Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Editing Talk:Military Ranks (RDM)/Archive3

Discussion page of Military Ranks (RDM)/Archive3
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 161: Line 161:


: For the ranking system itself... it wasn't meant to be overly analyzed like what we're doing. As RDM indicated, it is derived from TOS—which I personally believe to be a serious mistake—so it was already FUBARed from the start. -- [[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> 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
: For the ranking system itself... it wasn't meant to be overly analyzed like what we're doing. As RDM indicated, it is derived from TOS—which I personally believe to be a serious mistake—so it was already FUBARed from the start. -- [[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> 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
: Just a nitpick and tidbit to chew on, take it for what it's worth ... there is no such thing as Sergeant First Class in the Marine Corps.  If you're aiming to align with PO1, that would be Staff Sergeant (SSG).  The only sergeant ranks I can recall from dialogue in the episodes (not including credits, to which I never really paid attention) are the generic "sergeant" and "gunny", so conceivable room to justify SFC rather than SSG (which is an army equivalent of gunny & CPO). Such are the hazards of trying to maintain something resembling "canon" with a combination of speculation, extrapolation, and a writing staff that introduces contradictions and revisions, not to mentioning costuming (lol for effect) ...-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 21:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Ugh, my use of the word "canon" gave me spine shivers, I hope things don't devolve into something "Richard Arnold"-esque (a ''Star Trek'' fandom spectactle/controversy/train-wreck, for those not familiar with the name ...)!-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


== References ==
== References ==
Line 191: Line 187:


:Yeah, the deckhand thing makes sense. That always seemed a weird choice for a rank, as it also refers to mechanics and the like in general. As for Dualla's rank in LDYB. The simplest thing is to leave it at lieutenant and consider it a costuming mishap. It's the first time she appeared in an officer's uniform, which may explain it. The explanation about a brevet promotion may appear logical, but from what I can tell, the writers don't put that much thought into such trivial details. Every comment about Lee Adama, for example, makes it sound like they consider it to be a normal promotion. And his demotion to major is actually referred to explicitly in a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd-KJ2Jscko deleted scene] in "Collaborators", even if it's a bit jokingly. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, the deckhand thing makes sense. That always seemed a weird choice for a rank, as it also refers to mechanics and the like in general. As for Dualla's rank in LDYB. The simplest thing is to leave it at lieutenant and consider it a costuming mishap. It's the first time she appeared in an officer's uniform, which may explain it. The explanation about a brevet promotion may appear logical, but from what I can tell, the writers don't put that much thought into such trivial details. Every comment about Lee Adama, for example, makes it sound like they consider it to be a normal promotion. And his demotion to major is actually referred to explicitly in a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd-KJ2Jscko deleted scene] in "Collaborators", even if it's a bit jokingly. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
== Updated Rank Chart based off of format established by Jim Stevenson ==
I'm sure all of you by now has seen the rank guide created by Jim Stevenson, in fact I'm pretty sure that's where almost all of the rank device images on the page come from.  Anyway it's been a year and a half since he last updated it and there have been several major updates, so I went ahead and updated it might self.  Would there be a problem with me posting it, and if so would people have a problem with me posting it in lieu of the current chart?
[[User:Grandmaester314|Grandmaester314]] 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:You should definitely ask him if he's ok with you updating and reworking it. He hasn't worked on it for some time, but it's still his design. This page credits him, but I also asked if I could cut the chart up like this. And actually creating a new version is another thing entirely. He might be fine with it, but you should ask.
:As for the change I made to your recent edits. That wasn't about the content, so much as the style. We already have an entire page of footnotes and such extensive notes aren't good to read IMO. Yeah, I've seen legal documents with one page for ''one'' footnote, but that doesn't mean it's such a good idea. Most of it is necessary here, but the stuff you added was very self-argumentative and could be shortened a lot. Basically it says that it's unclear why the decision was made, that there may be one or two in-universe reasons, but that there are also real-world reasons like an error or production realities. That's perfectly fine, but it's possible to say that in one or two sentences without adding five footnotes, that were frankly hard to read the way they were worded and structured. It took me a while to get what the actual argument was, and then I realized that a lot of it didn't really add to the point made, but just hid it behind verbosity. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::I would have asked him directly but I have no way of contacting him.  Also I apologize for the "verbosity," I have a very flowery writing style and to be quite honest couldn't simply anything to save my life, if anybody would like to try to do that I welcome the assistance.  However I do reserve the right to reinsert something if I believe something of value has been cut.[[User:Grandmaester314|Grandmaester314]] 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::With the upcoming auction of BSG props, wouldn't now be an opportune time to replace the rank illustrations with images of actual production insignia?  It would also be interesting to see the insignia used on the tan warrant officer uniforms - even if there is an inconsistency, it's something footnotable and worthy of interest.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 08:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::If they're ''high quality'' pictures sure. I decided to use those illustrations in the absence of any detailed references and screencaps. The recently added real pictures are still of pretty low quality. They are a nice complement, but can't really replace the drawings IMO. But if we can get nice photos of all pins, sure. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's why the gallery of pin photos was added, instead of replacing the graphics.  Jim's graphics had some inaccuracies that had to be corrected, such as plain "starbursts" w/o the Colonial emblem for the rank lieutenant colonel. The ranks of warrant officer and crew sergeant were missing and had to be "cooked up". Also, replacing the table would have removed the collar piping illustrations, which would have thrown off the text references in the article.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
== Additional footnote for Lieutenant Colonel insignia ==
Would it make sense to add an additional bullet to the footnote mentioning that this insignia has been used on warrant officer uniforms?  It appears to be the case from pictures in the BSG auction catalog.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 10:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
: You mean the Warrant Officer's pin, right? Since that was the one mainly used on the tan BDU (with the exception of Sgt. [[Hadrian]]). -- [[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> 16:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Is there a distinct warrant officer's pin?  The ones on the tan BDU's looked like the Lt Col Fisk/Dualla insignia.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 18:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Yes, it's basically the same pin as the Lt. Colonel, but with the smaller diamond plates on the sides... very much like the collar dogs that Chief wears, except gold and silver. There's a picture of it in the catalog in the pin collection... the lot # escapes me right now, but a quick search of the PDF (or of the catalog on Auction Network) will pull that up in a jiffy. ;-) -- [[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> 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::: Yeah, the side lozenges are closer-in than the Chief's pin, easy to go unnoticed without a dialogue closeup shot (or in auction catalog full-length tan costume illustration)  :-)-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
== Lance Corporal ==
Another wrench thrown into the works perhaps (Lance Corporal Maldonaldo)?  It doesn't help that he wore the black tactical uniform without rank insignia. -- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 07:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:Yeah I noticed that to, I'm inclined to chalk it up as an error on the part of the writing staff.  None of the production materials we've seen to date recognize the existance of that rank.  If such information is forthcoming I think that time would the appropriate time to add it to the chart.  Until then, I think it best to leave it out. -- [[User:Grandmaester314|Grandmaester314]] 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
==Another Admiral?==
Just to be picky here, i just watched "Sine Qua Non" and i distinctly recall seeing Adama promote Tight to Admiral in his absence. It's even listed in the episode article, in the details section
[[User:Griffin-2-6|Griffin-2-6]] 23:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
: Correct. Tigh was promoted to Admiral, although the promotion is short lived. -- [[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> 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To edit this page, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):

Refresh
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | ° &nbsp; · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
     [[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · [[Special:MyLanguage/]] · <code></code> · <nowiki></nowiki> <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · {{#translation:}} · <tvar|></> · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} · <categorytree></categorytree> · <div style="clear:both;"></div> <s></s>


Your changes will be visible immediately.
  • For testing, please use the sandbox instead.
  • On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).