| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
| |
|
| == Military ranks comparison == | | == Military ranks comparison == |
|
| |
| (''Hi, Hbpense. Serenity reverted your edit to the article [[Military Ranks (RDM)]]. The reasons regarding how ranks translate from US military counterparts are below, but don't let it sway you from making other edits! However, before making changes, be sure to skim through the talk page of an article before editing. What you may consider adding may have been discussed. You can also ask questions about subjects on the talk page, or, if you're really lost, on the [[BW:AN|admin's noticeboard]].'' Serenity's comments follow. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 02:27, 22 August 2007 (CDT))
| |
|
| |
|
| That was discussed ''extensively'' on the talk page with lots and back and forth. It's true that there are some arguments to be made for equaling BSG commander to real life rear admiral (and at some points the table was that way), but it's not that clean and there is some evidence to suggest the contrary. For example when Adama is promoted, Roslin says "I know that a captain who commands more than one ship is called an admiral". That kind of points to where the Colonials draw that distinction (incidentially it makes that comodore business somewhat redundant). All circumstantial evidence says that commander is generally the captain of a (large) ship without being a flag rank. Moreover, it seems XOs are normally colonels (real life commanders), like Tigh, Fisk and [[Jurgen Belzen|Belzen]]. | | That was discussed ''extensively'' on the talk page with lots and back and forth. It's true that there are some arguments to be made for equaling BSG commander to real life rear admiral (and at some points the table was that way), but it's not that clean and there is some evidence to suggest the contrary. For example when Adama is promoted, Roslin says "I know that a captain who commands more than one ship is called an admiral". That kind of points to where the Colonials draw that distinction (incidentially it makes that comodore business somewhat redundant). All circumstantial evidence says that commander is generally the captain of a (large) ship without being a flag rank. Moreover, it seems XOs are normally colonels (real life commanders), like Tigh, Fisk and [[Jurgen Belzen|Belzen]]. |
| Line 27: |
Line 25: |
|
| |
|
| Anyways, it was felt, that the most sensible thing would be to have commander = captain, and colonel = commander, and keeping it close to where BSG places the roles, while pointing out some points of divergence. Not everyone will agree, and said there are good arguments for either side, but it's just not meant to fit perfectly --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 02:02, 22 August 2007 (CDT) | | Anyways, it was felt, that the most sensible thing would be to have commander = captain, and colonel = commander, and keeping it close to where BSG places the roles, while pointing out some points of divergence. Not everyone will agree, and said there are good arguments for either side, but it's just not meant to fit perfectly --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 02:02, 22 August 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| |
| Sorry, to seem somewhat harsh. And somehow it's a little silly to get into such a huge argument over this. You're right that there doesn't seem to be such thing as "non-qualified ensign". Google gave BSWiki as top result, which isn't a good thing. However that idea was made by [[User talk:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] who also made other military edits and seems to have some detailed first hand knowledge. So I thought I leave it in, because it might be true. Maybe we could ask him about it...
| |
|
| |
| All in all, I reverted this because the footnotes largely support the old structure.
| |
|
| |
| In short the article history is as follows if I remember correctly:
| |
| #Overemphasis on US Navy comparisons. Unclear status of admiral and commander
| |
| #Lengthy discussion with no definite result, but a consensus between a few people (see talk page archive 2). Overall it was felt that putting commander as captain seemed most sensible even if it might not fit perfectly
| |
| #Realization that the BSG system has one rank more. Realization that the ranks don't have to fit 1:1. Colonial Fleet is NOT the US Navy after all. Therefor one or the other rank was put at N/A
| |
| #Someone edited it again and replaced one of the N/A with "non-qualified ensign". See above
| |
|
| |
| As said, it's often a good idea to bring up some things on an article's talk page, especially if an entry is disputed. As for now, I put as it was some time ago. With one rank at N/A. Again, there might be disputes as to what rank exactly doesn't fit. It could be either major or captain. But the thing is, it doesn't really matter. The article should really be about BSG. Not about the US Navy. For example, some countries or services handle flight training differently. Some trainees are cadets, some are Lt.s (in the airforce), some even 1st Lt.s. In BSG the rank of ensign is used both for [[nuggets]] and for pilots who just completed flight training ([[rooks]]). So that is not necessarily the same in the real world. There are others that don't mesh perfectly. But it's just supposed to be a ''rough'' comparison.
| |
|
| |
| You seem to favor a bottom to top approach, which is valid. But we have most on screen evidence to conjecturally equal commander with captain and rear admiral with, well rear admiral (the UH/LH is a distinctly American thing anyways). So the rest is chosen to go with that as best as it fits.
| |
|
| |
| I made a post about it on [[Talk:Military Ranks (RDM)]]. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
