Talk:Executive officer/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Executive officer/Archive 1
Spencerian (talk | contribs) |
|||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 17:10, 18 March 2008
Shouldn't this redirect to Military Ranks??? --lordmutt 11:29, 4 November 2006 (EST)
- No, because XO is a position and not a rank --Serenity 19:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)
Ah your right --lordmutt 11:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)
Expansion[edit]
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). --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. -- 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. --Spencerian 12:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)