star Trek is appropriate, whereas a picture of an ordinary admiral is not. Other than that, while I personally find the topic dull and uninteresting, I think the article is written well enough to be included as an FA, and my personal tastes are irrelevant. --Scimitar 18:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. As it stands this article is too long and is over-illustrated (specifically, the number of headshots is too high). I have no problems with the topic, even though I do not find it particularly interesting. --Theo (Talk) 18:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Leaving aside the question of self-indulgence/hermetic isolation, and judging the article in its own terms (which is difficult) it appears to have areas for improvement, but no more than other featured article candidates, and these are being addressed by an activist editor. It is hard to avoid the impression that it is currently written under the assumption that the reader is already familiar with Startrek, and its terminology (compared with the British Army officer rank insignia article for example). A non-expert (like me) will probably be confused by the article because they lack the assumed knowledge; for instance, the "Officer rank information" section appears to be self-contradictory to the uninitiated: It says that "Other than Louvois... no other staff officers have ever appeared in Star Trek as Captains", but in the feature film section says: "Spock and Montgomery Scott who were both promoted from Commander to Captain" appeared (and functioned as staff officers). Does this mean that in Trek-lore "Star Trek" means only the TV-series? Or that Spock & Scott are only conjectured to be Captains? For this page to break out of its ghetto it must be written for non-experts (i.e. fans). I hope that if this is written for the general reader it will become a featured article, but presently it reads very much like an inter-fan discussion. One thing which isn't clear to the outsider is how the various types of source material stand in relation to each other: The page says that something is "pure theorizing", which presumably means it is unauthorized fan comment, but since the entire premise of Startrek is speculative, wouldn't this describe everything in the article? Wragge 19:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It is really hard for anyone with at least a passing familiarity with Star Trek to take a step back and judge this on its merits, but I bet if you showed it to someone who'd never seen or even heard of Star Trek before, they would be totally lost by it. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is my biggest problem with the article. Approaching it from the viewpoint of a fan, it is mildly interesting, but from the viewpoint of a non-fan, my eyes start to glaze over just from the introduction. There is just nothing here to clearly tell the reader why all this is significant. At least Dalek tried to relate to the real world - I would never nominate any of the companions-related articles for FAC, for example, precisely because while they provide information, they just aren't major enough (and probably will never be) to become an FA. --khaosworks 01:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support on the condition that it does not appear on the Main Page —thames 19:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: Major revisions to the article have included a massive cutback on pictures and the removal of all conjectural and alternate ranks to a separate article. Also, I have removed the phrase "some publications" from the entire article, replacing it with which specific book, mnual, or group of such manuals. I ask that objections based on these issues be reviewed by the posters and, if corrected, withdrawn. -Husnock 23:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I am concerned about the following paragraph in the introduction: Starfleet ranks and titles have evolved through both live action productions, official publications, and the fanon of the Star Trek Expanded Universe. The most official ranks established are those which appear in Star Trek films and television productions, with ranks appearing in publications from Star Trek producers considered “secondary”, but nevertheless still officially established Starfleet titles. The least official of all ranks are those which appear in Star Trek fan literature, such as magazines and websites published by private persons with little or no affiliation with the Star Trek series. Such ranks are considered conjecture, yet occasionally may find their way into semi-official Star Trek sources (an example being the rank of Branch Admiral).
Now, I know what you're trying to say, but I'm afraid that a non-fan may become quite confused. What does it mean to be "least official", "semi-official" and "most official"? What are "secondary" publications? Needs to be more clearly written, and licensed sources, on-screen sources, fan sources need to be distinguished and the hierarchy more laid out (or a reference to some other article that discusses "Star Trek canon"). This is not my only concern - just the one that leaped out at me the moment I started reading the article. By the way, I don't know if it's been mentioned, as this article gone through peer review? --khaosworks 00:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The opening was much more detailed answering those very points but, in response to an objection above, was shortened to three paragraphs. The explanation of were the ranks are mentioned, sources, and the conjectural question is the body of the article. -Husnock 01:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, shortening it has not improved clarity. Perhaps you could break up the introduction by putting ina heading that does discuss sources. --khaosworks 01:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
It looks as though Husnock is working hard to improve the article, and respond to the critics here; I would have liked to withdraw my objection, but I find that the text has mostly been re-organized rather than completely clarified for the non-fan. Thereore, I have to reiterate my incomprehension: How many staff officers have appeared in "StarTrek" as captains? Is it one as the Captain section says, or three as given in the Commander section? Re-reading this, I think the confusion is partly my fault, as the first section probably means Captain in the sense of "ultimate onboard authority", and the second "holding the rank: Captain". To an outsider, the most interesting aspect of the article is the way Gene Roddenberry's originally egalitarian vision was compromised through the series into a very hierarchical command structure with visual differentiations in uniform, and the development of Enlisted ranks. That's sociologically quite interesting, and could be a way to develop the article into something even Xiong could approve of. However, my objection must stand for the time being, because I think the article still depends too heavily on an assumed level of fan knowledge. Wragge 17:40, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
The lack of a "real world" aspect to this is a very valid point and one of the legitimate reasons this isnt a Featured Article I am actually going to try and add some things about the real people who invented the insignia such as William Ware Thesis. -Husnock 01:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's good news - I was worred that you'd been discouraged by all of the negative feedback. That would be a shame as I think your perseverance is close to paying off. Wragge 02:17, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  • Support. The latest changes address my objections. --Theo (Talk) 16:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:Yes, I have to admit, I see improvement here. The article -- from a purely technical standpoint -- has reached an impressive level. Now, here is what might be done to pass for an encyclopedic article:
Reorganize the presentation around something real. The current structure is built around the ranks themselves; that is, fleet ranks, officer ranks, enlisted ranks. This is a castle built on sand, because the ranks themselves are not only fictitious, they have never been taken seriously by the producers. Each new film or show brought a new version of every rank, each version unrelated to earlier ones. It's important to remember that these insignia are simply costume accessories -- ways to dress up actors. It's much more important to producers that a new film looks new than that there be any self-consistent explanation for the look.
It's all superficial. There is nothing to stop a scriptwriter from creating a character for one show holding the rank of Biologist Major (acting), without making any real effort to tie this into any overall structure. Perhaps the effort that Trek producers have made to be consistent is laudable; other shows just don't bother -- but it's misleading. Trek producers, scriptwriters, and costume designers as a body doubtless have a less complete reference on this topic than this page. It's not that they couldn't assemble such; it's that they just don't care that much.
One route out of the ghetto for this article might be to reorganize it around Real World production dates. The show began in 1966, when America was embroiled in the Vietnam War. This polarized the nation (and the world) and Star Trek may be viewed as a reaction -- utopian, eglitarian, a military vessel on a scientific mission. ("Set phasers to stun.") In this context, the piano insignia appears to comment on the real war of the time.
Later on, note that Wrath of Khan appeared during the saber-rattling Reagan years -- and presto!, the uniforms were made much more bold and militaristic to appeal to contemporary viewers. Recent series have been produced against the backdrop of the endless war over oil; insignia have become weary-looking, as has public support for the war.
Tie Trek ranks and insignia to those of real military arms. To what extent have film and series designers drawn on US and European models? Why? Have producers and designers commented? Caution against original research, but I daresay with enough digging, primary research into the topic can be uncovered.
Minimize the compulsive need to display every insignia; this is a sure sign of cruft, the obsession with the complete set. But if you've seen one shoulder board with a couple of gold buttons on it, you've seen them all. A more interesting question is Why are the buttons gold today? Why were they square silver blocks yesterday? Who made the change? Can names and perhaps headshots not be shown of the real people who designed these insignia?
Caution against fictional-universe explanations. The 24th Century has not happened yet. All of these bits of cloth, metal, and plastic were sewn in a sweatshop or stamped out in a Third World factory right in our own time. Who makes these insignia? Do fans buy theirs from the same manufacturers as the official producers? I'd be very impressed with a photo of a dozen Malaysian teenagers sitting around a table banging out Trek insignia for affluent Westerners to wear to their next con. I'd be even more impressed with an interview with one of these workers. What do they think about this topic? What other insignia do they make in the same shop? What is the process?
Can Trek insignia be related to those of similar shows? Did George Lucas take them into account? What about derivative or parody appearances -- feature films, say, in which some character wears a Trek costume to a prom? Has an elected official ever been seen wearing Trek rank insignia? (It's not beyond possibility in the weird world of politics.) Many spoofs and send-ups of Trek and Star Wars have been produced -- to what extent were the insignia copied?
Star Trek was not the first space adventure series. Buck Rogers came out in 1929; I don't know if any rank insignia were ever worn by a character in the 1939 serial films. To what extent may this have influenced Trek producers?
My comments, relentless and unwelcome though they may be, all come back to the same point: Tie the topic to the Real World. Only then can the page become an encyclopedic article on a notable topic. Even I will grant it's only a short step from that to FA. — Xiong熊talk* 05:32, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
I am subdued by the very good points and civil nature with which this was presented. It seems that the potion wore off and Hyde Xiong has been replaced with Jeckell Xiong. Very, very valid points. The way the unforms changed for the feature films is a very interesting topic as yes, in was in 1982, when the military was on the rise as defenders in the Cold War.
I have limite dinfo on where these insignia come from except for knowledge of one company called Hollywood Pins which supplied some rank badges for Star Trek VI. The man who invented all Star trek rank, William War Thesis could almost deserve his own article. I will have the research it.
So, thanks for the very valid and noteworthy comments. They will be taken seriously and take away almost all the bad things I said about you behind your back! -Husnock 17:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Starfleet_ranks_and_insignia/Archive_1&oldid=1138472164"