Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, on the balance of arguments presented. As one !voter puts it, We shouldn't be combing through fansites looking for speculative material to make an article out of.. The question of whether or not it is original research was discussed in some depth, with credible arguments for, some creative interpretations of that policy, and some individual elements undoubtedly having credible arguments against OR, but the overall subject - insignia not covered in canon - is pretty much a guarantee that, whether or not it is technically OR in every respect, it contains core elements which must be original research, and it unquestionably represents a level of detail in excess of what is generally considered appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Material of interest only to a very small number of dedicated fans - carefully avoiding that piece of Wikijargon which I know is on the tips of several tongues. Friends, let's not fight any longer. This can go to memory Alpha, I'll happily hand over the source if anyone wants it, but on the basis of the arguments presented below this is simply too far from the core principles of verifiable material neutrally stated from reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia[edit]

Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A prior "no consensus" closure was overturned at deletion review and is now here for reconsideration. Please consider both prior discussions, especially the questions about WP:OR. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if not cleaned up - I admire that someone has obviously been working on this article trying to source it, but statements like "With the exception of Commodore, Rear Admiral from Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: The Original Series and vice admiral from Star Trek: The Original Series, no such insignia has ever been deemed official by the producers of the Star Trek series, therefore making the insignia purely conjectural" don't fill me with the idea that this is heavily sourced. The article is written well and has sources for some of what's written, and I'll happily change to keep if the OR stuff is removed. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, violates WP:NOR. Conjectural, non-canon stuff that the article states itself often comes from misconceptions, backhanded explanations or outright costume errors? This is chockful of original research, and probably would be a far better fit over at Memory Alpha or some other Trek Wiki. RGTraynor 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as classic OR synthesis and fancruft. JChap2007 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - look, the first paragraph sums this up nicely. "Alternate ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia that have never appeared in canon Star Trek productions or materials, but have been described in non-canonical literature or fan sources. The main sources of such Star Trek rank insignia are Star Trek novels, technical manuals, fan magazines, and internet websites not directly connected with the publication of the show." This, self-admittedly, doesn't have reliable sources, only unrelaible ones. Therefore it's unverifiable and should, unfortunately, be deleted. Moreschi 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Cat is currently blocked and can neither vote nor update the article, and Husnock appears to have left, who were two of the primary editors who were attempting to source the article. Note to closing administrator: Cat would have voted to Keep this article. Please take this into consideration when closing this AfD. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please consider that this is not a vote, as such, more a consensus. They'd have to provide a good argument to keep it. --Dennisthe2 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I know you're trying to do the honorable thing, but blocked users are not allowed to !vote and those who try (through socks) have their !votes discounted by the closing admins. It's one of the disadvantages to being blocked. JChap2007 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more concerned that no one who was working on the article can correct it, which makes me feel uneasy about deleting it. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, in the first AfD, Husnock said that established editors had been working on this for over a year. I appreciate that they thought they were creating a good article (and one that might be a credit to another wiki, let me add), but if experienced Wikipedians put a lot of work into an article and it still failed (by a long measure, I think we can agree) to demonstrate that the topic met our standards for coverage, I am unconvinced that any amount of work could result in the article meeting the inclusion criteria. JChap2007 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Besides which I haven't seen anything in deletion criteria suggesting that the active support of an article's editors is a factor one way or another. RGTraynor 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Common sense suggests people writing the article would be more in the know in answering questions on potential problems. --Cat out 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Anything that is properly sourced can be merged with Starfleet ranks and insignia -- Whpq 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I personally enjoy Star Trek, this article is a combination of original research and speculation. As such, whatever content that cannot be properly sourced should be deleted. Any content that can be sourced can be merged into the existing article Starfleet ranks and insignia as suggested above. --Kyoko 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I understand that the contributors to this article have spent a lot of time writing it, and I would suggest that much of the content could perhaps be reproduced on another wiki that is more centered around Star Trek. This would have to be done according to any restrictions in the WP:GFDL, though. --Kyoko 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Sorry but I'm a purist however much I love Star Trek. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourcable material to Starfleet ranks and insignia - my contention with this page is that it inherently differentiates between canon and non-canon, and some Trekkish editors incorrectly conflate non-canon with unreliable -- which I don't think is the case. IMHO, excising material because it is non-canon is non-npov. Anyhow, there's a lot of conjecture in this article, but some of it is sourceable to published secondary sources; that material should be siphoned over to the "regular" ranks and insignia article; readers can decide on their own whether to "buy into" canon and non-canon material. --EEMeltonIV 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge EEMelton: whoever the hell you are you make uncommon good sense here.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. First, the most common objection I've seen so far is "original research". There's two quotes from WP:OR that I think are relevant:
Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it.
...
An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.


The way I read that, quoting a statement directly from an off-screen source (such as a technical manual or a novel) is fine, as long as you make it clear where it's from, and that it's not canon. OTOH, using any source to invent new material yourself would definitely be OR.

"The Branch Admiral rank appears in the non-canon "Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual"" (the claim that it appears in this book is a verifiable fact)
"Leonard McCoy rose to the rank of Branch Admiral" (not stated on-screen, so it's conjecture)

Here are a couple other examples to illustrate my point (totally made up, of course):


Good, in-universe tone: "Luke blew up the Death Star (source: "A New Hope" movie)"
(based on canon source)

Good, out-of-universe tone: "In the novel "Dark Side", it is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. However, this novel is not considered canon."
(sources the claim, but makes it clear it's only suggested, and it's not an established fact within the fictional universe yet.)

Bad, in-universe tone: "Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. (source: "Dark Side" novel)."
(it's not clear from this sentence that the source is non-canon)

Bad, out-of-universe tone: "It is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star"
(unsourced, dismiss as purely original research by the editor until a source is found)


If anyone has some arguments about this reasoning, please share them here.

Now, onto this article - the old Warrant Officer section was a mess, but it's been much improved. The only section that still bugs me is the Admiral's ranks - four versions of TOS ranks, based on two websites? (cough) OR (cough). I asked for a definitive source last time this came up, but none's appeared, so I'm going to delete this section - it can be put back if sourced.

The main concern that would make me jump between keep and merge is the size of the article - if the current article (minus admiral's ranks) is below the current minimum size for an article it should be merged to the main ranks page (while making very bloody clear that these aren't canon ranks). If articles of this size are commonly allowed to stay independent, then the same standard should be applied. Quack 688 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/merge - I would say that this article does indeed have references to merit some sort of inclusion, so I feel that deletion is unnecessary. As for merging, I'm told that in the past these actually were merged but they were forked as Starfleet ranks and insignia became too large (and is already quite difficult to load with the mass of images). If something can be done to reduce the complexity of dealing with the size of the article, then I would say merge, but if not, it seems like a valid option to keep the article. Cowman109Talk 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/merge; I agree that this is a bit minor for its own article, but it is an essential part of the Star Trek ranks and insignia coverage. It looks like most of the OR has been cleared out. Ben Standeven 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is sourceable into Starfleet ranks and insignia and redirect there. Yamaguchi先生 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there a policy or guideline out there which talks about the size of an article? How big does a stable article need to be before it can stand as an independent article, and not be merged into a parent topic? (By "stable article", I mean it's not a stub, and it's been fully sourced, but it's unlikely to rapidly expand in the near future.) Quack 688 07:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll come out of retirement to vote on this due to my original argument: 17 sources are provided from various star trek manuals, publications, and live action productions. Warrant officer section was heavily re-written to reference exactly where the material came form and how the rank evolved over the years from no apperances at all to heavy apperances in Star Trek literature with O'Brien stated in the novel of "Emissary" that he held a "warrant". I'm sure this vote will not help, since forces at work seem intent on deleting these articles and I am making no further edit controbutions to this website with perhas the exception of reverting obvious vandalism. With that said, please no one bash my vote, call me names (like "Craftateer") or state that I have no idea what OR is. I'm just voting. -Husnock 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC) P.S.- Delete folks please visit here -Husnock 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quack 688. Just because a tech manual isn't considered canon, does not mean that it is unreliable. Non-canon in Star Trek just means that it has never appeared on-screen. Jecowa 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge non-OR sections to Star Trek ranks and insignia, is much improved since the last time I looked at it, but more needs to be pruned. It is worth pointing out, per Jecowa, that things which Paramount has clearly labeled non-canon can still be notable for Wikipedia purposes (such as Star Trek: The Animated Series). Eluchil404 11:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article signs its own death warrant in my opinion with the comment, "Alternate ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia that have never appeared in canon Star Trek productions or materials, but have been described in non-canonical literature or fan sources. The main sources of such Star Trek rank insignia are Star Trek novels, technical manuals, fan magazines, and internet websites not directly connected with the publication of the show." It seems an admission to lack of WP:N and and inherent violation of WP:OR. At most these insignia have been described in a book- the pictures are mostly pure conjecture and OR. By way of example. The 'ensign first class' insig is apparently descibed in the book "Doctor's Orders". I have included its picture right. How much of the book was taken up with the description of the insignia for so accurate a rendering to be produced?- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be perfectly honest, I've got no idea. I've listed it as an unknown for now, until we get some sort of confirmation - thanks for pointing it out. Still, even if the rank is just described in the "Doctor's Orders" novel and not illustrated, we can still list it as a non-canon rank - just one with an unknown insignia. I think I'll have a quick look at some of the other ranks that claim to be only mentioned in novels, but still have rank insignia shown. In the worst case scenario that all the rank insignia listed from novels are bogus (no appearances as cover art or anything), we'd have to replace two or three pictures in one section of the article with an "Unknown". That's hardly a convincing case to wipe out the entire article. Quack 688 14:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't by any means the only rank and insignia I have difficulties with. See the talk page for my concerns with the rank and insignia of Branch Admiral (I've posted there so as not to clog up this already lengthy AfD).- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How retarded. WP:OR is to prevent users from using Wikipedia as a platform for their own original research. Not to prevent original research or material by non-Wikipedians being the subject of articles. - Mark 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. chock full of original research (I've just removed a section that said "We don't know what this rank was but we'll guess it was a Warrent Officer because that what some fan literature said" - terrible. --Charlesknight 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. We shouldn't be combing through fansites looking for speculative material to make an article out of. If someone wants this, publish it somewhere that is not an encyclopedia. Jkelly 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jecowa. VegaDark 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like OR to me  Glen  04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete retarded or not, it is still WP:OR (unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the last couple of OR points - can you please look at the quote from WP:OR I provided in bold text above and explain your position? First, are these the original thoughts of the Wikipedian editor? No, they come from published sources. Second, if a non-canon source says that "Ensign First Class" exists, then we're allowed to say, "According to this non-canon source, Ensign First Class exists." This is not an interpretive claim, or an analysis of the rank, it's a simple statement of fact. Therefore, it is not OR. Quack 688 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly an example of unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material which the lead of WP:NOR mentions. It appears that nobody has previously, on the basis of these continuity errors, published a hypothetical rank system which accounts for them. I base this conclusion on the fact that no such study is cited, and that in several cases the article says that no explanation has been offered. If Husnock wants to retcon stuff in the privacy of his own home or cabin, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not the place for it until he gets it published somewhere else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the whole sentence you took that quote from.
It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.
A simple list of non-canon ranks, each individually sourced, is not "a novel narrative". (Building a hypothetical rank system with canon and non-canon ranks would be synthesis - but this article doesn't do that.) An article that lists several sources for and against the warrant officer rank, but does not make a claim itself, does not constitute "historical interpretation". Quack 688 13:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be relying on a very narrow interpretation of novel narrative or historical interpretation. This is a narrative, and historical interpretation, of continuity errors, and it is novel. What more do you want? You can easily disprove the claims of OR by citing secondary sources which provide a similar narrative or interpretation. What we get in the article are primary sources. That's no use at all for disproving a charge of original research. Quite the opposite: it vindicates the claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume that the rank "Dogsbody" appears in the non-canon book "Stuff".
- The statement of fact, "in the non-canon book, "Stuff", the rank of Dogsbody appears" is not OR, since it does not extrapolate the original work. It is a descriptive claim, which complies with the OR policy I quoted in bold, since it is "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" - anyone who reads the book can confirm that the rank appears.
- A host of secondary sources is not necessary when making a factual claim about a primary source. (Compare with Hamlet - you don't need a secondary source to simply say, "In the play "Hamlet", Hamlet meets a ghost". If you want to start discussing character themes and motivations, like "Was Hamlet insane?", however, then you do need secondary sources.)
- "Dogsbody is a canon rank" is incorrect, since the source is non-canon.
- Interpretation like "Dogsbody is roughly equivalent to Ensign" is OR, unless this claim also appears in the book. Quack 688 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As per my original nomination. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, conjecture, and speculation. This is all those things, and it doesn't matter if it has 17 references or 653,217 references, it's using those references to conjecture a whole series of ranks in a system based on nothing but guesswork, and making up insignia to support that conjecture. The issue is not whether the references are reliable (personally, I think they are reliable when you're talking about star trek fanon) - their reliability is immaterial to the discussion at hand. The references are being misused, synthesized and extrapolated, which is original research. Proto::► 13:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've already voted delete, with the suggestion to merge sourceable material with Starfleet ranks and insignia, and the further suggestion to transfer content to another wiki following the restrictions of the WP:GFDL. I haven't changed my mind, but I was thinking about this article, and it occurred to me that any illustrations in the article should not be used unless if they are based upon actual pictures or illustrations in the sources. A novel might describe such and such a rank as being in between two known, existing ranks, but unless their is some picture to support that, any illustration of such insignia on this page would constitute speculation. The illustration might make logical sense, but it would still be speculative. --Kyoko 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - I already changed the ensign first class picture to "unknown", the only remaining ranks that are drawn solely from novels are midshipman and the DS9 CPO ranks. Unless someone mentions where those insignia came from in the next couple of days (e.g. if they're on the cover art), I'm happy to swap them to "unknown" as well. Quack 688 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep or Merge. This has nothing to do with our guidelines on Original Research. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Since there appears to be a level of confusion, let me explain a few things about Star Trek franchise's understanding of canon:

  • Firstly, I do want to point out that everything on star trek is a fake. It is all fiction, someones original fantasy (not even research).
  • A lot of material published by the official creators of the show is considered fanon such as Star Trek: The Animated Series. This is primarily to maintain series continuity. They do not want to introduce something that will hunt them later on.
  • Practically every star trek episode has a novelized non-canon (fanon) version almost always written by the same people who write the script for the episode. These aren't fan work as the word "fanon" suggests but official publication not considered canon. Novel series have a canon within themselves and they often do contradict the official canon TV show. Tucker never died in the novelized version of Star Trek: Enterprise unlike the tv series.
  • There are official yet non-canon publication such as Star Trek games, Star Trek Encyclopedia, as well as various "tech" manuals of the show that occasionally cover material never shown on TV. These books are 100% original fantasy just like the show. However, the people writing the books and making the show are the same people.

As for wikipedias approach to the matter at hand:

  • Wikipedia's policy on original research does not care if material is considered canon or fanon. So long as it is published (Star Trek Encyclopedia certainly is published), OR can no longer apply. If you feel there is unpublished material on the article, feel free to comment them out.
  • Conjecture (speculation) is acceptable on wikipedia provided its not OR (ie my speculation). For example creators of the show have long 'speculated' how ST:TOS admiral insignia supposed to look like. Same thing happened with the movie pins. Different tech manuals and etc have contradicted each other until canon was established with later movies. Star Trek Encyclopedias representation of the pins have evolved over time in accordance with canon. We have entire articles based strictly on speculation such as 9/11 conspiracy theories article.

As for the merge idea:

  • That is a very bad idea. The article Starfleet ranks and insignia as is is about 32ks and thats just wiki code. A merge would make that article very hard to load on computers with slower internet link. This article originally was part of it and was forked off of it for this very reason.

As for the move to other wiki idea:

  • Memory alphas project-scope does not include fanon with the only exception being Star Trek: The Animated Series. This is similar to wikipedias project scope. As encyclopedic they can be, dictionary definitions or entire books are not welcome here but instead on wiktionary and wikibooks respectively.

--Cat out 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Practically every star trek episode has a novelized non-canon (fanon) version almost always written by the same people who write the script for the episode." This is just wrong. There are exactly two novelisations of episodes or films written by the person who wrote the episode, compared to what, several hundred episodes? (the vast bulk of which have never been novelised) Morwen - Talk 11:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess my knowledge is flawed. I am after all getting old. So please remind me, what is the status of the novels? Are they written by random fans? --Cat out 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well not fans but random writers would be about right. The other problem with the novels is that because they are non-canon, the powers that be don't care if multiple writers do follow-ups to the films or novels that don't match up with each other. Take the last original cast movie - there are a number of novels set just afterwards - none of which match up. --Charlesknight 11:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP: Camel Commodore would like to keep this article. It is from star trek books and magazines and shows insignia which we would otherwise not no about. Camel Commodore votes keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamelCommodore (talk • contribs)

    • Camel Commodore is banned! —Centrx→talk • 08:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. Banned, sock, whatever. Struck the !vote. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140103889"