Template talk:Ranks

Scope?
Are these ranks supposed to allow us to see what ranks exist now, so that we can compare them with today, or have them similar in whatever way? The reason I ask is that the term Military rank doesn't make sense, and should instead be Marine Corps rank (since that would kind of go along with the whole naval theme) or Other military rank, because the Marines have the same rank names as the Army and the Air Force, as far as the U. S. military goes. Also, cadets are by no means warrant officers, and I (not all too familiar with the Navy way) was under the impression that naval cadets were called midshipmen and they also have warrant officers.

Also, if the scope of this template includes the Military rank for informative purposes, to show the other-than-Naval military ranks, then instead of just Flag officers, it should read Flag and General officers or some such. At least, in the case of the U. S. Army, we call O-7 through O-10 General officers.

Since I wouldn't consider myself a member of the community, I didn't want to intrude by editing so much in one swoop. Schmidt 02:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This template shows only ranks mentioned in the Trek series. Since several ranks are derived from US Air Force or US Army grades a general "military" was inserted for the second row in contrast to the naval ranks. The insertion of General officers to the header is something to be considered. -- Kobi 15:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I think instead of Military rank it should be Non-Starfleet military rank. After all, Starfleet is still military. Or maybe anything other than Starfleet is auxiliary (since you pretty much have to have Starfleet tote them around). But having Military rank there makes it look like Starfleet is a civilian or other organization even though it isn't. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth somehow. Schmidt 11:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the "non-Starfleet" part would be inaccurate -- Starfleet does in fact use two of those ranks (corporal and colonel, possibly as titles however)


 * Probably the most accurate way might be to say "equivalent ranks" and leave the specification off. Remember, this template is not here to argue the "militariness" or lack thereof of an organization, or whether or not one or more organizations use certain ranks. these are all things that should be discussed in other articles rather than what i was hoping could become a list formatted as simply as possible. Trying to explain that Starfleet is a "combined service" isn't what this space is here for. -- Captain M.K.B. 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted. What would be a better place to move this discussion? Schmidt 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than "Starfleet", I would rather see "naval rank" because many organizations use the same rank structure. Furthermore, Starfleet use also the ranks (corporal and colonel) which are on the second line. - Philoust123 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Last edit
I don't know anything about ranks, but I guess there was a reason for a line break instead of a fifth table cell... Mike? Anyone? -- Cid Highwind 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this user puts the system of equivalence. - Philoust123 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When I made the above comment, there was only a small change that arranged some of the abbreviations horizontally instead of vertically. Meanwhile, the template has been completely changed. The "U.S. Codes" line is completely broken at any screen resolution below 1280, and I don't think it is even necessary. We're not Wikipedia... -- Cid Highwind 18:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the template should be reverted, and the US paygrades be removed. If any codes should be added it should be the NATO ones which can be compared internationally, but I think it is currently information overload -- Ⓚⓞⓑⓘ 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted as suggested. Points:
 * Non canon ranks: if it hasn't been mentioned on Star Trek, don't include it. this table is already packed with info, it barely fits...
 * Number of columns: some ranks were "stacked" (more than one per table) because raising the number of columns causes the table to not fit on a screen. ranks need to be severely abbreviated in order to make room.
 * Equivalency: we're not favoring marines, army, air force or any other for equivalency, so creating a "one-to-one" equivalency is impossible. is Starfleet (and US Navy) Petty Officer first class equivalent to Army Sergeant? Marine Sergeant? Air Force Sergeant? there are too many variables. One service has sergeants equivalent to PO2, another to PO1, but many other sci-fi rank systems and probably some real ones have CPO equivalent to sergeant. this has never been addressed in Star Trek, so why create unnecessary structure for it?
 * US/NATO paygrades have not been mentioned on Star Trek, and belong in background sections of individual articles, not main article (or template) text. they take up space, which, as mentioned above, we dont have in this little box. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with the simplified table as it is now, is that only in the British Army is a SSGT equal to a CPO. In all of the U.S. systems (which are much more familiar to most of our audience) a SSGT of any branch always ranks below a CPO. —MJBurrage &bull; talk  &bull; 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Human ranks
I think an article "Human ranks" should be added for ranks from US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, SS, French army (Marshal, General), Japan army (Nogami) MACO ranks (link), Starfleet (Earth) (link) —Philoust123 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What would be the right place for such a table here at Memory Alpha? My original thought was a brief overview of the rank systems that were used as the basis of the Starfleet rank structure.  I could also see a table that compares the ranks of militaries seen on Trek, with links for the specific ranks mentioned. —MJBurrage &bull;  talk  &bull; 00:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Director
My reasons for adding in Deputy Director to the navigation box can be found at Talk:Deputy_Director the main reason being that it is a fact Sloan was wearing some kind of rank insignia and thus this title/rank should be included in the general rank navigation box. This title/rank is also already mentioned at Starfleet ranks. -FleetCaptain 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From SFpostrank
I like this template, but it's somewhat cumbersome and repetitive having two rank templates. Why not just merge all this information into Template:Ranks? )
 * Because the general rank template deals with general ranks like Admiral and General while this one deals specifically with just Starfleet ranks and titles like Admiral (Starfleet). One of the inspirations to make this was that the Starfleet ranks were just kind of "attached and mentioned" to the general rank articles with no template designed specific for the titles and ranks of the Starfleet. -FC 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But my point is, the two templates share some of the same links. (ie. all the SF officer ranks) It's redundant on a page to have both, so why don't we just merge the two templates? It can still contain several tables, but it's easier to track and apply.– Cleanse talk 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can by all means attempt such a merge, but there would be issues like the two different Admiral links I mentioned above and also that the Starfleet table has the various grades of Petty Officer and Crewman (3,2,1) while the general rank table does not. This is also a very new template (we're talking just a few hours old) so I would give it a while and draw comments from others before attempting a merge. -FC 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that I would copy the info myself NOW, just that I think it should be done. If merged, it would be done by an admin so all the editing history is preserved.

As I said, I like this template; it just would be easier to have all the information on one template page. The current Ranks template already contains two tables, so shouldn't we just add this table to it as well? It'll look the same on a page, but be much easier to apply. – Cleanse talk 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cleanse just add another table onto the ranks template.--UESPA 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely against a merge, but I have yet to hear a suggestion on how we can have Admiral and Admiral (Starfleet) on one table. For that matter, Crewman 3rd through 1st and Petty Officer 3rd through 1st, as well as Midshipman First Class are all Starfleet specific ranks.  The generic rank table has none of these items (nor should it, in my opinion).  It is much the same as an international table of military ranks as compared to a United States armed forces rank chart.  Many texts on military ranks have both. -FC 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there is now only one Admiral page, I've merged this as well. - 21:04, September 16, 2011 (UTC)