FANDOM


m (clean up)
m (Able seaman's pin)
Line 179: Line 179:
   
 
===Able seaman's pin===
 
===Able seaman's pin===
[[File:Fletcher1.jpg|thumb|]]
+
[[File:Robert Fletcher's enlisted rank pin chart.jpg|thumb|]]
 
Per the above concerns, the following sentence was removed until a hardcore source can be found. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 
Per the above concerns, the following sentence was removed until a hardcore source can be found. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
   
Line 203: Line 203:
 
::: First of all, in response to Mr. Bartel, in terms of "on-screen evidence", I also don't doubt that the insignia in question didn't appear on someone somewhere on screen. Based on [http://startrekpropcollector.com/trekauctions/search?t=seaman&st=1&sc=1&sp=1&sch=1&se=1&ss=1&so=1 stala auction listings] alone, there were more than a dozen of these insignia in circulation.
 
::: First of all, in response to Mr. Bartel, in terms of "on-screen evidence", I also don't doubt that the insignia in question didn't appear on someone somewhere on screen. Based on [http://startrekpropcollector.com/trekauctions/search?t=seaman&st=1&sc=1&sp=1&sch=1&se=1&ss=1&so=1 stala auction listings] alone, there were more than a dozen of these insignia in circulation.
 
::: In response to the rest, and this is taking the "safe route", if (or since) the term exists in the big picture, even if only as a background (or costume tag) note, then there should be no problem in mentioning it with [[able seaman|a legitimate link]]. This seems entirely appropriate, using the already established "lump approach", seeing as "{{w|Able Seaman (rank)|able seaman}}" essentially boils down to what we recognize as the "[[crewman]]" rank, therefore, the creation of [[able seaman|a link for it]] would be no different than our current approach of linking similar sister/cousin ranks/terms (both mentioned and unmentioned) to "crewman," such as: [[Able seaman|Ables'man]] (as implied by being '''[[crewman|in bold]]'''), [[Able crewman]], [[Crewman third class]], [[Crewman second class]], and [[Crewman first class]].
 
::: In response to the rest, and this is taking the "safe route", if (or since) the term exists in the big picture, even if only as a background (or costume tag) note, then there should be no problem in mentioning it with [[able seaman|a legitimate link]]. This seems entirely appropriate, using the already established "lump approach", seeing as "{{w|Able Seaman (rank)|able seaman}}" essentially boils down to what we recognize as the "[[crewman]]" rank, therefore, the creation of [[able seaman|a link for it]] would be no different than our current approach of linking similar sister/cousin ranks/terms (both mentioned and unmentioned) to "crewman," such as: [[Able seaman|Ables'man]] (as implied by being '''[[crewman|in bold]]'''), [[Able crewman]], [[Crewman third class]], [[Crewman second class]], and [[Crewman first class]].
::: Consequently, the creation of [[able seaman|said link]] doesn't "make it canon", or even mean it is correct terminology, it just means that it's yet another [[Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects|useful redirect]] that can be explained on the "[[Crewman|mother page]]" in the "[[Crewman#Background|aw crap]]" section of the article explaining Fletcher's original outline, where and how it fitted in then, and where and how it fits in today. Hence, the term is recognized, explained and still not "forced" into canon.
+
::: Consequently, the creation of [[able seaman|said link]] doesn't "make it canon", or even mean it is correct terminology, it just means that it's yet another [[Help:Redirect|useful redirect]] that can be explained on the "[[Crewman|mother page]]" in the "[[Crewman#Background|aw crap]]" section of the article explaining Fletcher's original outline, where and how it fitted in then, and where and how it fits in today. Hence, the term is recognized, explained and still not "forced" into canon.
 
::: In terms of the "canon" recognition of the [[:File:Mov crew.png|crewman rank insignia]] (which I guess is *now* "really" the able seaman rank insignia) posted on the crewman page (and elsewhere), if need be, that can be tossed to the "aw crap" section too. So, while this isn't the climatic response I'm sure we were aiming for in this discussion, it is the easiest resolution without giving way to one side or the other: either ignoring it or recognizing it as canon. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 
::: In terms of the "canon" recognition of the [[:File:Mov crew.png|crewman rank insignia]] (which I guess is *now* "really" the able seaman rank insignia) posted on the crewman page (and elsewhere), if need be, that can be tossed to the "aw crap" section too. So, while this isn't the climatic response I'm sure we were aiming for in this discussion, it is the easiest resolution without giving way to one side or the other: either ignoring it or recognizing it as canon. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 
I think redirecting [[Able seaman]] to [[Crewman]], and then adding abackground notes about Fletcher's costume notes would be the best course. Thank you everyone for inputing to this issue. A great example of the community working together. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 
I think redirecting [[Able seaman]] to [[Crewman]], and then adding abackground notes about Fletcher's costume notes would be the best course. Thank you everyone for inputing to this issue. A great example of the community working together. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:01, May 29, 2020

TMP Lt. J.G.

In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the new uniform scheme was supposedly created leaving out lieutenant junior grade, and the former LTJG stripe was used on an officer referred to as an ensign in dialogue. but there were also ensigns without the broken stripe insignia, meaning that referring to the officer with the LTJG insignia as ensign was simply a dialogue mistake, and this shouldn't (in my opinion) be misconstrued as evidence that Starfleet just kind of 'misplaced' that rank for a few years and then reinstated it a few years later for the ST:2 uniforms. --Captain Mike K. Bartel

Yep, there's a production memo by Jon Povill in "The Making of TMP" which nails down the rank scheme for TMP. There is indeed no Lt. JG. He probably made the same mistake as did Okuda in the Encyclopedia by assuming that there is no Lt. JG rank because it wasn't used on TOS not knowing that in fact it was used in "The Naked Now".
All those Yeomen, Specialists and Technicians are just Petty Officers. It's a combination between work description and enlisted rate. A Yeoman third class like Tina Lawton is a Petty Officer 3c who works as a yeoman. A Technician first class like Harrison is a PO 1c who works as a technician. A Chief Yeoman would be a Chief Petty Officer who works as a yeomaon, and so on...The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.46.68.33 (talk).

Warrant Officer

Questioning the canon of this. | THOR 08:54, 5 Dec 2004 (CET)

Yeah, I second that. The ranks section in the Encylcopedia is one big mess-up and far from reliable. They managed to put at least 10 errors on only three pages. O'Brien wore the black pip and referred to himself as Senior Chief Specialist. | --62.178.60.233 06:11, 6 Dec 2004 (CET)
I myself find the inclusion questionable, but the Encyclopedia reference indicated it was an intention of the creative staff, even if just the art department, that the fleet have warrant officers. There is only one conjectural situation yet to be mentioned, Kosinski who wore a rectangle with a dark square and a silver square (similar to a US warrant bar) and seemed to be a specialist outside of the command structure, yet with officer priveliges. there are a few other pages that discuss this, so i've left it for now. I find it satisfactory, now, especiaaly that the article contains a reference that O'Brien was definitiely not a WO since we have two canon rank references that differ (CPO, then Senior chief), and the fact that the Voyager pip was seen worn by all Maquis enlisted officers, crewmen and specialists, never a warrant officer-type character
I also find it satisfactory that the body of the article simply defines the term, it rightfully doesnt speculate whether Starfleet uses this or not-- we don't know that. The background info clearly states that this has never been referenced in dialogue, its a backstage reference. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:15, 6 Dec 2004 (CET)
I'm not convinced that the Encylopedia mirrors the art department's original intentions. --62.178.60.233 16:23, 6 Dec 2004 (CET)
That's why I think its one of the strengths of this article that it is no reference to there actually being any such thing as a "Starfleet warrant officer." This article is mainly to correlate a number of other background references on this site, not to promote speculation as to a non-canon Starfleet position. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
I concur that the article is pretty much accurate, and probably harmless to canon. A point of perspective, which I think Roddenberry, Jeffries and other veterans will understand. Between the non-commissioned ranks (Petty Officer, Chief Petty Officer -- called "Chief" -- etc), is a form of officer, the Chief Warrant Officer. Unlike commissioned officers, CWOs (or as their called, "cee double-u oh's") are appointed to their rank via testing and application. At least in some services, CWOs have specialties, e.g. COMMS, ELECTRONICS, SUPPLY, etc. The collar insignia reflect this (one collar has the rank, the other has the specialty). Applicants for appointment have to be CPO or higher. In some services, once you've been a CWO, you can converted to a commission and be promoted to LT.
(Conjecture follows) So related to the Kosinski character, it's not unlikely that some subject matter specialist could be given a temporary appointment to CWO for a specific mission. Why? It would grant such a person a status in Star Fleet, authority and access to systems and resources, maybe even some "credits" (pay) and privileges at the Star Fleet commissaries. ;) -- Kojirovance 22:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosinski

  • It has been speculated that Kosinski may have been given the position of "warrant officer" due to the nature of his warp drive experiments which would require some command over starship engineering personnel. His highly disrespectful attitude towards commissioned officers has led many fans to believe that he was a civilian granted his rank due to the nature of his assignment and not a regular Starfleet member.

"It has been speculated" by whom? And who are these "many fans"? Frankly, I'm opposed to any type of "many fans think," "many fans believe" or "many fans wished" type of phrasing, so I've removed this unless someone has a concrete reason to put it back. Even the discussion above implies it's nothing but conjecture. - Bridge 05:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When the episode came out in 87/88 it was in several magazines, such as Starlog which is where I remember reading it. Its also been in numerous Pocket Books novels (at least two or three). I've also heard (but I dont know that this is true), that he was referenced in the script as "Warrant Officer Kosinski". I think its been around enough to warrant (no pun intended) being in the article. -FleetCaptain 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to add its also been mentioned just as much that his insignia was that of a provisional officer, a predecessor to the rank insignia seen in Voyager. An article could be started on this, I feel, to sort it all out. -FleetCaptain 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

As much as I like this article, it's a very sad truth that this rank actually isn't mentioned anywhere in canon. The background notes, though, and very good and should be kept. I propose making this a redirect to Starfleet ranks and having a section within that article that explains the existence (albeit non-canon) of this rank. -FleetCaptain 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree that it is too well done an article to simply delete it despite it being mostly non-canon. The background portion should be kept somewhere.--31dot 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportCleanse 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fleet Captain

Garth is not proof of the RANK of Fleet Captain, only proof that the position exists. Let's be consistent, folks. Every other article on this site agrees: Fleet Captain is a title, not a rank. This is true in both fictional and non-fictional militaries. --Frank NX-01

Fleet Captain Garth, for the person asking for proof of the rank of Fleet Captain --TOSrules 06:42, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The rank of Fleet Captain was seen once in an episode of TNG when Picard was called away from the ship for a short time and a Fleet Captain took over for his position. It was an older man and he wore 5 gold pips indicating the rank.
No, it wasn't. If you're the only one who remembers such an event in a universe thats scrutinized more so than our own...perhaps...but people notice the color scheme irregularities in the LCARs. If you're talking about when Edward Jellico took command, you're mistaken...as he was a Captain with Captain pips. That was the only time someone else (outside of a Captain Riker) was officially in command of the Enterprise. Squiggyfm 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That Fleet Captain pin should be removed. It's totally non-canon. It was created by Shane Johnson and was originally intended to be a Commodore pin. Further, on this wiki's page for fleet captain, it clearly says that it's a position, and not a rank. Some consistency is needed. The provisional Lt. pin was worn by Torres until TPTB retconned her rank to Lt. JG. And Seska, while referred to as Ensign, wore a black pip like all other Maquis with the exception of Chakotay, Torres, and possibly Ayala (not sure on him). The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.46.68.33 (talk).
Considering the changes from admiral to fleet admiral (2360s era version) (an extra sphere) i have made a fleet captain pin for that era, if anyone is interested i uploaded it at [[1]]. i have decided not to upload it to memory-alpha because i am not sure it would be suitable in any articles here. However, if a starfleet-captain insignia did exist in the mentioned era, it is probable that it would be the image i linked to. I made this image by editing the captain pin on the memory alpha page for that era, so if anyone does decide to upload it on memory-alpha, you have my permission and it is entirel legal, meeting copyright-law requirements. The image background is entirely background (which took significant program searching then editing on my part). I am using this image on a project of my own (separate from memory-alpha), so if anyone is curious for such an image you are free to use it for whatever you want. Regards, Tresmius 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We can and will never include it here on Memory Alpha because it is non-canon. --Jörg 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the non-canon part, and i was expecting someone would post within 5 minutes stating that, but my post was merely informing, and that if it did exist it would look like this, and if anyone wishes to use it in external projects they may, thanks. Tresmius 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy promotion?

"Naval tradition dictates that there may only be one "captain" aboard ship; a visiting captain may receive a courtesy promotion to the rank of Commodore. Is there any evidence that this carries over to Starfleet? I suspect that it does, but I don't have a specific reference handy." The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.193.172.114 (talk).

Aboard United States Aircraft Carriers (from my Step-uncle who was a Master Chief Petty Officer) there was a Captain who was the Chief Executive Officer, A Captain who commanded the Air Group. A Captain who was the Chief Engineering Officer, A Captain who was in charge of all Communications, And the Senior Executive Officer of the ship was a Rear Admiral. And also on the same carrier, was a Vice Admiral who was in command of the Task Force. He said having two or three people with the Rank of Captain on a ship as large as a Carrier is not un-common. The typical pattern for this is that the Senior Executive, Chief Executive, and Flight Officer hold the rank of Captain. Sometimes the Chief Engineer also had the rank of Captain as well. He also said that a few Rear Admirals were in command of a Single Carrier. --Time Travler 4:04 United States Central Standard Time.
Just a few comments: First, while it's entirely non-canon, Diane Duane's novel Spock's World mentions the courtesy issue (almost word-for-word with the above post). Secondly, these comments allow me to mention the line in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock when Scotty is told he's being promoted to "Captain of Engineering" for the Excelsior... this may have been the promotion that is the reason he is Captain Scott in TNG: "Relics". (I don't recall what his rank insignia was in ST5, but I didn't see him wearing any obvious rank insignia at all in ST6.). Third(ly), on naval vessels, the commanding officer of a vessel, regardless of his/her actual rank, is typically addressed as "captain" while in command of the vessel. This is in part due to the nature of the term "captain" as both a rank and a position. -- umrguy42 09:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Scotty wore captain's rank insignia in every movie after Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, although he would switch back and forth from his yellow engineer's shirt to his white command shirt. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:00, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
There was an episode of Voyager where another Starfleet vessel was encountered in the Delta Quadrant. During the episode, the two captains are on board Voyager when Janeway quotes Starfleet regulations saying that if two captains are on one ship, the commanding officer of that ship holds superior rank. This would seem to go against the "courtesy promotion" idea where the "Commodore" would seem to outrank the Captain.
Not really. No one's rank has changed. 'Courtesy promotion' comes from the idea that there should be only one person on the ship who is addressed by the crew as "captain" and that person is the commanding officer of the ship. The commanding officer of a ship has the position of "captain" regardless of actual rank. He/she could hold the rank of captain, lieutenant, admiral, whatever. A courtesy promotion means that the crew addresses another naval captain as "commodore." An Army or Marine captain would be addressed as "major." The title would only be used while the second captain was on the ship. As it's a traditional courtesy, it might be one of those things only a very formal or traditional captain might expect of his crew. I don't know if it was ever shown. – StarFire209 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Valeris' rank insignia

Valeris is listed here as a lieutenant, and is addressed as such in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, yet in the picture in her article, she is clearly wearing what is shown in this article as Lt. Cmdr's insignia. I was just wondering if there was an inconsistency somewhere... -- umrguy42 09:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Valeris was a whole set of uniform errors, she wore a science officer's shoulder strap, a cadet's turtleneck, command officer's trousers and a lieutenant commander's insignia. We better stick to what was the intention in the screenplay -- Kobi - (Talk) 11:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I assumed it was probably an error on the part of the filmmakers, especially given all the inconsistencies surrounding the Cadet/Lieutenant issue of Saavik --umrguy42 11:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any real inconsistency there -- she was an undergraduate officer who had a cadet rank of lieutenant junior grade, as denoted by her cadet division color and her ltjg insignia - this is consistent with Kirk being a Cadet Lieutenant also, when mentioned in TOS. The only oddity with Saavik is they meant for her to wear a gray science officer tab on her command division color in STIII, after she was already graduated -- so that's not a cadet issue, she is just an officer who ended up wearing a different division color while working in the science position -- something many officers have done before. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeoman

Shouldn't Yeoman be listed on the main rank page?

Yeoman isn't a rank -- its a title. Try reading Yeoman. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:13, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
And the Yeoman page starts off "Yeoman is a title, and a rank." ;) --IanWatson 16:27, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Pip skipping..

Anyone else notice a pip skip between Commander and Captain? most other ranks go * *o ** **o ***, with an empty pip every other rank, but there's no ***o between captain and commander. Anyone know if there was ever a rank there?

There was never one mentioned, nor was there ever one designed. It just goes from commander to captain with nothing in between. I think it's the same way with the naval ranking system. --From Andoria with Love 04:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
One thing I find fascinating is the complete lack of rank pip for Lt. Commander in the 22nd century. --AC84 09:00, 23 October 2006 (PST)

22nd century crewmen ranks

Considering that Crewman Fletcher wore no rank insignia, but all three of the other rank insignia have been confirmed as crewmen insignia, is it possible that the Earth Starfleet has four crewman grades? Or was the one-slash insignia worn by Daniels simply a disguise and does the Earth Starfleet follow the USN system? I'm trying to resolve this debate over at STEU, and any help would be most appreciated. --Kevin W. 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniels was a crewman third class, so it is possible that Fletcher was a fourth class of crewman, a midshipman, or a warrant officer. It's also just as likely that Fletcher forgot to wear his rank insignia that day. :P --From Andoria with Love 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the script specifies Fletcher as a crewman, so I guess he's a crewman fourth class... or, like I said, maybe he neglected to wear his rank pips. Who knows with them Starfleet folk. --From Andoria with Love 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Petty Officer insignia

Tng po1

I photoshopped the most logical insignia for the lower Petty Officers. It's obviously conjectural but it may be better than just having broken image links. Here's an example. -Cory 06:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have no image links at all than either "conjectural" or broken links. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's a preference I think most (if not all) on MA share; conjecture is either non-canon or fanon, neither of which is permitted on MA. In this case, the image is fanon. Unless, of course, the design turns out to be what was used on-screen. But were these insignia used on-screen? With the exception of Chief O'Brien's CPO insignia, I don't think we saw rank designs for petty officers. --From Andoria with Love 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, time for my comments.
  1. I made these insignia specifically to take on a "no commercial reuse, no reuse or alteration without attribution" policy for this site, so these newest insignia fall under that same permission, with myself and the alterer both listed as authors. No harm, no foul, just getting that out of the way.
  2. The reason I have "scaled back" my efforts and left those links broken are because there are numerous alternate ideas that are possible when you start providing informed speculation. For example, there are different versions out there and, since we only honor the canon episodes and their production materials, we are trying to avoid the more speculative insignia.
    • suggestion: singling out insignia not seen onscreen, but citing the existence of insignia referenced in licensed publications. For example -- the fleet captain pins from numerous technical manuals could be referenced here, but not illustrated in the main table of ranks. This would allow us to avoid devising our own "likeliest guess" of what an uprecedented insignia would look like. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Some time later now, it appears that another discussion has allowed the addition of a fleet captain insignia to the database. Is it possible to use some variation of the "appear" class to 'hide' all of the non-canon and conjectural insignia that are currently part of this table. Some are so elementary, they are almost taken as a given, but they still leave us with questions, and I think it would best to have them "hidden" when the page loads so as not to give readers the impression all these are canon, but to enable them to click and see the off-screen graphics. -- Captain MKB 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rear Admiral and Commodore

As we know, the rank of Commodore is not mentioned in TNG and later. This probably results in the Fact, that the US Navy phased out this rank and replaced it with Rear Admiral Lower Half. But there is no mentioning or on-screen evidence for RAdm Lower Half either. And as I recall we neither saw the 1-Pip Admiral (TNG s3+) nor the 5-pip Admiral. I think its a pretty fair assumption, that the 1-pip insignia exists, but does the 5-pip insignia exist? Whats the source? In the TOS aera, Commodore was a Flag Officer and in the first movie, it has three stripes suggesting that it is something like a senior Captain. In my opinion, there are two possibile scenarios (in both, the Commodore exists):

1. Neither the 1-pip Admiral nor the Commodore were mentioned in TNG 3+, so I assume, that the 1-pip Admiral is in fact a Commodore. The two 0-pip Admirals seen in the early TNG and refered to as "Admiral" would be one more uniform/rank error.

2. (my favorite) Neither the 1-pip nor the 5-pip Admiral were mentioned or seen. With scenario #1 in mind, the TNG 1-2 flag officer ranks suggest that Commodore has the fancy line and no pips, Rear Admiral has 1,..., Fleet Admiral has 4. Keeping this pip configuration would meen that there is no 5-pip insignia in the 2370s. Fleet Admiral is the highest rank with 4 (like Admiral Paris), Rear Admiral has 1 pip. That leaves the Commodore. As a senior Captain he might have the Captain's pips with the underline (like Sloan).

I think it makes sense that Starfleet keeps the rank of Commodore as senior Captain because the CO of a task group (i.g. carrier group) is in the US Navy an Rear Admiral Lower Half who is not aboard one of the vessels. Thats quite alright because there is always communication between the group and the CO. But in Star Trek it is possible that this taks group operates in deep space or somewhere else where direct and real time communication is not guaranteed. So it would be wise to place the CO on one of the vessels (and naming him/her Commodore). And one thought to the rank of Fleet Captain: I think its not a real rank, its a temporary position for the duration of a mission. As Janeway stated, the command goes to the Captain with the superior vessel. But in various DS9 episodes, Sisko commanded a fleet despite the Fact that the Defiant is not superior the the Galaxy class for example. So Sikso could receive a promotion to Fleet Captain for the duration of a mission ensuring his superiority over the other Captains and even possibly Commodores.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.179.200.42 (talk).-- Rom Ulan 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Skipping Ensign

Maybe I am on the wrong page, but I was sure the was references to cadets that had preformed well in Starfleet Academy could have either graduated in three years, or receive the rank of Lieutenant junior grade thus skipping the rank of Ensign, am I wrong or was this in fact previously posted on this page, but removed as there was no source?--Terran Officer 13:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That has never actually been stated by is long assumed to be the reason why Kirk was a full Lieutenant "from the day he left the Academy" and also why Saavik was in her command training, while still a cadet, holding the rank of Lieutenant J.G. In the real U.S. Navy, upon which Starfleet is based, no such animal exists with the only time midshipman graduate din three years being during the Second World War. -FleetCaptain 14:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Earth/Federation Starfleet Ranks

This is something I am curious about, Memory Alpha considers Earth Starfleet and Federation Starfleet to be separate (I personally, have mixed feelings on this ><). With that said then, how come the ranks for both organizations are written on one page? The mirror universe starfleet is on a differnt page. I'm curious because this article in places seem to indicate that they are one in the same. Perhaps they should be on differnt pages, or a mention in the discussion of the individual ranks (example, Lieutenant Commander) of how Earth Starfleet may, or may not have used it. --Terran Officer 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A Major Purge is Probably Coming

The recent deletion of the Voyager provisional commander insignia has got me thinking about how we have been dancing around the thin ice about this issue of "implied ranks"; i.e. higher ranks and ranks in the middle of the tier that we dont actually ever see on camera. With that said, I think we need to have a major purge of this article and perhaps even rewrite the whole thing. At a glance, TOS series ranks are guessing about rear admiral and admiral...the only admiral rank we ever see is in The Trouble with Tribbles and it has been widely assumed he was a Vice Admiral but on camera was only called "Admiral". Likewise for all of the Motion Picture admiral ranks above Rear Admiral...and even Commodore is uncertian in the Motion Picture timeframe (although we hear a Commodore mentioned on a radio braodcast)...we are simply guessing since we never see these on camera. Then we get to TNG...I have studied very closely my Season 1 TNG DVD and have come to inescapable conclusion that in the first season the pips on the unifomrs were SILVER, not gold. They appear to have only switched to gold in the second season. The Admiral ranks in TNG and later time frames are another kicker since we never have seen a five star admiral yet it is on all the charts. As for Enterprise, a hangup there is that Forrest has always been called a Vice Admiral in our articles but like his TOS counterpart we are only assuming he was a Vice Admiral but in fact on camera he was called simply an Admiral. I am going out of town for a few weeks so that will give folks a chance to chime in with opinions before a major change is made to this article. -FC 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First re-write

I have begun the grand re-write of this article with the main intention to give more history of the insignia and expand the background section. I also want to weed out the numerous non-canon insignias such as TOS admiral ranks and the five star pips which have never been seen in a live action production.

For those who were fans of these insignia, don't worry, they will be readded (including the pictures) in a special background section about insignia implied but not seen on screen.

I also ask a favor of whoever can do this to remove the deputy director insignia and the Voyager provisional insignia (one of which is now deleted) from the line officer comparative rank table. I have tried to do this but mess the table up everytime due to the column script which I dont completely understand. I will make a separate section for provisional insignia and address deputy director in a section about titles versus ranks. -FC 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Provisional insignia

It would of great help if someone removed these from the new "comparative rank table" and made them into thier own section. I've tried it four times and only succeed in messing up the spacing on the table. We also need Deputy Director taken out since, after the debate about this a few months ago, everyone agrees that this is a title and not a rank. I plan to put such material in a "titles" section. Help wanted! -FC 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unused insignia

<images removed> I plan to put all of the now unused insignia back into the article eventually. Due to real world events, the past few days have been busy and there has been little time for MA. I plan to get around to it, just need some time. Perhaps we can put the images in question on the talk page until they are folded back into the article. -FC 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm done! Thanks all who helped improve this article! -FC 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<image removed>

Not sure where to put this, as I don't think it was seen on screen. I have one for a lt jg or ens as well that I can upload if anyone finds one in the film or wants to add it to the implied ranks. - Archduk3:talk 12:03, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Senority

I'm removing this part of the article for now since I'm not sure where exactly it should go or if it is even good material to have. The part about Kim being senior since he worked on the bridge doesnt make sense to me as a naval officer; Kim held a bridge duty station (like Officer of the Deck in the real Navy) but this didnt mean he could go off watch and give a commander an order. Also the Troi and Crusher deal, with them commanding the bridge after taking the test, mirrors the current day practice of staff officers getting a line officer qualification (aka "passing your board") and getting put on the watch bill. Again, it didnt mean that either of those had authority over other Commanders when off watch. Indeed, in the real Navy, in an emergency any line officer may take command and the staff officers, regardless of rank, must follow the line officers orders. In practice, though, line office ensigns (even in emergencies) would be cautioned not to bark at staff officer captains!

Anyway, the section reads:

It is notable that Starfleet ranks do not necessarily confer seniority. For example Harry Kim was an ensign, but was a member of the senior staff in his capacity as operations manager on USS Voyager and thus senior to many, higher ranked, members of the crew. Similarly, Deanna Troi, despite her rank as a lieutenant commander, was not eligible to take the conn of the Enterprise-D until the events shown in TNG: "Thine Own Self" when she passed the bridge officer's test, meaning that up to that point, any command-qualified lieutenant taking command of the bridge would have authority over her in normal situations. In emergencies, there seems to be a different qualification, as TNG: "Disaster" showed as-yet-untested Troi legally taking command during a crisis when the rest of the ship's crew were incommunicado.

-FC 13:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Troi and Kim question is one i would like to know, all i can surmise about Harry Kim is he is a senior bridge officer who holds no rank, as for Crusher in all armed services I know of the medical officer holds seniority over even the highest ranking officer but only holds command under the most desperate situations

STALA

This edit was correct, this discussion should have started before this happened, because the original information is based on background information and valid external links. --Alan 03:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If the majority wants that in, then fine...but there simply has never been an "Able Seaman" rank pin in Star Trek. There HAS been an "Able Crewman" pin. Perhaps the source misquoted what was going on, but I would hate to see a completely untrue statement wind up in article. Also, the mention about a Star Trek Captain pin being sold is far too vauge...which pin...worn by whom? And in any case that should be in the background section, not the main-line article. I guess I'm also slightly biased since I never was a big fan of these entries about uniform parts being sold at "Its a Warp". I really wonder what that has to do with anything. I'm not unreasonable though. But instead of just adding this in let us ask ourselves is it actually correct information. I dont think it is. -FC 03:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the second half, it's "It's a Wrap", actually, and according to the link: "A resin rank badge made for characters portraying a Starfleet ‘captain' in various Star Trek feature films" – the point of the IAW links is to make connection between the discussion and the props seen on screen. While I agree that one is vague, many of them actually are useful. --Alan 03:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a self revert and tried to clean up the information. Like I said, I am not being unreasonable here. I just dont want to see incorrect info in the article. -FC 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That's rich. You're the one who added Admiral pins that were both non-canon and from invalid sources here some months ago. The STALA information was both perfectly correct and completely welcome MA content. I say that your "cleanup" contains more unverified, possibly even false, information than Tom's original contribution, which was completely factual and appropriately styled (POV) in every way. Where's your evidence that this pin has anything to do with Robert Fletcher's notes? Unless those notes have a picture of such a pin, then it's your imagination, not sourced info. So, where are the contents of these notes revealed? Do you have them, or is your information connecting Fletcher's notes to this pin contained in another legitimate source like a Companion book or such? I'm not saying you made this up, but I'll be dubious until I see that the connection is real, not your own leap of imagination or attempt to twist some production staffer's mistake into something more palatable to yourself.
Regarding "Able Seaman": OK, we can all agree that it's not a canon rank. But nobody treated it as canon. You can't get away with censoring realworld info by pretending it's something it's not, or by hiding it. I think you are being unreasonable, doubly: First for twisting the point-of-view and second for accusing me of treating you like "some a-hole vandal". You're pulling the same crap you did with me last summer.
Regarding the Captain's pin: It was treated as Background info, not in-universe "mainline article" material. Read the Style Guide. Too vague? Too bad. They sold it. Let's note it.
STALA links and info from STALA listings are a unique source that have yielded valuable production and in-universe information here at MA. If you want to propose some criterion for picking and choosing which ones are allowed and which ones are of "question[able] relevance", that's a fine undertaking, but re-reversion edit summaries aren't the place for it - Ten Forward is, or maybe Memory Alpha Talk:Canon policy. --TribbleFurSuit 07:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I restored the info and added one line about Fletcher's notes which do state that rank is Able Crewman (not Able Seaman). All of the other previous material has been restored. And, for the record, I did not add the Admiral pins into this article. I actually cleaned up the article and placed all the non-canon insignia in the background section which is there they should have gone in the first place. That is a separate issue, however. And there are no hard feelings from last summer...as I stated on the user talk page, I honestly dont remember that far back on this site with other things that go on in the real world....eight months ia a long time for the internet. Anyway, I think the current edit should meet with everyone's approval. I hope. -FC 14:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"I did not add the Admiral pins into this article" OK, that's not how I remember it, but as you say, somewhere, it's on the record. If I was wrong, I apologize. I still want to know about these Fletcher notes: Where does one find them? Are they in a book? A website? Your own personal copy? Is there a picture in it of the STALA pin? Please, convince me that it's really the same as this "able seaman" pin and not something you have contrived or imagined with original research. I am not assuming bad faith, I am just skeptical because of the way you initially tried to spin this, which was that "we can't have this at all because it's not a canon rank", and when that didn't work, you shrilled "it is simply untrue!", even though it pretty verifiably is a realworld piece of production material, whether it's named correctly on the auction site or not. Our background should not be speculative, so if we're saying "This is the crewman pin", it had better be true and verifiable. If you can't convincingly connect the notes to the pin, then we could say that "able seaman isn't a canon title, but able crewman is", without making up something about whether a trivial mistake might have been made, behind the scenes, after production was long since wrapped. --TribbleFurSuit 18:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Every rank picture in this article had been uploaded way...way before I ever became associated with the article. Here is the article from two years ago [2] and you will see that all of the rank pins are displayed. This was before my time. I am also sorry to you are holding grudges from so long ago [3]. The business last summer (4 plus months) has nothing to do with this article and it is somewhat scary to me that you would be taking this website so seriously and remembering things from that long ago. As I responded on your talk page [4] I didnt even remember who you were until it was so obviously pointed out. Can we just move on with the present issue?
And that issue is the very good question of where Robert Fletcher's notes exactly are and if they list this pin as "Able Crewman". I'll look around for I have seen this in print (just dont remember where). With the holidays upon us, it might also be a while since I have to dig through my literature collection but I will take a look at it. I'll let everyone know hopefully by the start of next year what I find out since having a source for both W.W.T's notes as well as the pins from the movies would be an excellent addition to this article. -FC 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Captain's pin

About the captain's pin that was sold, I agree with FC- I don't see the relevance unless it we know who wore it and when(or if it was even worn on TV at all)- I could see(and would support) it being listed in a general article about the auction itself and its items.--31dot 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a fine point. As stated in the above section, my knowledge of the "Its a Wrap" material is close to nothing and I personally think it clutters up articles. But I am by no means any kind of authority on this. Would there be any way to find out where that Captain pin came from? -FC 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Able seaman's pin

Robert Fletcher&#039;s enlisted rank pin chart

Per the above concerns, the following sentence was removed until a hardcore source can be found. -FC 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This pin, according to costume notes of Robert Fletcher, is actually that of "Able Crewman".

My, my, my...guess what. I actually did find my copy of Fletcher's costume notes and...can't believe it...it actually DOES say "Able Seaman". How can one have a Seaman in space!!! Any way, this calls for a major revision here. We might also want to discuss if indeed we should put this in the article as a canon rank. Thoughts? -FC 08:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How can one have ANY Naval convention in Space (starting with SHIPS, FLEETS, BRIGS, SAILS, keep going...)!!! For that matter, how can one have an Airman in the Navy (real life)!!! One answer to these questions is that Naval metaphors in both real life and in Star Trek expand beyond seagoing literality, once technology makes transportation and force by air, space, and subspace possible. The other answer is that it's fiction.
I'm pleased there's a credible source and that effort was made to verify this. This is why MA discourages speculation (another way of saying "jumping to conclusions" or "using one's imagination"). Most of the time, the subject of the speculation is unknown and unknowable - that's bad enough. But when someone speculates, and then "it is just untrue!", that's just bogus. I still deny treating anybody like "some a-hole vandal", but it WAS a bogus edit after all, wasn't it?
Regarding canonicity: Until there's an onscreen reference to the rank or title of "able seaman", I'm not in favor of canonizing it. Background please. Then again, I still haven't succeeded in getting this canonized as a provisional Commander insignia, even though the only person ever seen wearing it was NOT a Lt. Commander, so maybe there's more tolerance for bogosity around here after all than I myself have. Cheers --TribbleFurSuit 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is obviously not bogus. I could go on about my original reasons for saying that (including the six pack of Bud Lite Lime I drank before making those edits) but that has been beat to death with a stick, I think. The real question here is whether or not we should now create an article for "Able Seaman" and if we should change (my God) every single article where this pin is mentioned. But then, is Fletcher's chicken scratch really cause to make such a major change since this pin is listed in several other publications (I think even Star Trek Encyclopedia) as being "Crewman" and was never called "Able Seaman" on camera. Not sure what to do about this. It is a strange situation. -FC 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What is stated on screen? Was anyone wearing this pin on camera, and were they called "crewmen"? If that is the case, we go with crewmen over anything in Fletcher's notes. That said, a real world background note on Fletcher and the auction would be worthwhile. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"is Fletcher's chicken scratch really cause to make such a major change"? What major change? This pin is not mentioned anywhere in MA's mainspace except as background in this article. The same thing is true of the hypothetical, non-canonical rank. Nobody ever heard of it except FC with his Fletcher notes, until it turned up on IAW. Nothing has to be changed until somebody finds either the rank or the pin onscreen. While Cobra rightly says "Don't call it 'crewman' unless it was onscreen", I point out "Don't even canonize 'seaman' unless it was onscreen". --TribbleFurSuit 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well...to answer the questions here...they aren't my notes. They are copies of the originals from the notes made by Robert Fletcher for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Second off, I am very much against making this a canon article. I think a background note would be just fine. Third off, the only person I ever saw called a "Crewman" wearing this pin was Dax in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I think the transporter room hitmen in that film also wore it but were never called Crewman. For that matter, noone has ever been seen wearing a Petty Officer pin either. They are very hard to see in any case and require very close examination of screenshots to even see which pin is being worn. It sounds though like no change is needed so sounds good. I think these notes are a great find for MA as they will make for very good background material. -FC 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Fleet Captain, I'm surprised you didn't leave a 'calling all hands' note on my talk page since it was the groundwork I laid on the article that is in question here... surely an oversight since it has been so long since I worked on Starfleet ranks here at MA.
Have it be known that I used "crewman" as the name for these pins' rate because the term had been used in other incarnations of Trek, for the rate below petty officer (which I was aware his notes showed the "ables'man" pins as being--below a PO in standing), and because I knew that Fletcher's "ables'man" notes were a background source that never made it on screen. (However, I do believe that all the pins made it onscreen and we haven't found them yet). I was (and am) of the belief that, if a pin was designed to show a specific rank in relation to other ranks, it should be portrayed as so on MA when referenced -- which is why an unnamed pin that was used in canon could have a rank associated with it without being so named.
Beyond that, I really have no desire to involve myself further in this and I don't feel I have enough knowledge of MA's current background info policy to contribute much in that area, and I trust the judgment of the current involved admins. But I might look in again soon, if I find anything of note to contribute... -- Captain MKB 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. You should have been contacted. Apologies that it slipped through the cracks. -FC 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, in response to Mr. Bartel, in terms of "on-screen evidence", I also don't doubt that the insignia in question didn't appear on someone somewhere on screen. Based on stala auction listings alone, there were more than a dozen of these insignia in circulation.
In response to the rest, and this is taking the "safe route", if (or since) the term exists in the big picture, even if only as a background (or costume tag) note, then there should be no problem in mentioning it with a legitimate link. This seems entirely appropriate, using the already established "lump approach", seeing as "able seaman" essentially boils down to what we recognize as the "crewman" rank, therefore, the creation of a link for it would be no different than our current approach of linking similar sister/cousin ranks/terms (both mentioned and unmentioned) to "crewman," such as: Ables'man (as implied by being in bold), Able crewman, Crewman third class, Crewman second class, and Crewman first class.
Consequently, the creation of said link doesn't "make it canon", or even mean it is correct terminology, it just means that it's yet another useful redirect that can be explained on the "mother page" in the "aw crap" section of the article explaining Fletcher's original outline, where and how it fitted in then, and where and how it fits in today. Hence, the term is recognized, explained and still not "forced" into canon.
In terms of the "canon" recognition of the crewman rank insignia (which I guess is *now* "really" the able seaman rank insignia) posted on the crewman page (and elsewhere), if need be, that can be tossed to the "aw crap" section too. So, while this isn't the climatic response I'm sure we were aiming for in this discussion, it is the easiest resolution without giving way to one side or the other: either ignoring it or recognizing it as canon. --Alan 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think redirecting Able seaman to Crewman, and then adding abackground notes about Fletcher's costume notes would be the best course. Thank you everyone for inputing to this issue. A great example of the community working together. -FC 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparative charts

With the canon rules preventing us from showing every insignia in the comparative charts,in particular the DSN enlisted and TOS admiral ranks which never appeared on camera, are these charts helpful to the article? Or perhaps we can modify them slightly to avoid having "blank holes". Thoughts? -FC 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone? Anyone?" -FC 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Data's rank progression

"A typical officer spends approximately three years at the rank of ensign." refers to the conversation between Data and Lore about, but I got the impression that he was talking about his own carreer. I would certainly not count Data as a typical officer, since he is an android and all that. Plus, there are several ensigns that seeems to have been in service for a lot longer than three years on the Enterprise-D.

Would it not be better to erase that last phrase? --Marten1000 12:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that removing the quote might be the wrong idea -- we should instead fix it by clarifying that it was Data's comment, note the exact wording he used, perhaps cite the fact that we don't know what kind of "typical officer" he was talking about. it could be that Data was referring to officers of the career paths he was noted to be in, and not all "typical officers" in general. -- Captain MKB 02:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
What about someting like: "The time someone spend as ensign differs, but a typical amount of time was three years. That was the case for Lt Cmdr Data, for example."? --Marten1000 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I belive the exact comment should be used, my view on the comment is that he's saying that most captins or senior officers would hesitate to promote an ensign with less then 3 years service as they havent had enough experiance but that there are exeptions to the rule. chris roff.

Would an operations manager specialist like Data spend three years at ensign, or all security officers and engineers? Would science officers? There isn't enough info given to determine what career path is being referred to. -- Captain MKB 17:28, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

New alternate reality insignia

The new insignia file is way too large and has caused a major spacing problem in the article. It does look better than the original one I drew but needs to be fixed. -FC 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The alternate/illusionary insignia

Not really sure where to put these. Rewatching the episodes now to see if there are any LT CMDR (found) or LT JG (not found) ranks seen, and to make sure all of these were. - Edited: Archduk3:talk 23:32, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

VOY provisional ranks

I believe a revision of the images is in order, based on the images that came out of the It's a Wrap auction. This image makes it look like it's silver with gold accents. There are plenty of other images that confirm the colors. --Kevin W.Talk to me 05:14, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to a few others, maybe one that has a black bar? - Archduk3:talk 12:36, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
This one looks like the insignia was upside down when the picture was taken. --Kevin W.Talk to me 18:04, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Ranks "done away with"?

In the "2260s and 2270s" section (ST:TMP era), the article says that "...the rank of Lieutenant junior grade was apparently done away with." I assume this is because nobody of this rank was seen in Star Trek: The Motion Picture; however, just because we didn't see it, that doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't exist. I know that we don't want to attest to any unseen ranks, but is there a better way to word this? Really, we don't know whether this rank existed at this time or not. Perhaps we could change that clause to a background note that no lieutenants junior grade were seen in the film? —Josiah Rowe 03:52, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think that actually comes from the extensive notes made for the movie ranks, since I think both systems had details on everything below admirals. - Archduk3 04:45, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

If you have access to those notes, it might be worth adding a background info comment explaining that. Actually, for that matter, it might be worth adding a background note about Robert Fletcher's rank pin designs, as shown in the image a few sections up. —Josiah Rowe 07:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion some time ago. The book "The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture" establishes that there was no rank of LTJG in the film era. The previous insignia for LTJG was now the insignia for Ensign. This was done to fix the problem in the original series that ensigns and crewman (both with no insignia) couldn't be told apart. -FC 20:54, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Could a background note be added to that effect, with an appropriate citation to the book? (I'd do it myself, but since I don't have the book I'd be worried I'd misrepresent something.) Absent an explanatory note, someone else reading the article might well make the same mistake I did. —Josiah Rowe 06:11, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Starfleet officer"

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be- it sounds dictionary-like to me, which we are not. I'd be willing to hear an explanation, but we may want to merge this somewhere. 31dot 23:54, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

The page is needed becasue the subject of ranks is far too complex to integrate anywhere. There are at least 05 Officer ranks alone (Ensign, Lt, Commander, Captain, Admiral; this doesn't include intermediate ranks).174.25.42.71 04:09, January 14, 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Non-Naval Ranks

There is no attempt to address non-naval ranks other than a very brief blurb on Lt Colonel WEST (and mention that he was supposedly based on Lt Col Oliver NORTH; considering the WEST was a traitor, this is an unseemly connection to make). This should be corrected.A REDDSON 04:11, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, or state specifically what you would like to see included.--31dot 22:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what else can be added in the article. It already lists all the non-naval ranks and titles that have appeared in canon. And yes, West was named after North.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:08, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

How about anything OTHER than Lt Col? If there's a "Lt Col" anything, then there is a Colonel SOMETHING, and the ranks thereof subordiante. As to "feeling free to do so" bull----. Last time I did it got erased. If I could find the name of that Federation General, you so-called "case" would be closed.A REDDSON 03:09, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

This page is based upon the ranks mentioned in canon (see also our canon policy). We don't list other ranks from the real-world. Starfleet is not a real military, and is centuries in the future. There are various explanations for West's rank of "Colonel", if you look at his talk page.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:54, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.