Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 2

This is an archive, please do not edit this page, instead comment on Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia

FAC Page Reopened

The battle begins again. I've reopened the FAC nomination under the article's new name. I added a section for "inactionable votes" which will apply to the people who vote to oppose simply becuase they dont like Star Trek. -Husnock 05:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And may the force be with you. Er, I mean, Qaplah! ;-)

What's the link to the entry, so we can go support it? Jonathunder 16:40, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

You may find it here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia or through the link at the top of the page. Thank you for your support! -Husnock 06:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, as many have noticed, round three for FAC just closed. I highly advise that noone renominate it again until discussing it first here. The comments about real world info and various sources are valid and worthy of fixing. Also, the issue about fiction acritcles as FAs can be debated somemore, but I am not really involoved with that. I have to say, round 3 didnt see as much bashing as we saw the previous two. And, on the good side, noone has slapped a VFD tag on us nor have any of the people opposed to the article messed with the actual content. For that, I think them, even to the most vehement opposers. -Husnock 4 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

Inline Citations

I am honored, please, and thrilled to report that the addtion of in-line citations to this article is now complete. The path is clear for Featured Article Status, I hope. -Husnock 05:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"Odd one out" table

All the tables are the same (rank at left, series/season at top) except for #Conjectured Admiral insignia. It would make sense to have it the same. Or is there some *specific* reason why this one's different? Master Thief Garrett^Talk 21:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The sources of the conjectural ranks were in serious question. I made the table in a design to show where the ranks came from, what the sources were, and if they were simply conjectural or alternate. -Husnock 01:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Closing the FAC nomination?

Well...it seems that a large number of people found the article on this Memoiral Day weekend and had a lot of things to say about it. For the record, the one objection about the pictures causing problems in overseas browsers, i.e. England and so forth, is very, very valid. That would be enough, for me, to postpone the FAC nomination as I dont know how to fix that without a total overhaul of the article.

Now...this other stuff. My eyes have been opened in that I now see that anyone can effectively kill a featured article candidate. There are so many things one can say is wrong with an article that cannot possibly be fixed. I could go to any FA candidate and challenge the sources, question the copywright status of the images, claim it was too long, too short, state the table of contents hurt my eyes, etc. Just about all of those things have been brought up in this most recent nomination. I tried to fix the valid things, such as citing sources, but then the sources themselves were challenged. How do I prove a book written by the producers of the show is considered canon? I don't know.

Anyway, the main reason for this is that this article has now actual become a controversial topic in that should it even exist at all. For that reason, it cant be a featured article. To the people who stated they just didn't like it, saw it as Star Trek only, and didnt want to see it on the main page, well that's their right but not valid for objecting a featured article. If you want to change the policy of Wikipedia then make a case to the senior administrators and website managers. But don't apply your own standards, against what wikipedia says, and then state that for this the article should be denied.

Lastly, to the *person* who went so low as to call the article names, state that it was worthless, claimed no one cared about it, and then flat out said on his user page "this article stinks". Your views are unimportant to me since they appear narrow, arrogant, and are viewed as little more than petty mud slinging. Name calling and bashing an article has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. If you feel so strongly why not advocate for a "VFD"? I'm also not too happy with the user who sought out no less than 4 other people to *comment* on the article, knowing full well that these persons had objected on inactionable grounds before and were likely to do so again. But, thats another matter.

This is not a soapbox, I'm declaring the reason for closing the FAC nomination and my distatse for the system. I'm going back over to "Schutzstaffel" and see what I can do with that article. -Husnock 01:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Dammit. Nevertheless, I am still trying to fix up the article, mainly the images in the Officer's template. Husnock, please, whenever you open the FAC page again, let the course run through. Come on, give it a few days and let's try it again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Husnock, please don't withdraw your nomination. I understand your frustration, and I agree that several of the object votes used invalid reasons. However, I don't feel that there is any benefit to withdrawing the nomination. Yes, it is unlikely to pass, but consider letting the nomination run until its close. The votes and reasoning will be taken into account when deciding whether to promote the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes - please reconsider your withdrawal of the nomination. I'd much rather see the valid objections addressed since that would greatly improve the article. If all you need is time, just say so on the top of the FAC nomination page and Raul will keep the FAC open for a while longer. I'd very much like to see this article featured since I'm a big Star Trek fan (seen every movie multiple times and every single episode of every series except for Enterprise at least once) and really liked reading this article. --mav 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

By popular demand...MAKE IT SO! -Husnock 03:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. This is an excellent article! I know absolutely nothing about Star Trek beyond watching a few episodes of the very first series (oh, and playing that Klingon video boardgame), but even for a novice like me this guide is very easy to follow, and anyone could quickly understand the ranking system. The pictures also give a fascinating overview of both ascending through the ranks (another bar or disc is added each time) and also the subtle asthetic changes made across the different series. Overall, this is the sort of page I would be proud to see bear the Featured Article header. And a few cries of "cruft, cruft!" shouldn't stop that. *does four-fingered salute thing* Live long and prosper! Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, when do you think will be appropriate to add the nomination back in? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to take any further action on it since the thing about browsers not reading the images correctly is valid and also the reuqest to split the article into small "daughter articles" would only detract form the content. But, heh, that just shows it can't yet be an FA and thats what the system is designed to show. It was far better learning that way than through the bashing and name calling of the article that other people attempted. -Husnock 15:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Photos of the various characters

Husnock, I removed some of the captain photos, since, in my view, I do not think we need a photo of every single captain that ever existed to be listed in the article. I think a link to their name in the paragraph will be good enough. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually quite against removing the pictures just from that section as now there is a "pictureless" area where as above there are photos and quite afew below. But, on the other hand, the article is need or an article wide picture purge. About that one section, I at first had a single photo of five captains together until CoolCat split into five separte pictures. The pictures show the different uniform styles, which is good. They should probabaly go back 9for now) but I am very tired today and a simple revert wont work since there has been a few edits between when they were removed and now. -Husnock 21:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture Purge and Conjectural Ranks

The great picture purge is complete. I admit it, the article does look better. Sometime this week I will also take out all the conjectural rank stuff and make it into its own article. That would be the first "daughter article" of this feature which was one of the objections.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT: The civil objections such as browser problems, too many pictures, and conjectural rank issues we have all agreed as valid and are moving to fix them. So much better than loud mouth people shouting "this article is nothing but Star Trek fandom!", "this should never be on the main page!", etc. etc. I am very disillusioned with the featured article system becuase I think a lot of the objects are simple attacks on the article, rather than points to improve it. But, on the other hand, a lot of what was said was valid and we are moving to fix it. -Husnock 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have one daughter article now: Conjectural ranks of Star Trek. Any suggestions for others? We don't want to move too much out becuase then this article wouldnt be the same. -Husnock 22:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additional material

Although some of Xiong's suggestions at the FAC will immediately yield counter-objections, many of them would enhance the article:

• Draw parallels with prevailing culture at the time of each new design:

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?
• Who makes these insignia? Do fans buy theirs from the same manufacturers as the official producers?
• Can Trek insignia be related to those of similar shows?
• To what extent have the designs of previous shows influenced Star Trek insignia designs?

--Theo (Talk) 09:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rear Admiral rank for Kirk -- canon?

To my knowledge, Kirk was never referred to on screen as a Rear Admiral, simply as Admiral. Is there any canonical source to suggest he was a Rear Admiral? For all we know he could have been a Vice Admiral or some other variation. (Remember the Encyclopedia isn't considered canon by Paramount). 23skidoo 21:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The costume designers gave him the rank pin for a Vice Admiral, I've read that in several places, but it is hard to see on screen so some have specualted it might have been a Rear Admiral pin (the two pins are supposed to be similar). As stated by both you and in the article, he was referred to as just Admiral. As far as STE not canon, thats a big topic since Okuda wrote the book and Okuda works for the actual show. I can see both sides about that book. Anyway, the thing you mention is covered in the article. I just don't thinkw e should flat out say he was just an Admiral since there is a possiblity he was not yet a full Admiral at that point. -Husnock 21:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: Regarding the Motion Picture question, Kirk is listed as Rear Admiral in the script, and a book called "The Making of the Motion Picture" (I dont know that much about this book, only that it was written by the director of the film). Also, I think in the novel written by Gene Roddenberry there is a conversation between Kirk and Spcok were he should not ahve accepted promotion to Captain and his rank of Rear Admiral is mentioned. The rank Kirk wears would match exactly with the USN version for a Rear Admiral, but thats just visual observation. I'm open to rewrites on the subject, just need to be careful saying whether or not its true. -Husnock 21:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fair. I think you can get away with using Rear Admiral if it's noted on first reference where the rank is derived from, to prevent others (such as myself) from changing it. Under Paramount's strict rules of canon, if it isn't on screen it isn't official (for example, Saavik being half-Romulan), but this is a minor point. The fact STE isn't considered canon by Paramount is indeed a controversial thing (as is the non-canon status of TAS and the Jeri Taylor novels), but according to Margaret Clark and other Pocket Book editors (in postings to the TrekBBS), as well as Richard Arnold is the official party line. So if Enterprise or a future movie were to contradict a conjecture made by Okuda in one of his books (as indeed happened), then the onus is on Okuda to make the correction in a future edition. Now that ENT is finished, I think now would be a perfect time for Okuda to do the ultimate update of both the STE and the Chronology (if nothing else it would help prove that ENT wasn't the continuity trainwreck a lot of people considered it to be), but sadly Clark has indicated that Pocket Books isn't planning on such a publication anytime soon. :-( 23skidoo 22:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I have the time, desire, and motivation I'm going to add a big real world section on the people who invented the insignia such as William Ware Thesis. The red jacket costumes and the rank pins (and how they came about) will be a very interesting topic, to be sure. -Husnock 06:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's already an article on William Ware Theiss so you might not need to reinvent the wheel too much. The article is more about the fact he designed skimpy costumes more than anything and would be improved by expanding to discuss his other contributions to Trek wardrobe design. 23skidoo 15:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cadet ranks section

I was just reading the cadet ranks part and it mentions the uniforms worn by the Starfleet cadets in Wrath of Khan. Wasn't Saavik also referred to as a cadet? If this can be confirmed in canon, there might need to be something added about this since you would therefore have a cadet wearing regular Starfleet burgundy and with the commissioned rank of Lieutenant. 23skidoo 14:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saavik was a Lieutenant J.G. who was probably in some kind of command school, much like modern day Department Head School for Lieutenants going to ships in thier first command slots. Saavik was called a Lieutenant throughout the film while the other people were called Midshipman. Also, Star Trek III Saavik shows up wearing a white collared shirt, indicating that she had graduated from command school. -Husnock 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Future Starfleet insignia?

Has anything been written about the future Starfleet insignia seen in forward-looking episodes such as The Visitor and All Good Things? There was also another set of future insignias seen in a couple other TNG episodes as well (I'm thinking of the ones with rank bars attached to the Starfleet emblem). 23skidoo 30 June 2005 04:28 (UTC)

TOS ship badges

How about info about the practice in TOS for apparently each ship to have its own badge - of which the Enterprise one was apparently adopted for the entire Starfleet... Morwen - Talk 3 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

The Person formerly known as

I've watched with some interest this article grow. As a demonstration of sheer editing excellence, I'm impressed. Certainly many Featured Articles have graced the Main Page with greater deficiencies in style and form. The balance between image and text is very good; the depth of the research admirable; the copyediting beyond reproach. Indeed, I'd say this article is incapable of further significant improvement. There is always room for a spot of cannonball-polishing, but if ever I have seen a page in final maturity, this is it.

Despite all this, Starfleet ranks and insignia fails to meet my standard for FA; and for the very last time, I will try to explain -- not why it does not, but why it cannot. In short, it is not a factual article, and this Project is a general reference encyclopedia -- a corpus of fact.

Yes, within the fictional universe of Star Trek there exist characters who wear uniforms bearing insignia that designate them as masters of men (or lowly atom-sweepers); from another angle, within the real world there exist actors wearing costumes bearing decorations that mean absolutely nothing. These decorations are chosen on a whim by costumers, film industry workers far down the ladder from directors, producers, and even set designers, let alone actors. At best the director gives the fake insignia a nod; if negative the costumer scribbles away and comes up with another arrangement of squares, circles, and perhaps suns-and-comets. I daresay the actual job of designing the insignia is given to a mere assistant; the lead costumer is busy with the actual clothing. So, even within the marginally real world of teevee and film production, this topic is hardly notable or considered significant.

But all this is stretching for some contact with reality. If anyone dared produce an entire article on the contents of the catered buffets on each location, it would be laughed right out of town. It is not the significance of the costume decorations in the real world (or film world) that offers a pretense of notability; it is their imaginary significance as indicators of rank, power, and prestige among men and women who fly between the stars. And as badly as I wish I were alive to see warp drive travel, I do not see it now.

When Man explores the Local Group (and I trust not before too many centuries have passed) I do not doubt that it will be in ships; Man being who he is, I expect many of those ships will be military; military tradition being what it is, I will not be astonished if ranks and insignia persist among the crews of these ships. It is quite likely that some will be named "Captain" and others "Admiral" -- these terms have been in use for a long time.

But it is beyond credibility that any of the insignia actually worn will be identical to those shown in a 20th Century teevee show.

There is a place for this article: Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki. Indeed, there is already an article there attempting to serve this function: Starfleet ranks. This article is far superior and should replace the Memory Alpha version entirely. That is the proper place and the proper context for this collection of fancruft.

Some object to my use of the above term. But calling this a fine, upstanding example of a factual article on a notable topic does not make it so. Despite all improvement, this topic still does not reach out and touch the Real World at any point. It is of interest only to fans, and even then only to those so deeply immersed in the fantasy universe that they care nothing for reality -- at least while so enthralled. The article casts no light on the human condition, history and philosophy, morals and ethics, science, technology, art, or religion. It does not even point the way to the aspiring fantasy universe creator by showing him how to avoid plot difficulties in Episode #47 caused by inconsistent costumes worn in the previous 46 episodes.

This page is, in a sense, pure art -- art for art's sake -- a technically perfect article written about nothing at all. From that point of view, it deserves to be enshrined in Wikipedia-space as an exemplar of How to Craft an Article. But it is totally inappropriate in the main article space of a factual, general reference work.

Having delivered myself of this epistle, I shall now endorse this page as a Featured Article. What!? I do so on entirely pragmatic grounds. I have been brought to believe that the editors who so carefully crafted this bit of fluff may go on to do fine, substantial work within this Project -- factual material, carefully researched, well written, temperately illustrated, solidly structured. But it is also clear to me that so long as this page fails FA, a great deal of energy will be wasted on its improvement in a vain effort to gain approval.

The appearance of this article on the Main Page will be embarassing, but the cost will be outweighed by the manpower thus reclaimed. Yes, it will set a precedent, but I trust we have raised the bar sufficiently that not every silly screed on the number of buttons on Graveler's overcoat will make FA.

So, whenever you're ready, please nominate this (for the 4th time?) as FAC and don't forget to email me at once, so that this time, I actually have an opportunity to vote -- and put the matter behind us. — Xiong熊talk* 2005 July 4 10:59 (UTC)

We're sending this to Peer Review, but I am not sure what else we can do. The main problem facing the article now is over the sources that were used to create the article. Images, fixed. Tables, done. I am hoping to get the sources soon, but even once I do, people could discredit the sources for it, like this article, for just being fancruft. I thank you for telling us what we needed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Up for VfD

To give some of the more active contributors of this article some peace of mind and to get this discussion yet more public, I've VfD'ed the article. From what I've seen of the process so far, I doubt it will be deleted, but at least then we can stop hitting each other over the head with it.

Mind you, this is not a contiunation of the FAC debate, but a discussion of the notability of the article, so just lay off the personal attacks and don't take it personal. Interpreting criticism against an article as aimed at one or several contributing editors is not constructive.

Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 16:28 (UTC)

A lot of people have wondered what would happen if a VFD tag was ever put on this article. Now we'll find out. It should be interesting. -Husnock 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

The result was to keep. The discussion may be found here. -Splash 02:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the VFD discussion is now closed, I'd like to make a follow-up on my comment that "on first impression this appears to be an abuse of VFD". Just to be clear I was only talking about first impressions and my disagreement over the apparent (again first impression) rationale for nominating the article. I wasn't directly accusing the nominator of abusing the system - but it didn't come out that way, so my apologies if I caused any offence. 23skidoo 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I also would like to say that the nominator stayed within the rules, didnt cause an edit war, and did things by the book. That is very commendable. The nominator also has contributed highly to Wikipedia with articles on foreign languages which I found very interesting. -Husnock 13:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All who voted for the above VFD are invited to comment at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Trek Expanded Universe. -Husnock 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Cadet Ranks

The cadet ranks listed here are contradictory to the ranks (of the same heading) on http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/startrek/universe/source/uniform.htm

Yes, but that link is for a reference for a fan-run online roleplaying game, not any kind of authoritative source. The "Cadet Third Class" and such nomenclature is listed in The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, by Larry Nemecek, is basing its listing off the actual scripts (the term is mentioned in the cast listing for the episode "The First Duty", where the pips were first shown). When we're caught between two sources, one of which is an officially licensed book which is basing things off a shooting script and uses a term that actually sounds like a military ranking, and a players reference for a fan-run online roleplaying game, which one to use should be clear.

On other pages of that same reference work (like http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/startrek/universe/source/money.htm), the author of that site even admits he has changed things from what more authoritative sources say only because that's how he feels it should be, and has blatantly made up things in many places (where has the unit of Gorn, Nausicaan or Tholian currency and its exchange rates ever been listed otherwise?). For his game, he's welcome to do that, but for an encyclopedia article, which is what the Wikipedia entry is, let's go with a reference with some authority behind it for what the rankings of Starfleet Cadets are called, and not some webmasters own personal speculation. --Wingsandsword 04:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Great article!

Thanks for this article; it's great! I took the liberty to add categories for the major ranks, to assist when viewing, et al. Again, well done! E Pluribus Anthony 14:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Midshipsman, Ensign Junior Grade and Lieutenant Commander Issues

The description of "Ensign Junior Grade" as unprecendented are not technically correct. The US Navy used the term in place of "Passed Midshipsman" for a few years in the late 19th century, so the term has historical precedent, even if not in Star Trek.

The Term Commander is a shortening of "Master and Commander" and "Master Commandant," historically in both the US and UK navies. Lieutennant Commandant is an older historical rank, which was given to Lieutenannts commanding ships, and also to the senior most lieutenants aboard large ships of the line, and happens to be lesser in grade than a Master Commandant ; Just prior to the 20th century, These morphed into Lietenant Commander and Commander. Historical works and fiction of the period referred to Lieutenants Commandant by either half of the title. There are several excellent websites on the progression that match with various USNA Press texts to which I no longer have access. I have heard Brittish naval officers address a LtCdr by Lieutennant as well as by Commander, however my exposure is severely limited.

Midshipsman was used by the US Navy for those cadets assigned aboard ship for whatever reason for many years, and for USNA Cadets in various times. (See also the 1985-1987 US Navy Supply manuals, looking for rank pins for Midshipsman. The NJROTC C/CPO insignia is the same as the Midshipsman 1st Class, this insignia was worn by NJROTC and NROTC cadets and USNA midshipmen.)

Given the pitch being "Wagon Train to the Stars", it would not be surprising if the original ranks chosen were modern titles based upon the 1870-1890 rank patterns of the US Navy; Rodenberry is not available to ask.

For comparison purposes, Babylon 5's Lieutenant Commander Ivanova is also sometimes addressed as Lieutenant.

Wfh 10:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

==Which US Navy was th TOS Officer Rank Insignias based on?== the TOS officer rank insignia (wrist bands) are as follows: Captain (two stripes, broken stripe), Commander (two stripes), Lt.Cmdr (one stripe, broken stripe), Lieutenant (one stripe), LtJG (broken stripe) and Ensign (no stripe). This contradicts the US Navy's Captain to Ensign wrist band insignias. Mightberight/wrong 23:52, 9 November 2005.

Wikilinks and headings?

Hello! I think this is a great article, but can be improved (as with anything). Days ago, a prior attempt to wikify the terms in the article lead – Starfleet ranks and insignia – was reverted due to "bad form". These terms were wikified since there are no other direct wikilinks to these real-world terms in the article (that I can see upfront), the elaborations are insuffucient (as each term has multiple meanings), and one would have to pour through reams of text to find relevant links. Given this, the current lead is rather weak: terms should be elaborated upon effectively and wikilinked to real-world notions/articles regarding ranks and insignia.

Furthermore, the article is of such complexity and length to justify headings for each major flag and officer rank; it is difficult to find this or that rank without lengthy scrolling. While a prior discussion occurred regarding this, I believe it's time to revisit this. Headings for discreet ranks will not only make the article easier to consult/refer to, but cross-wikilinks can be made from other Star Trek (character) articles instead of to real-world ranks. Moreover, the table of contents (TOC) can easily be collapsed (and expanded) by any user.

Please explain; if there are no salient, substantial objections ... E Pluribus Anthony 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am totally opposed to such a significant change to the Table of Contents as explained below. This issue of having seperate sections for each rank was discussed at length during three FAC discussions. After much work and concensus, the current TOC was adapted which is fairly easy to follow and not too long. To have separate TOC entries for every single Star Trek rank would create an extremely lengthy and confusing Table of Contents. Indeed, this article at one time had such a talbe and it drew significant complints. As far as the linking to real world items, theres nothing wrong with that. If its been reverted as bad form in the intro paragraph, then perhaps place it as a "see also" at the end. -Husnock 22:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we agree to disagree. This article is not easy to read given the volume of text, and is confusing with or without the current TOC. I'm aware of only one discussion prior to ours; where are the others? Your opposition runs counter to the Wp guidelines about headings: as well, objections were noted previously: the article has grown significantly in size and is now unwieldy, almost to the point of lacking utility. As well, a consensus regarding these issues does not currently exist: you alone have responded to my prior and current queries and acted. I am also not proposing headings for all ranks: only the flag and officer ranks, which are lengthy sections on their own. Lastly, any user -- as they can now -- can collapse or expand the TOC on their screen.

As for the wikifying of real-world terms: this article about fiction does not at all link upfront to non-fictional articles/concepts of rank and insignia (both of which are within context) that are described in the title and only weakly described after that. That is bad form and should be rectified upfront where these notions are introduced, not at the end.

This has since been rectified with edition; thank you! E Pluribus Anthony 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I acknowledge and appreciate your contributions to the article, but resistance to changing it and your reversions (and precepts of style) can be perceived as exerting ownership over it. To that end, and unless other users object, I will be bold and make these editions and or think it prudent to initiate a new discussion or RfC regarding these issues to enhance the article (I may do so), and we should be guided by the results of that. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 23:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)