Talk:Executive officer/Archive 1 - Revision history

Serenity: /* Lists? */

2008-03-18T19:02:59Z

Lists?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 18 March 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:

	I wouldn't be adverse to a list of positions being created... Also, I wouldn't be adverse to creating a "List of Vipers" and "List of Raptors", since most of them are one to three sentences in length anyway. Although, if a subject is long enough, it should be worthy of an independent article. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 12:41, 18 March 2008 (CDT)		I wouldn't be adverse to a list of positions being created... Also, I wouldn't be adverse to creating a "List of Vipers" and "List of Raptors", since most of them are one to three sentences in length anyway. Although, if a subject is long enough, it should be worthy of an independent article. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 12:41, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
			:Position lists are kinda covered on [[Senior Staff of Galactica]] and and [[Pegasus (RDM)#Crew]]. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:02, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Expansion */ reply

2008-03-18T17:41:57Z

Expansion: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 18 March 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)		::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
	:::CPO is a rank. Positions are things like commanding officer, [[tactical officer]], [[ECO]], [[Master-at-Arms]], [[CMO]] and [[communications officer]]. The thing is that that some of these have enough information to warrant an own article. And as said, I don't see why should be consolidated and not things like the Vipers and Raptors. Seems rather random in light of many other short articles. I do see that there is an issue with awareness and navigation. But IMO that would be better solved with a category and maybe a "positions" disambiguation. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:16, 18 March 2008 (CDT)		:::CPO is a rank. Positions are things like commanding officer, [[tactical officer]], [[ECO]], [[Master-at-Arms]], [[CMO]] and [[communications officer]]. The thing is that that some of these have enough information to warrant an own article. And as said, I don't see why should be consolidated and not things like the Vipers and Raptors. Seems rather random in light of many other short articles. I do see that there is an issue with awareness and navigation. But IMO that would be better solved with a category and maybe a "positions" disambiguation. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:16, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

			== Lists? ==

			I wouldn't be adverse to a list of positions being created... Also, I wouldn't be adverse to creating a "List of Vipers" and "List of Raptors", since most of them are one to three sentences in length anyway. Although, if a subject is long enough, it should be worthy of an independent article. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 12:41, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Serenity: /* Expansion */

2008-03-18T17:16:59Z

Expansion

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 18 March 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
	::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)		::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
			:::CPO is a rank. Positions are things like commanding officer, [[tactical officer]], [[ECO]], [[Master-at-Arms]], [[CMO]] and [[communications officer]]. The thing is that that some of these have enough information to warrant an own article. And as said, I don't see why should be consolidated and not things like the Vipers and Raptors. Seems rather random in light of many other short articles. I do see that there is an issue with awareness and navigation. But IMO that would be better solved with a category and maybe a "positions" disambiguation. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:16, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Spencerian: /* Expansion */

2008-03-18T17:10:10Z

Expansion

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 18 March 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
	:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
			::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Serenity: /* Expansion */

2008-03-17T21:53:36Z

Expansion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 17 March 2008
Line 7:		Line 7:

	This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
	:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. ~~But instead~~ of ~~anew~~ article, this one could be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]] which already has position histories. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Serenity: /* Expansion */

2008-03-17T21:45:44Z

Expansion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 17 March 2008
Line 7:		Line 7:

	This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
			:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. But instead of anew article, this one could be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]] which already has position histories. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Spencerian: New section: Expansion

2008-03-17T20:41:56Z

New section: Expansion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 17 March 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:

	Ah your right --[[user:lordmutt\|lordmutt]] 11:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)		Ah your right --[[user:lordmutt\|lordmutt]] 11:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)

			== Expansion ==

			This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Lordmutt at 00:38, 4 November 2006

2006-11-04T00:38:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 4 November 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:No, because XO is a position and not a rank --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 19:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)		:No, because XO is a position and not a rank --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 19:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)

	Ah your right --[[user:lordmutt]lordmutt]] 11:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)		Ah your right --[[user:lordmutt\|lordmutt]] 11:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Lordmutt at 00:38, 4 November 2006

2006-11-04T00:38:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 4 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Shouldn't this redirect to [[Military Ranks]]??? --[[user:lordmutt\|lordmutt]] 11:29, 4 November 2006 (EST)		Shouldn't this redirect to [[Military Ranks]]??? --[[user:lordmutt\|lordmutt]] 11:29, 4 November 2006 (EST)
	:No, because XO is a position and not a rank --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 19:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)		:No, because XO is a position and not a rank --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 19:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)

			Ah your right --[[user:lordmutt]lordmutt]] 11:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Serenity at 00:32, 4 November 2006

2006-11-04T00:32:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:32, 4 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Shouldn't this redirect to [[Military Ranks]]??? --[[user:lordmutt\|lordmutt]] 11:29, 4 November 2006 (EST)		Shouldn't this redirect to [[Military Ranks]]??? --[[user:lordmutt\|lordmutt]] 11:29, 4 November 2006 (EST)
			:No, because XO is a position and not a rank --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 19:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 18 March 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
	::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)		::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
			:::CPO is a rank. Positions are things like commanding officer, [[tactical officer]], [[ECO]], [[Master-at-Arms]], [[CMO]] and [[communications officer]]. The thing is that that some of these have enough information to warrant an own article. And as said, I don't see why should be consolidated and not things like the Vipers and Raptors. Seems rather random in light of many other short articles. I do see that there is an issue with awareness and navigation. But IMO that would be better solved with a category and maybe a "positions" disambiguation. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:16, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 18 March 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		This article strikes me as rather weak. Along with other position articles such as the even-weaker [[CMO]] and [[ECM]], this and other pages could use a looksie to determine if it would be better to combine these positions into one article, a la [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:41, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
	:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)		:ECM has nothing whatsoever to do to with this. You might think of [[ECO]], but that actually has some substance. I can see a general position article, but then there are so many trivial mini-articles about pointless things (like listing every single Raptor or Viper that was merely mentioned in chatter), that this one hardly matters. Instead of a new article, this one could maybe be merged with [[Senior Staff of Galactica]], which already has position histories. However, this article has a history for ''Pegasus'' which includes some relevant notes about Lee Adama and Renner, whereas the other one would only be about ''Galactica''. What would make more sense to me is a "position" category to link these articles about the staff a bit. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
			::Yep, ECO was what I meant. Too little coffee. Maybe the shortest ones should be centralized and others lumped for simplicity, since the Chief Petty Officer, Communuications Officer, Tactical Officer and others aren't rank dependent? I guess it's probably not of great significance, but I tend to concise articles as well as text where possible. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)