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

User talk:Serenity: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of User:Serenity
Serenity (talk | contribs)
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
{{ArchiveTOC}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}


== Immunity to virus ==
== Military Ranks ==


Sorry for posting it again, thought the change failed to save since you removed it so fast. Anyway I have to disagree with your reasons - Cottle says "couple hundred years ago", a couple is 2 so its 200 years ago and it is very relevent since its a major clue as the history of the cylons. Since they didn't have an immunity to the virus then it implies they are based on material that is at least 200 years old{{unsigned|Swozie}}
I would have messaged you before now but I only just now figured out how to use the talk function.
:"a couple" means "a few". That can be anything from 2 to maybe 4 or 5. In any case, it's not an accurate date. If you had written something like "'''over''' 200 years BCH", then ''maybe''. I still question its relevance. It's another speculative topic, especially with the shaky science of the episode. As it's written now, it's stands there without any point. One could add that piece of speculation/analysis, but that's not really fitting for a timeline. It could be added as analysis, or better question to the episode article though. Actually, it's already touched on about [[A Measure of Salvation#Analysis|3/4th of the way down]]. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:13, 4 January 2008 (CST)
::A couple does not mean a few! A few means 3,4,5 or whatever, a couple means 2 thats all there is to it (as Cottle would say). It borders speculation that it is relevant to cylon history which is why I didn't say that - thats left up to the reader to interpret but since its a valid piece of information on Coloniel History then this is the most relevant place for it. {{unsigned|Swozie}}
:::The term is used ambigiously when referring to time. It might technically mean two, but when people say "A couple of days" they don't always mean two, or they might as well say it. The [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/couple Oxford dictionary] says "an indefinite small number" as a possible definition. Anyways, it's already mentioned on the episode page, and there is a [[Cylon History]] article too. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:47, 4 January 2008 (CST)


I can't believe there can be so much fuss over such a simple change. Cottle says "a couple hundred years ago", a couple means 2, its speculation that he meant approx 200 years based on your experience of how other people would use the term. I was just posting a hard fact effectively pasted direct from the show and you disagree with it! Do you want facts in this site or just your interpretation of facts? I fully agree that you shouldn't have speculation posted but I didn't speculate anything here and besides the site has an awful of preconceptions posted as facts that need to be made clearer, I would like to contribute in this way but it involves this much hassle then its a waste of my time.
I don't appreciate you just blanket undoing all of my changes which is why I simply remade them. This is a wiki so I fully expect my revisions to be further revised to some degree, but I think it's incredibly disrespectful to just undo them in their entirety.  In addition many of my changes were clerical (changing lower case letters to capitals for example) and undoing those to me makes no sense.


Your recent change is better but you say "at least 200 years" and this could mean 200 to million years or more which obviously isnt what Cottle says - just change it to "couple hundred" years as Cottle says!! {{unsigned|Swozie}}
Second, the reason I keep removing the Petty Officer Second Class/Master Sergeant and Rear Admiral ranks has nothing to do with them not being on Ron Moore's list. It has to do with the fact that unlike other ranks like Rear Admiral, which although not mentioned on Ron Moore's list, have been definitively established on screen; those two ranks have not been established by any authority for the show onscreen or otherwise. In addition I thought we abandoned trying to match it with the U.S. Rank system when we struck that part of the chart. I think we should limit the ranks we list to those that have been definitively established, especially given how complex the rank structure is getting.
:Swozie, please calm down. You say you "can't believe there can be so much fuss over such a simple change", but you're the one making the fuss here. "A couple of ..." is generally meant as "a few ...", not exactly 2. Ask anyone, they'll agree. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 16:10, 4 January 2008 (CST)
:It simply does not mean ''exactly'' two years. Yeah, I'm making too much of a fuss about it and it's annoying me too. Removing it was probably jumping the gun; sorry. I can add a footnote about Cottle's dialogue, but it's really pretty clear how he means it. But I could also say that you want your interpretation of facts noted. This cuts both ways. There are an awful lot of theories about things floating around and it's impossible to give room to everything, so we either eliminate speculation entirely or try to stick to the most sensible interpretations until something is clarified. Again, the best place for this stuff is the Analysis section of the episode pages. They usually have room to write more a bit more about something and are also read by many people. It's also ideal for challenging "preconceptions" with new ideas as long as they're not too outlandish (like some of the stuff on the Final Five, Earth, etc. that can be found on forums).
:Btw, please sign your comments with four tildes: <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>. There is also a quick link below the edit box for it. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:17, 4 January 2008 (CST)


OK I am calm! I just didn't think it was in line with the timeline if I had written "couple" where all the other items are listed with numbers. So do you suggest I talk about changes before making them in the future?
Third I believe it's valid to offer possible explanations for rank insignias that haven't been shown. I believe you yourself offered a great deal of speculation on the page dealing with Valkyrie, and if not at least supported them when I tried to edit them to support different theories; so I don't see how it can be ok to speculate on one page but not on another as long as the speculation is reasonably supported.
--[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 16:38, 4 January 2008 (CST)
:I don't think that will be necessary, unless you're planning to rewrite half an article. If it's a little thing like this, just make the change, and someone will spot it and undo it if they think it's wrong. Please don't be discouraged by the fact that one of your first edits was met by controversy: that's just bad luck. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 16:44, 4 January 2008 (CST)
:Nah, it was fine. Usually things don't spiral out of control like this. :s Of course I could have opened a discussion before removing it, but that's really the same problem. There a few approximate dates on the page with "ca.", so they don't all have to be exact. If something isn't clear, they just have a footnote with the source or reasoning. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:50, 4 January 2008 (CST)


ok cool well before I make any more changes I need you to clarify what you interpret as speculation. The cylons not having immunity "implies" that they are based on material that is at least a "couple" hundred years old. Simon even says that they are all based on material from the same genetic pool. Now I appreciate this can lead to wild theories but I don't see it as speculation, its logical deduction, whether you believe it or not is another matter. However the same page talks about "at some unlisted time, travel occured from Earth to Kobol (because of the constellation map)". This is no different, the evidence implies travel from Earth to Kobol, its never stated as fact its just deduced.--[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 17:11, 4 January 2008 (CST)
If you have a problem with something I put up let's discuss it rather than engaging in an edit war, such tactics are completely counterproductive and a waste of both of our time. {{unsigned|Grandmaester314}}
:The Cylons' genetic pool doesn't need to be hundreds of years old. They probably made some modifications to human DNA (since they're different from humans), which could have accidentally removed the immunity. The Cylons' inability to breed could have a similar cause. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 04:18, 5 January 2008 (CST)
::Exactly my point - you are speculating, having to make up something to suppport your preconceived ideas of the show.--[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 06:02, 5 January 2008 (CST)
:::Again, the same could be said about you. One reason why I was hesitant to include that part is because hardly anyone will make a connection to the creation of the humanoid Cylons. Having it there is certainly more unfounded speculation than not as it hints at an assumed connection. As said, it's something for episode analysis, or simply the question section. Like "Is the date of the viral infection a hint towards the Cylons' age?". That points people at the information without really stating anything. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:12, 5 January 2008 (CST)
:::Having watched this conversation, I happen to agree. The Timeline is the wrong place for this kind of speculation, which should be limited to the episode guide (whether as a question or analysis point). As for the point about the constellations, it's common sense that the constellations (as depicted in "Home, Part II" can only be seen from Earth in those configurations, otherwise they would either be reversed or otherwise distorted). -- [[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 &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 06:26, 5 January 2008 (CST)


What the hell are you lot talking about!! I mention putting a fact in the timeline, a fact that is mentioned in the show, thats it, THE FACT, this is a site for facts yes? Thats all there is to it, who cares about what the reader might read into it, thats up to the reader not you - you dont not list a fact because your worried readers might read too much into it, thats up to them not you. What you doing is restricting facts that you don't feel appropriate - does this give you some sort of power trip, excercising some cheap form of mind control? Oh I am calm - but its a shame because this site is great, there is alot of work put into it that by like minded individuals but it has an awful lot of assumptions written into it, its almost like you can't add anything if it hints in anyway to a story line that doesnt conform to your preconceived ideas of what the show is about, in short its your own personal view on BSG and not the objective view that I thought it was, I got the wrong idea of the purpose of this site and I apologize for that, good luck with all your hard work in the future --[[User:Swozie|Swozie]] 19:49, 5 January 2008 (CST)
: The ranking system is about to become even more complex. However, I've had to revert your edits and lock the page temporarily, since I really don't want an edit war to go on—plus Serenity's are the closest to the actual stuff used on the show, as opposed to your edits. (As a consultant / assistant researcher on the [http://www.battlestarprops.com Battlestar Galactica Props and Costumes] auctions run by PropWorx and Unviersal, I have access to behind-the-scenes documentation regarding the rank pins used in the show. I'll add the missing ranks and their corresponding pins here in a few weeks or so, since it's not a high priority for me at this moment.)  
: Swozie, I'm sorry that you feel that way. The issue here appears more or less to be communication... or rather, how complicated this discussion has become.
: I have a suggestion in that regard... If you could restate your views more clearly we may be able to work from that, since the conversation above does appear to be somewhat confusing to me. As such, I think what you, Serenity, and Catrope are talking about seems to have become clouded.
: In response to your power trip comments, none of us here are on a "power trip" and to make such a claim really detracts from the arguments you're trying to make, which is both unfortunate and regrettable. -- [[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 &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 19:59, 5 January 2008 (CST)
:Of course it's speculative, and I added a note to that effect now. But it also held up over time. This isn't the first discussion about this. Every now and then someone presents some other theory. At the end it always stayed more or less the same. Probably because it makes the most sense. So there is some consensus on that here. And not just between the admins. Yes, one could arrange it differently, but some of the ideas out there are just too crazy. The only alternative would be to just say "4000 years: age of the temple of the five", "2000 years: age of the ruins on kobol" without any interpretation. But some people would probably miss that.
:As for your addition. Sorry that there was so much trouble about it, but it's there now. It's also not about the addition per se, but that hardly anyone will think "oh. 200 years! The Cylons have to be older than that!" It's fine now, but posing such questions is precisely what the episode guides are for. That you can't add such things just isn't right. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:59, 6 January 2008 (CST)


== Moving the TOC ==
: Also, given Serenity's status as an administrator and the fact that he can edit the page even if it's locked, I'll ask that Serenity not edit the ranks page in question until it's been unlocked again.


This can also be done by adding <nowiki>__TOC__</nowiki> wherever you want the TOC to appear. This not only moves the TOC to that position, but also forces it to appear even if it normally wouldn't (less than four sections in the article). There's also its brother, <nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki>, of course. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 08:59, 4 February 2008 (CST)
: Don't take this action personally. It's just that none of us should be wasting our time editing the page until I get the chance to add what needs to be added there. Thanks! -- [[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> 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:Ah cool. Let's try that :) Though the article isn't big enough to really need it anyways. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:51, 4 February 2008 (CST)
 
:*As for the style edits. Ranks are not capitalized unless they're used as titles, followed by a name. That's what other pages here do, or should at least. It's the standard that Wikipedia uses (although a bit inconsistently) and it's what's used in the real world generally; for example [http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/111201.htm here] or the official [http://www.navy.mil/tools/view_styleguide_all.asp Navy style guide]. That's why I changed that. Yes, the ranks are capitalized in the table, but that's a bit different from prose.
:*I reverted some of the additions to the names, because some of them were superfluous. It's just supposed to be a few examples, not an exhaustive list of all officers. So I removed Shaw as lieutenant for example. And the stuff about "Razor Part 2" and such doesn't make much sense. There aren't any parts to the movie.
:*I initially removed the rank insignia speculation because I thought it went on for far too long for a mere footnote and drew too much comparisons to real-world examples. Then I realized that there is merit to it and re-added it in a condensed form, that gets the main point across. See footnotes #11 and #12. It's still there.
:*As for the real-world rank comparison. That has been discussed at some length on the talk page, and while arguments can be made for both, it was generally felt that it makes most sense to have a commander to be the same as a captain. But getting rid of the comparison at all is the best course of action, considering the trouble it caused.
:*As for the speculative ranks. They've been there for maybe two years and nobody complained about it before. The footnotes make it clear that they haven't been established on screen, so they can easily be ignored if someone prefers that. I think there are more arguments to include them than there are against them (there is just no reason to not have them, when the rest of the NCO list follows the usual structure). In any case, this is probably a moot point with Joe having something of a complete list. In general, this is an article that lends itself to some deduction. Assuming that there is a rank missing or how some insignia might look can be well-grounded reasoning. That's a bit different from just wildly guessing about the purpose of a certain ship type for example.
:*I realize that this has been a sad edit war and I didn't like it, but we are both to blame. I pointed out the capitalization issue in the edit summary for example. We could also have discussed this on talk pages earlier instead of just reverting back and forth. I left a note on your talk page about something else and should have written another when this went out of hand, but I wasn't sure if you'd read it. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
 
First, thanks for the response.  Second, I have several points I'd like to make, I apologize in advance if this gets rather lengthy.
 
In response to the recent unpleasantness:
*I did read your initial message but as I indicated to Joe, until yesterday, I couldn't figure out how to respond. 
*I realize I have a tendency to get overly wordy, its a function of my vocabulary and writing style which definitely has something of a flourish to it, however since I couldn't figure out how to consolidate my comments any further than I already had, I figured I'd post it and let someone else figure out how to consolidate them.
*I agree with you and Joe that it is counterproductive to keep revising this page when he will shortly have a bunch of new, and more definitive information.
*I know we got off on the wrong foot but I hope we can change that, you seem to be one of the people most interested in this topic, which to me is perhaps the most interesting one, and I think we could have some very productive discussions.
 
I'd also like to make some BSG related comments for you to think about:
*Assuming that Joe doesn't provide further clarification on the Lt. Colonel issue I think it's something that should still be discussed further before a final conclusion is made as to it's exact role.  I have a very different opinion on it than you seem to.  I think it may not be a rank at all. 
**Credits have been known to be mislisted before and their have been instances where ranks have been listed that either conflicted with their insignia (such as Agathon wearing a full lieutenant's chevrons but claiming to be a junior lieutenant), or were never established in the ranks structure (such as the multiple classes of specialist I've heard referred to).
**Officers of different ranks have worn it.
**The insignia doesn't follow any kind of trend like all the other ranks do which would place it in a specific rank catagory.
***The enlisted ranks all have standard diamond shapes with silver borders and green inlay, junior officers all have the same general diamond shape and silver border that enlisted ranks do but have gold inlay, and the other senior officers all have a progression based on a foundation of the full colonel design which is a gold diamond with an extended tapered edge on the bottom and a raised red phoenix logo in the center.
***This insignia has charactoristics from all these classes and others that are unique to it.  It shares the same basic diamond shape and raised border as the enlisted and junior officer ranks.  On the other hand it shares it's completely gold color and phoenix logo with the senior officer ranks.  However, unlike the enlisted and junior officer ranks which have a raised silver border, it's raised border is the same gold as the rest of it, as is the raised diamond in the center (similar raised designs in the enlisted ranks are the same silver as the border in contrast to the green inlay).  At the same time it also diverges from the senior officer ranks because its diamond shape doesn't share the same evolving design as the other senior officers and also unlike the other senior officers its phoenix is engraved and unpainted as opposed to raised and red colored.
**For these reasons I think this device is designed to indicate someone granted a special role.  In Dualla's case it might have been used to indicate her XO status which wouldn't be at all apparent from her actual rank since under normal circumstances, a lieutenant junior grade would never be XO of a battlestar.  Now as to why Fisk wore it, I can only speculate, perhaps he wasn't supposed to be a permanent member of the crew but was only on board at the time of the attacks because he had some role in Pegasus' overhaul.
*Unless Joe is able to definitively place him in the rank structure, I think Marine Lieutenant Burrell should be removed from the list of examples on the ranks chart since we can't definitively place his rank in the overall rank structure.  Besides as Joe pointed out (and I hadn't really realized), the list isn't intended to be exhaustive.  While I understand the desire to have him on the list since he is the only Marine officer we have seen, I think we shouldn't place him on the list until we now for sure where he goes.
*Given a comment from Joe I know ascede to the fact that their may well be a Senior Chief Petty Officer Rank (in fact it would resolve a major issue for me namely, why use the rank of gunnery sergeant when you don't use master sergeant?), at least enough for me to feel ok including it in the list.  However given the fact that Cally was promoted directly from Specialist to PO2 I believe it's safe to conclude two things: First, there is no P.O. Third Class.  Second, given that the rank of Corporal has been established and would normally be equivalent to PO3, there is indeed no Lance Corporal rank and Corporal is just shifted down one and slotted in next to Specialist.  I believe almost as strongly that their is no Vice Admiral rank for a number of reasons.  In addition to the fact that it has never even been mentioned, the most notable reason is that if you take a look at the uniform fringe colors for Admiral and Rear Admiral, there doesn't seem to be room for an intermediate rank because the next logical progression from the Rear Admiral's gold over silver is the Fleet Admiral's solid gold.
*Finally, I differ in my assessment of the place of Commander in the rank structure.  I believe that Commanders are more closely akin to a one-star admiral than to a Captain in the U.S. Navy. They do fulfill aspects of both roles, but given that battlestars are often dispatched on their own, that Admiral's are only assigned when their are multiple military ships in a group as opposed to unarmed support vessels, and that in reality a carrier task force usually has more than one admiral (usually a two- or three-star in overall command, and at least one one- or two-star admiral in charge of all the screening ships.  I believe that equating Commander with Captain does not accurately recognize the scope of a Commander's authorities and duties or his significantly higher standing in the overall command structure.  Also I think it can be expected that there are other military vessels which aren't battlestars which may at times accompany a battlestar group and I think for such smaller vessels, it would likely be Colonel or even a Major in certain circumstances who be in direct command of the specific vessel (after all the navy assigns commanding officers of different ranks to command different types of ships based on their size and purpose.
 
Any way I know I am probably babbling by now but I thought I'd give you some idea of some of the things I would like to discuss in the future.
 
I am also going to send Joe a list of things that I think are most important to clear up.  I think it might be helpful for him to have some guidelines see he can target his research.  These include:
*A definite equivalence table for Marine and Fleet enlisted ranks
*The real nature of the so-called "Lt. Colonel" insignia
*Whether the Marines have a different officer structure than the Fleet.
*The exact number of officer and enlisted ranks
*Whether there are any other officer ranks that haven't been introduced.
 
Again I apologize for the length of the message but I thought it might inspire some constructive discussion.
[[User:Grandmaester314|Grandmaester314]] 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:*As for the commander/captain/admiral things. I see your points and I've heard them before. There are valid arguments for both points of view. So in the end, the best is to just drop it. There have been long arguments about this before that didn't really go anywhere, and in the end the rank structure is very similar but not identical to real-world examples, especially considering the ''roles'' of people. The article isn't really any better with the comparison, so good riddance :)
:*I'm usually also a bit hesitant to fully include all behind the scenes information, as it's sometimes contradicted by on-screen content (whereas Joe for example is more of an "inclusionist"). But this seems to be pretty consistent from what I've seen so far. Except that everyone wearing a beige BDUs is supposed to be a warrant officer as Joe noted on the article's talk page. For example Sergeant Hadrian and a couple of pretty young crewmen also wear them and they aren't WOs. We'll see how that all turns out, but in any case, it's more logical to assume that Fisk was indeed intended to be a lieutenant colonel and promoted later, than to invent things to explain it away. That's kinda fanwanky, even if the arguments make sense. Dualla's insignia can just be chalked up as a costuming error then. Yeah, the insignia doesn't fit 100%ly, but if that's what they intended (and maybe supported by other sources), we'll have to go by it. There are similar oddities in real-life, for example with silver outranking gold in the US armed forces (e.g. gold oak leaf = major, silver = lieutenant colonel). It's just a TV show after all, and even the best ones make errors here and there.
:*Regarding Burrell. There is actually a second [[Unnamed Galactica and Pegasus crew (RDM)#Marine Lieutenant|unnamed Marine lieutenant]] in Season 4. I agree that including him in the list is a bit fishy since he doesn't necessarily line up with a Fleet lieutenant. Maybe the two can be moved up into the text, where Marine officers are briefly mentioned. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
== Rank Listing for Sergeant Hadrian ==
 
I have changed back the listing of rank on the Sergeant Hadrian page to Sergeant First Class.  You made a valid point when you changed it back but I thought it should be consistent with what is on the ranks page.  If this a big problem for you, you can change it back.  Also, I would have left this not on the history listing for the change the way you normally do but I still can't figure out how to do that.
[[User:Grandmaester314|Grandmaester314]] 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:It's fine now that the pages are consistent with each other. They just shouldn't contain something different as before. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Errors  ==
 
The footnotes you added to [[Unnamed Cities of Caprica]] don't seem to be showing up.
 
 
*Nevermind.... they show up only when i log out.
 
== I accidently added a file which someone should probably delete. ==
 
I watched the movie Caprica and saw in a scene the [[U-87]] in just the right pose for a screengrab.  I made a screengrab as is allowed under fair use, uploaded it to the wiki and licensed it [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY Version # 3.0. ]
 
The problem is that in my gusto, I forgot to export it as JPEG.  Not wanting to waste our bandwidth, I exported it as JPEG and uploaded the much smaller JPEG to the wiki.  This just leaves the problem of  the original PNG:
 
¿Could you please delete?
 
Post Scriptum:
 
When looking for a Chief to delete the file, I noticed that your name is Serenity.  I too am a Brown Coat.  Since I had no better reason to choose a Chief for asking, I ask you for that reason.
 
[[User:Walabio|Walabio]] 09:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:I saw this on the recent changes and took care of it. Will let [[User:Walabio|Walabio]] know on his talk page, and suggest he post on the [[BW:CN|Chief's noticeboard]] in the future for fastest resolution. Also, hi from another Brown Coat. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 18:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:17, 25 April 2009


Military Ranks

I would have messaged you before now but I only just now figured out how to use the talk function.

I don't appreciate you just blanket undoing all of my changes which is why I simply remade them. This is a wiki so I fully expect my revisions to be further revised to some degree, but I think it's incredibly disrespectful to just undo them in their entirety. In addition many of my changes were clerical (changing lower case letters to capitals for example) and undoing those to me makes no sense.

Second, the reason I keep removing the Petty Officer Second Class/Master Sergeant and Rear Admiral ranks has nothing to do with them not being on Ron Moore's list. It has to do with the fact that unlike other ranks like Rear Admiral, which although not mentioned on Ron Moore's list, have been definitively established on screen; those two ranks have not been established by any authority for the show onscreen or otherwise. In addition I thought we abandoned trying to match it with the U.S. Rank system when we struck that part of the chart. I think we should limit the ranks we list to those that have been definitively established, especially given how complex the rank structure is getting.

Third I believe it's valid to offer possible explanations for rank insignias that haven't been shown. I believe you yourself offered a great deal of speculation on the page dealing with Valkyrie, and if not at least supported them when I tried to edit them to support different theories; so I don't see how it can be ok to speculate on one page but not on another as long as the speculation is reasonably supported.

If you have a problem with something I put up let's discuss it rather than engaging in an edit war, such tactics are completely counterproductive and a waste of both of our time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmaester314 (talk • contribs).

The ranking system is about to become even more complex. However, I've had to revert your edits and lock the page temporarily, since I really don't want an edit war to go on—plus Serenity's are the closest to the actual stuff used on the show, as opposed to your edits. (As a consultant / assistant researcher on the Battlestar Galactica Props and Costumes auctions run by PropWorx and Unviersal, I have access to behind-the-scenes documentation regarding the rank pins used in the show. I'll add the missing ranks and their corresponding pins here in a few weeks or so, since it's not a high priority for me at this moment.)
Also, given Serenity's status as an administrator and the fact that he can edit the page even if it's locked, I'll ask that Serenity not edit the ranks page in question until it's been unlocked again.
Don't take this action personally. It's just that none of us should be wasting our time editing the page until I get the chance to add what needs to be added there. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • As for the style edits. Ranks are not capitalized unless they're used as titles, followed by a name. That's what other pages here do, or should at least. It's the standard that Wikipedia uses (although a bit inconsistently) and it's what's used in the real world generally; for example here or the official Navy style guide. That's why I changed that. Yes, the ranks are capitalized in the table, but that's a bit different from prose.
  • I reverted some of the additions to the names, because some of them were superfluous. It's just supposed to be a few examples, not an exhaustive list of all officers. So I removed Shaw as lieutenant for example. And the stuff about "Razor Part 2" and such doesn't make much sense. There aren't any parts to the movie.
  • I initially removed the rank insignia speculation because I thought it went on for far too long for a mere footnote and drew too much comparisons to real-world examples. Then I realized that there is merit to it and re-added it in a condensed form, that gets the main point across. See footnotes #11 and #12. It's still there.
  • As for the real-world rank comparison. That has been discussed at some length on the talk page, and while arguments can be made for both, it was generally felt that it makes most sense to have a commander to be the same as a captain. But getting rid of the comparison at all is the best course of action, considering the trouble it caused.
  • As for the speculative ranks. They've been there for maybe two years and nobody complained about it before. The footnotes make it clear that they haven't been established on screen, so they can easily be ignored if someone prefers that. I think there are more arguments to include them than there are against them (there is just no reason to not have them, when the rest of the NCO list follows the usual structure). In any case, this is probably a moot point with Joe having something of a complete list. In general, this is an article that lends itself to some deduction. Assuming that there is a rank missing or how some insignia might look can be well-grounded reasoning. That's a bit different from just wildly guessing about the purpose of a certain ship type for example.
  • I realize that this has been a sad edit war and I didn't like it, but we are both to blame. I pointed out the capitalization issue in the edit summary for example. We could also have discussed this on talk pages earlier instead of just reverting back and forth. I left a note on your talk page about something else and should have written another when this went out of hand, but I wasn't sure if you'd read it. -- Serenity 15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


First, thanks for the response. Second, I have several points I'd like to make, I apologize in advance if this gets rather lengthy.

In response to the recent unpleasantness:

  • I did read your initial message but as I indicated to Joe, until yesterday, I couldn't figure out how to respond.
  • I realize I have a tendency to get overly wordy, its a function of my vocabulary and writing style which definitely has something of a flourish to it, however since I couldn't figure out how to consolidate my comments any further than I already had, I figured I'd post it and let someone else figure out how to consolidate them.
  • I agree with you and Joe that it is counterproductive to keep revising this page when he will shortly have a bunch of new, and more definitive information.
  • I know we got off on the wrong foot but I hope we can change that, you seem to be one of the people most interested in this topic, which to me is perhaps the most interesting one, and I think we could have some very productive discussions.

I'd also like to make some BSG related comments for you to think about:

  • Assuming that Joe doesn't provide further clarification on the Lt. Colonel issue I think it's something that should still be discussed further before a final conclusion is made as to it's exact role. I have a very different opinion on it than you seem to. I think it may not be a rank at all.
    • Credits have been known to be mislisted before and their have been instances where ranks have been listed that either conflicted with their insignia (such as Agathon wearing a full lieutenant's chevrons but claiming to be a junior lieutenant), or were never established in the ranks structure (such as the multiple classes of specialist I've heard referred to).
    • Officers of different ranks have worn it.
    • The insignia doesn't follow any kind of trend like all the other ranks do which would place it in a specific rank catagory.
      • The enlisted ranks all have standard diamond shapes with silver borders and green inlay, junior officers all have the same general diamond shape and silver border that enlisted ranks do but have gold inlay, and the other senior officers all have a progression based on a foundation of the full colonel design which is a gold diamond with an extended tapered edge on the bottom and a raised red phoenix logo in the center.
      • This insignia has charactoristics from all these classes and others that are unique to it. It shares the same basic diamond shape and raised border as the enlisted and junior officer ranks. On the other hand it shares it's completely gold color and phoenix logo with the senior officer ranks. However, unlike the enlisted and junior officer ranks which have a raised silver border, it's raised border is the same gold as the rest of it, as is the raised diamond in the center (similar raised designs in the enlisted ranks are the same silver as the border in contrast to the green inlay). At the same time it also diverges from the senior officer ranks because its diamond shape doesn't share the same evolving design as the other senior officers and also unlike the other senior officers its phoenix is engraved and unpainted as opposed to raised and red colored.
    • For these reasons I think this device is designed to indicate someone granted a special role. In Dualla's case it might have been used to indicate her XO status which wouldn't be at all apparent from her actual rank since under normal circumstances, a lieutenant junior grade would never be XO of a battlestar. Now as to why Fisk wore it, I can only speculate, perhaps he wasn't supposed to be a permanent member of the crew but was only on board at the time of the attacks because he had some role in Pegasus' overhaul.
  • Unless Joe is able to definitively place him in the rank structure, I think Marine Lieutenant Burrell should be removed from the list of examples on the ranks chart since we can't definitively place his rank in the overall rank structure. Besides as Joe pointed out (and I hadn't really realized), the list isn't intended to be exhaustive. While I understand the desire to have him on the list since he is the only Marine officer we have seen, I think we shouldn't place him on the list until we now for sure where he goes.
  • Given a comment from Joe I know ascede to the fact that their may well be a Senior Chief Petty Officer Rank (in fact it would resolve a major issue for me namely, why use the rank of gunnery sergeant when you don't use master sergeant?), at least enough for me to feel ok including it in the list. However given the fact that Cally was promoted directly from Specialist to PO2 I believe it's safe to conclude two things: First, there is no P.O. Third Class. Second, given that the rank of Corporal has been established and would normally be equivalent to PO3, there is indeed no Lance Corporal rank and Corporal is just shifted down one and slotted in next to Specialist. I believe almost as strongly that their is no Vice Admiral rank for a number of reasons. In addition to the fact that it has never even been mentioned, the most notable reason is that if you take a look at the uniform fringe colors for Admiral and Rear Admiral, there doesn't seem to be room for an intermediate rank because the next logical progression from the Rear Admiral's gold over silver is the Fleet Admiral's solid gold.
  • Finally, I differ in my assessment of the place of Commander in the rank structure. I believe that Commanders are more closely akin to a one-star admiral than to a Captain in the U.S. Navy. They do fulfill aspects of both roles, but given that battlestars are often dispatched on their own, that Admiral's are only assigned when their are multiple military ships in a group as opposed to unarmed support vessels, and that in reality a carrier task force usually has more than one admiral (usually a two- or three-star in overall command, and at least one one- or two-star admiral in charge of all the screening ships. I believe that equating Commander with Captain does not accurately recognize the scope of a Commander's authorities and duties or his significantly higher standing in the overall command structure. Also I think it can be expected that there are other military vessels which aren't battlestars which may at times accompany a battlestar group and I think for such smaller vessels, it would likely be Colonel or even a Major in certain circumstances who be in direct command of the specific vessel (after all the navy assigns commanding officers of different ranks to command different types of ships based on their size and purpose.

Any way I know I am probably babbling by now but I thought I'd give you some idea of some of the things I would like to discuss in the future.

I am also going to send Joe a list of things that I think are most important to clear up. I think it might be helpful for him to have some guidelines see he can target his research. These include:

  • A definite equivalence table for Marine and Fleet enlisted ranks
  • The real nature of the so-called "Lt. Colonel" insignia
  • Whether the Marines have a different officer structure than the Fleet.
  • The exact number of officer and enlisted ranks
  • Whether there are any other officer ranks that haven't been introduced.

Again I apologize for the length of the message but I thought it might inspire some constructive discussion. Grandmaester314 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

  • As for the commander/captain/admiral things. I see your points and I've heard them before. There are valid arguments for both points of view. So in the end, the best is to just drop it. There have been long arguments about this before that didn't really go anywhere, and in the end the rank structure is very similar but not identical to real-world examples, especially considering the roles of people. The article isn't really any better with the comparison, so good riddance :)
  • I'm usually also a bit hesitant to fully include all behind the scenes information, as it's sometimes contradicted by on-screen content (whereas Joe for example is more of an "inclusionist"). But this seems to be pretty consistent from what I've seen so far. Except that everyone wearing a beige BDUs is supposed to be a warrant officer as Joe noted on the article's talk page. For example Sergeant Hadrian and a couple of pretty young crewmen also wear them and they aren't WOs. We'll see how that all turns out, but in any case, it's more logical to assume that Fisk was indeed intended to be a lieutenant colonel and promoted later, than to invent things to explain it away. That's kinda fanwanky, even if the arguments make sense. Dualla's insignia can just be chalked up as a costuming error then. Yeah, the insignia doesn't fit 100%ly, but if that's what they intended (and maybe supported by other sources), we'll have to go by it. There are similar oddities in real-life, for example with silver outranking gold in the US armed forces (e.g. gold oak leaf = major, silver = lieutenant colonel). It's just a TV show after all, and even the best ones make errors here and there.
  • Regarding Burrell. There is actually a second unnamed Marine lieutenant in Season 4. I agree that including him in the list is a bit fishy since he doesn't necessarily line up with a Fleet lieutenant. Maybe the two can be moved up into the text, where Marine officers are briefly mentioned. -- Serenity 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rank Listing for Sergeant Hadrian

I have changed back the listing of rank on the Sergeant Hadrian page to Sergeant First Class. You made a valid point when you changed it back but I thought it should be consistent with what is on the ranks page. If this a big problem for you, you can change it back. Also, I would have left this not on the history listing for the change the way you normally do but I still can't figure out how to do that. Grandmaester314 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's fine now that the pages are consistent with each other. They just shouldn't contain something different as before. -- Serenity 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Errors

The footnotes you added to Unnamed Cities of Caprica don't seem to be showing up.


  • Nevermind.... they show up only when i log out.

I accidently added a file which someone should probably delete.

I watched the movie Caprica and saw in a scene the U-87 in just the right pose for a screengrab. I made a screengrab as is allowed under fair use, uploaded it to the wiki and licensed it CC-BY Version # 3.0.

The problem is that in my gusto, I forgot to export it as JPEG. Not wanting to waste our bandwidth, I exported it as JPEG and uploaded the much smaller JPEG to the wiki. This just leaves the problem of the original PNG:

¿Could you please delete?

Post Scriptum:

When looking for a Chief to delete the file, I noticed that your name is Serenity. I too am a Brown Coat. Since I had no better reason to choose a Chief for asking, I ask you for that reason.

Walabio 09:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw this on the recent changes and took care of it. Will let Walabio know on his talk page, and suggest he post on the Chief's noticeboard in the future for fastest resolution. Also, hi from another Brown Coat. JubalHarshaw 18:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply