User talk:Hbpense - Revision history

Serenity: /* Military ranks comparison */ tweaking

2007-08-22T17:01:35Z

Military ranks comparison: tweaking

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 22 August 2007
Line 34:		Line 34:

	In short the article history is as follows if I remember correctly:		In short the article history is as follows if I remember correctly:
	#Overemphasis on US Navy comparisons. Unclear status of admiral		#Overemphasis on US Navy comparisons. Unclear status of admiral and commander
	#Lengthy discussion with no definite result. Overall it was felt that putting commander as captain seemed most sensible even if it might not fit perfectly		#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		#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		#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 ~~also~~ be major. 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 is a ''rough'' comparison.		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 --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)		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)

Serenity: /* Military ranks comparison */ copyediting

2007-08-22T16:19:55Z

Military ranks comparison: copyediting

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 22 August 2007
Line 39:		Line 39:
	#Someone edited it again and replaced one of the N/A with "non-qualified ensign". See above		#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 also be major. But the thing is, it doesn't really matter. The article should really about BSG. Not about the US Navy. For example, some countries or services handle flight training differently. Some ~~are~~ 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. 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 is a ''rough'' comparison.		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 also be major. 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 is 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. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)		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 --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Serenity: Explination of article history. Reason for reverting. Explination where "non-qualified ensign" came from (which might be wrong after all)

2007-08-22T16:18:02Z

Explination of article history. Reason for reverting. Explination where "non-qualified ensign" came from (which might be wrong after all)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 22 August 2007
Line 27:		Line 27:

	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
			#Lengthy discussion with no definite result. 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 also be major. But the thing is, it doesn't really matter. The article should really about BSG. Not about the US Navy. For example, some countries or services handle flight training differently. Some are 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. 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 is 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. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Spencerian: /* Military ranks comparison */ -added forwarding comment

2007-08-22T07:27:34Z

Military ranks comparison: -added forwarding comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:27, 22 August 2007
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]].

Serenity: Military ranks comparison

2007-08-22T07:02:16Z

Military ranks comparison

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:02, 22 August 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:
	We look forward to your contributions to the Battlestar Wiki community!		We look forward to your contributions to the Battlestar Wiki community!
	--[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:35, 21 August 2007 (CDT)		--[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:35, 21 August 2007 (CDT)


			== Military ranks comparison ==

			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]].

			The thing is that the Colonial Fleet is ''not'' the US Navy. You don't have commanders commanding the ship and an admiral commanding the Battlestar Group. And you don't have commanders as CAGs for example. While there are parallels to modern militaries, it's not a mirror. And other navies do things differently here on Earth. There is no reason to force this into a direct 1:1 scheme.

			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)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Welcome to Battlestar Wiki!

2007-08-22T04:35:19Z

Welcome to Battlestar Wiki!

New page

== Welcome to Battlestar Wiki! ==
Welcome to the Wiki, Hbpense. Tell us about yourself on [[User:Hbpense|your user page]]. We have a [[Template:User Data|template]] that lets you put some information about yourself in a nice-looking box.

Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on '''officially-licensed stories, aired episodes, and other products of the ''Battlestar'' universes.''' Make sure that your contributions fit [[Battlestar Wiki:What is Battlestar Wiki|Battlestar Wiki's purpose]], avoiding [[BW:NOT|what we aren't]].

Our [[BW:SAC|editing standards and conventions policies]] may differ from other wikis, especially in verb tense and voice, capitalization and the like. '''Please read this policy.''' We have [[BW:TUT|an editing tutorial]] and [[BW:MARK|wiki markup codes]] to help you.

Our policies on [[w:Original research|original research]] differ from places such as Wikipedia. We allow [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|some research based on aired episode content]], but don't allow [[BW:FANW|speculation that isn't supported from episode events]]. Battlestar Wiki does <u>'''not'''</u> allow [[fan fiction]] articles.

Battlestar Wiki's [[Battlestar Wiki:Project List|many projects]] help improve our content. Are you an [[Original Series]] fan? Help out in the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Project]]. [[Battlestar Wiki:Translation Project|Non-English versions of Battlestar Wiki]] also need contributors, and helpers for our [[BW:POD|podcast transcriptions]] are also welcome. New projects should be brought to our [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]], where we hash out large-scale ideas before implementing them.

Any questions about an article can be entered on the article's talk page. General questions about the wiki can be brought to [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum|the Quorum]] or [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|the administrators' noticeboard]]. Please sign your posts on any talk page by simply entering four tildes (~~~~), which will be automatically replaced with your name and a time stamp.

Remember that talk pages are for questions about the article connected to that talk page, and [[BW:FORUM|aren't for long discussions about the show.]] To chat as much as you'd like about the show (or other topics), why not set up a free account on the [http://www.battlestarforum.com Battlestar Forum] bulletin board?

We look forward to your contributions to the Battlestar Wiki community!
--[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:35, 21 August 2007 (CDT)