We've had some discussion about this before -- on a few pages, including User_talk:Cmdr_Ljungberg -- we've been working with a categorization scheme based on lumping together ranks that are the same in name -- for example, many lieutenant commanders are only referred to as "commander" in conversation, and as such we kept them together, as it would be troublesome to separate characters only mentioned in conversation into the most correct category(ies) for their rank -- i'm wondering if anyone else has an opinion about making this major change. -- Captain MKB 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Although they are often referred to in the short form similarly ("Lieutenant" or "Commander"), a Lieutenant JG is not a Lieutenant rank, and a Lieutenant Commander is not a Commander rank. They are distinct grades usually with years of service between (in reality, of course... Star Trek's not really a military, right?). So my inkling would be to separate them. In an unrelated note, why do some character pages have multiple rank categorizations? It would seem you only want to categorize them in their most recent rank, not any rank they were referred to. Since someone who was a Captain had to come up through the ranks (give or take the unrealistic jump from LtCmdr to Capt some COs take), if we were listing all the ranks, shouldn't they be in EVERY rank category? --Captain Savar 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On the separation -- have you missed that lieutenants junior grade are nearly always referred to as "lieutenant" and lieutenant commanders are very often referred to as "commander"? -- because of this distinction it is impossible to tell if certain characters hold these specific ranks unless we visually see their insignia. This would be better suited as a list than a category.
The categories were structured like they were to avoid possible inaccuracies with that system.
And some characters skip ranks or go back in rank, so their "most current" rank isn't always giving the most illumination -- it's more complete to browse the category lists and see everyone who was ever a captain, rather than just those who were in 2381.. or is it 2387? or 2379? the "current" date doesn't always hold a lot of weight because we have several eras here and can't predict which one holds which rank for which charaters. -- Captain MKB 15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying. What I'm asking, albeit rather obtusely, is "where is this categorization decision documented so that (relatively) new users like me can learn/understand it?" Most of our character pages have many many categories on them, and if one didn't browse around and really get a feel for what's come before, someone might not realize that it's been discussed before. You dig? --Captain Savar 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)