Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia

Separate table for color-variation enlisted ranks

There was a brief exchange on my talk page about this, but to open it up: Flans44 would like to maintain a separate table in the first "Conflicts" section to illustrate that some pieces of some enlisted insignia are gold rather than silver. That area of the article is already cluttered, and because the two different color schemes can both be cited -- just to different sources -- I consolidated them into the single table with <refs> for each image. Flans44 reverted, saying he/she liked the other format, but hasn't provided a more compelling reason for keeping them separate. I've since consolidated them again, contending that they are minor differences, that a separate table creates unnecessary clutter, and really there's just no need to present them separately. If anyone wants to pluck them apart again, please explain why here. --EEMeltonIV 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Need for and origin of separate images?

On a related note -- are those alternative images necessary? For such a minor bit of proppery -- never worn by notable characters, never seen as more than just a brief flash on the screen -- do we need to have four pictures showing such minor color differences between them? Yes, the article should be thorough, but I think this may be delving into minutiae.

Additionally, where did the photos of these pins come from? I've read Flans44's addition as stating that the alternative color scheme is introduced in and only appears in the encyclopedia -- so where did these tangible devices come from? --EEMeltonIV 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These came from auctions of screen used pieces on ebay. Apparently they were used in Next Generation and Next Gen movies as they were resin recreations of the metal pins that were used in the original cast movies. I don't think it is clutter. In this case it just seems to be your opinion against mine. They should be sepatated as the pins used in the TOS era movies followed the original Robert Fletcher notes and these would go in the conflicts section as they do not and were used at a later time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your talk-page comments with ~~~~. Can you article a rationale for why the pictures are necessary at all? They are minor color differences for minor insignia worn by minor characters in a minority of the films in a make-believe world. Having an article on these bits of costuming is already I think pretty tenuous -- is this information essential, or is it (like most of the other details in the two conflicts sections, really) just trivia? --EEMeltonIV 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source to come to for information. Information to one person may only be trivia to someone else. Nearly all of the content in reference to Star Trek on Wikipedia is about a make-believe world. I don't understand why this information should be excluded. People come here for information so why should any of it be omitted? The information and corresponding pictures are a good reference for people to have access to as there are so many conflicting sources of information out there.--Flans44 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and WP:TRIVIA seem to apply -- for such a minor piece of information, a clutter-creating gallery of four images nearly identical to the ones presented earlier I think is too much. My first inclination is to delete them, but I'm willing to compromise and include the images if they're presented in the original table -- they're still cited, and relocating the sentence to articulate Fletcher's notes and the Encyclopedia's material is an appropriate introduction. --EEMeltonIV 05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of the images are tagged PD-self, but is it proper?--Jusjih 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Chief Stripe

We need to get the graphics back for the Chief Petty Officer stripe seen in the pilot episode "The Cage". It was displayed on the Enlisted ranks article, but that article is now gone thanks to the recent mass deletion campaign. I can't find the graphics for this insignia anymore. Can anyone help? -OberRanks 11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Am still hoping for an answer to this question. Also am curious about the reference for the LTJG stripe being seen in an episode when it was previously mentioned observation in an episode is not a valid source because thats original research (something I kind of dont agree with). -OberRanks 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable, published, secondary source that says, "This stripe is for the chief, and that stripe is for the LTJG," then by all means add them back in. However, drawing a conclusion that certain stripes indicate certain ranks based solely on what *you* (or any viewer) sees in the show is original research. I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusions about what the ranks mean, but it is Wikipedia policy for any sort of inference like that to be substantiated by a reliable third-party source. When we can't find such a source, a reasonable alternative might be to link to Memory Alpha in the external links section. --EEMeltonIV 15:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you understand...LTJG is already in the article placed in there by someone else with a reference as being seen in "The Naked Now". By the guidelines you have attributed, this should not be allowed, but somehow it has been. My other question was not about adding in the Chief stuff right now, just getting the picture back (it was previously seen on an article since deleted). I'm with you about the sources, thats all fine. Keep up the good work with the article. -OberRanks 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pilot rank insignia

I added a new section about the pilot rank stripes seen in "The Cage" and "Where No Man has Gone Before". It was blanked without explantion, simple a cold line that read "please cite sources". The pilot episodes themselves are the sources: Ofifcers wear one stripe, the second pilot has Kirk wearing two, and a Communications Chief appears wearing his own type of stripe. Then there was a 1960s publicity photo of Kirk wearing the new TOS uniform with the old pilot stripes. I am not well versed yet on how to do inline citations but thats where the material comes from if someone wants to cite it in for me. -OberRanks 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"The pilot episodes themselves are the sources" - unless the dialog explicitly states that's what the stripes mean, then your conclusion is WP:OR, hence its removal. --EEMeltonIV 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I drew that conclusion based on the LTJG stripe being referenced as appearing in "The Naked Now" with no other source. I also don't think its too unreasonable to state that "officers in the first pilot wear a single rank stripe on thier sleeve" as its very obvious from a simple observation. Would be much the same as stating "a plane appears in such-and-such film" if a plane did in fact appear in that film.

And, if we need a book source for this, its explained in "Inside Star Trek: The Real Story" by Solow and Justman. I think the book might also speak about the "everybody's an astronaut" statement that G.R. once made. -OberRanks 12:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I will assume good faith that the book does articulate the rank scheme and will create an inline citation for it. However, the bit about the publicity shot with the mixed insignia I think is unnecessary trivia. --EEMeltonIV 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to bring a "real world" perspective into this article (something I feel it badly needs), i.e. the evolution of the rank insignia through the years. The pub shot was in a Star Trek calandar, 1995 or 1996 I think. Someone could check. Thank you for creating the other citation. -OberRanks 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan admiral insignia

Fan-created work is non-notable; "alternative Starfleet ranks" was a deleted article, and putting it here is crufty. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. And, as an afterthought, there is no citation for its use. Flans, please stop showing ownership of your obscure additions. --EEMeltonIV 04:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Does a Fan Admiral come along when its hot? :-) It might be a good idea to at least entertain saying something about the evolution of Star Trek ranks in fan literature, that would not be crufty but actually a pretty good addition. I for one have given up on this article. Too much fighting and the article on Memory Alpha suits my interests just fine. I leave it to you guys. Good luck. -OberRanks 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

EEMeltonIV I believe you are the one showing ownership for this entire article and are being a control freak about what you think should go here and shouldn't. I agree with OberRanks, it fits in with the context of the section and is a good resource. -[[User:Flans44|Flans44] —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Starfleet Dynamics is vanity fan fiction; it does not qualify as a reliable source. Fan-made and conjectural insignia are non-notable and not encyclopedic content (NB this AFD. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- so what if someone made this pin? So what if there's one variation of NCO insignia with different-color stripes? Beyond the TOS material, this article quickly devolves into simply describing the insignia that appear on screen, which is just plot summary; delving into minute differences between insignia, or a fan-published alternative, is trivia that misses the point that articles about fiction should do more than just describe content and instead explain notability, development, etc. --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the revert warring and discuss the changes to the article here on the talk page. Remember the burden of evidence "lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Dreadstar † 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Meltron did you go tell the teacher that someone is changing YOUR article in a way that YOU don't like. I guess you own the place. Dreadstar, I tried discussing it here and melton didn't reply. EEMeltonIV just kept changing it himself. He seems to own this. I'm not the first person he has run out of here never to return. -Flans44 5:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If discussion has failed, then follow the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process. Edit warring isn't the answer. I'm not taking any sides here, just here to stop the edit warring. And please discuss the editorial contents of the article instead of commenting on the other editors per WP:NPA. No one owns this article, so just hash it out here.

The main issue I see here is that the disputed content has not been properly sourced, and so falls under WP:NOR - per WP:V, the "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Dreadstar † 06:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One more interesting thing to review might be this older discussion on the subject of non-canon content: Wikipedia:Non-canon Star Trek. Dreadstar † 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is simple: Non-canon material officially licensed by Paramount should be included. Pure fan-created material should not. JIP | Talk 09:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that the fears of article ownership are based on some very real concerns. A lot of peope (including me) have at one point or another become very defensive about this article and protected it from changes by others and there have been some nasty edit wars. Others have claimed downright hatred for it and its been up for deletion at least twice. Not sure what to do about all of this. I guess just wish everyone merry christmas. -OberRanks (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Captain (Star Trek)

• N Against — The Captain page is a reasonably important and very notable rank. Additionally the captain page is sourced, and has detailed informations, where as the Starfleeet rank & insignia page is basically just a listing of everything throughout the ages. --ShakataGaNai 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Captain page does not have very much information, and I would say is almost a stub. There aren't separate pages for any other Trek rank, why Captain (including Admiral).
    • All of the ST series feature a captain as a main character (with the exception of Sisko who starts as commander and becomes captain later). This is simply one rank that gets alot of focus, and airtime. --ShakataGaNai 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
      • But, the article itself is a prime candidate for PROD or AfD due to the fact that it contains no real-world notability. The article is written in-universe, and needs to be written in primarily real-world status. I dont think enough information can be found for real-world Captain of star trek that it can stand on its own. This way the article can be saved rather than nominated for deletion. Ejfetters 07:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Y Support -- No other ranks in Star Trek have their own pages, why should Captain? In addition, fairly non-notable. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Y Support - Believe it or not, I am agreeing with a merge proposal. While ShakataGaNai is correct, there is not enough information/content nor enough importance that it cannot simply be its own, large, section in the master article. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This article has been so badly gutted and destroyed that its existence is even now in question. A rule of thumb should be that this article should discuss real world/costuming/production notes about Star Trek insignia. Everything else to Memory Alpha. I gave up on this article long ago. -OberRanks (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw merger proposal, I have give up as well. Ejfetters (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing Images

This article is missing far too many images to be useful. I suspect the images have been deleted, thanks to the mass of people who don't realize that deleting things is not the answer. I request people grow up and look at the "what links here" page before deleting things. In the meantime, would someone care to re-upload the images? ih8evilstuff (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the image deletions. The problem is that the rationale for deletion of the images was sound (unlike most deletions, such as pages, etc.). This whole article, though, probably should be deleted for notability and license issues with the images and instead readers directed to Memory Alpha, where the purpose is more Trek-oriented and the licensing is a little more ... relaxed. Realize, I am a total inclusionist, but this page is one of those few what purpose does this serve? pages that really canot be referenced well or written out-universe well. Just a thought. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Single outline pip/hollow pip on TNG

I have seen it once, but don't remember the episode. It's missing from the list. It was worn by an officer on the Enterprise, specifically a woman, but her rank isn't mentioned. Shouldn't this be included? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Because there's no way to say what it is/was or anything and it'd all be speculation/original research)

Sleeve Stripes

The complete deletion of all the sleeve stripes from the pilot episodes, the original series, and the motion picture I feel needs to be revisted. I never bought the story about how these were *all* copyright violations against Paramount Pictures. The article stood for years without a single complaint until it was hit heavily with a flurry of claims that the insignia pictures were all stolen by such users as Coolcat and myself. Without ruffling feathers here, I think someone should perhaps create some public domain sleeve stripe images and put them on the article. It would improve it greatly. -OberRanks (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is a load that they were removed! -Flans44 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet Insignia

So is there going to be any discussion on this page regarding the deletion of the Starfleet Insignia image and the possible deletion of it's replacement? Lets talk about it here in public.

--Flans44 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to delete not only the image, but rename the page to "Starfleet ranks" since the page does not actually address the varying insignia associated with different ships, service sections, and the like. Lexy-lou (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cooments on Fleet Captain/Commodore

I removed the following from article:

In Real Life, Fleet Captain is the commanding officer of a specific Task Force and was last used in WW2. Commodore is a captain drafted back into service from retirement and was also last seen in WW2. Commodore is now combined with Rear Admiral, and America now has a "standing Army" as opposed to traditionally disbanding the US Armed Forces after a war, and retired captains are no longer drafted back into service. I know you'll move this because it "isn't canon" but GENE and the ST writers served in WW2 and based the ranking system on the US/UK real life ranks.

aside from the innapropriate first person aside, the descrition of a Commodore "n real life" is not an accurate picture. There are going to be obvious parrallels with real life but stick to fact. Dainamo (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

theres no mention of the ranks being represented by the colored turtleneck undershirts in the last 5 tos movies.. such as white for captain and red for lt... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.89.211 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone brought it back, just without the first person. It's also worth pointing out, that while America may have merged Commodore with Rear Admiral, there are still plenty of countries that have the rank of Commodore. Besides, this article is about Star Trek ranks, not USN ranks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.252.100 (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the fleet captain section doesn't list the DS9 appearance of Sloan as a fleet captain in "Inquisition". Memory Alpha also doesn't list him, despite mentioning the rank in Sloan's article. There must be a good reason, but I don't know what it is. Anybody here know? Silpion (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Enterprise / Departments / Admirals

• The Enterprise series insignias should be added.
• The department symbols should be added.
• The department color stripes should be added.
• The department colored tops should be added. (maybe as a table with a colored box)
• The The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before stripes should be added (officer, captain, chief)
• The TNG era admiral rank pins should be added.

70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Orange Rank Pips?

They're nice, but wrong and should be replaced by the correct (black) pips. ZellDenver (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to prop some more accurate images together. ZellDenver (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

They are "wrong" because the copy nazis on wikipedia will delete them if you make them "correct" therefore it is just a 'general' idea to give someone a general and mostly correct idea of the rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.178.49 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of images... AGAIN!

I just want to thank the jackholes that keep deleting my images and making this article worse. Unfortunately I don't come here often enough to see the damage they have done until it is too late. I don't know why they deem things fine for a year and then decide to come back and delete things. This place sucks! Some people have no life. Enjoy being the masters of wikipedia! --Flans44 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, can't say I blame your anger. This could have been one of the best articles on Wikipedia but it has been attacked over and over again with image removals and WP:OWN issues. You might want to try Memory Alpha - they have some very good Star Trek rank articles. -OberRanks (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see the reason for them. This is a general encyclopeda, and not an image gallery. While an example or two might be relevant to show context, etc. Full images do nothing to further anyone's understanding of the subject beyond what one from each era might do.--Crossmr (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree, have you seen what the military pages look like? There is a pic for each rank, showing what each one would look like. To have a pic of just one insignia just doesn't make any sense. --Flans44 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stance on Star Trek insignia pins

This will probably do no good, but Wikipedia's stance on the "copyright" of movie-era Star Trek pins needs to be seriously re-visited. Reproducing pins and making money from it is pretty much all Paramount Pictures really cares about. Fans who create thier own pins, wear uniforms to conventions, etc, are not going to be sued or arrested. Quite the contrary, Paramount wants the widest spread of such pins and insignia so then people will want thier own and buy them from a licensed Paramount vender. This idea about photos of Star Trek pins being under copyright I do not believe is valid. If it were, it would mean that every single private photograph taken at a convention where someone was in uniform, and then posted again to some site like Flickr, MySpace, or Facebook, would be a copyright violation. It simple isn't because there is no profit involved. The simplest thing here would be for a generic tag on all Star Trek insignia stating "Reproduction of insignia pictures is permitted for non-profit and non-commerical use only". Sadly, and I think this is the underlying problem, we have too many people who relish deleting things on Wikipedia and some who even go so far as to taunt users with deletion debates and fill thier pages with deletion notices. When the people get angry (understandably) they are labeled as "disruptive". I do not mean that to sound harsh and I am not naming names or accusing...but I have seen it happen though in my years on this site. So, how to fix it for good, I don't know. But, it does need to be fixed. -OberRanks (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not we're likely to be sued by Paramount (CBS, actually, now) for using these images. Sure, we're not using them commercially, but we want all of our images to be free for anyone to use -- even for them to use it commercially. The content we provide, we say "This content is free; use it however you want!" But if we include these insignia as "free" content, and someone uses it commercially, do you think that CBS might object then? And even if they don't, it's not our responsibility to be judging for ourselves what CBS might or might not object to. All we can do is look at whether or not those pins are actually copyrighted or not, and in this case it appears that they are.
That's not to say that a valid fair-use rationale can't be written, but no one even tried. Powers ^T 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the pictures of people at conventions fall under the de minimis loophole in copyright law; if a use of copyrighted material is incidental to the larger work, it cannot be said to infringe on the copyright. These images depicted the insignia and nothing else, so de minimis cannot apply. Powers ^T 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "it appears that they are."??? What proof is there that Paramount copyrighted the pin designs? I have never seen a copyright attached to the designs anywhere. I think someone should prove copyright before deleting all of these things! Maybe all Star Trek articles should be deleted entirely as Star Trek is the property of CBS/Paramount. --Flans44 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need proof, because creative works in the U.S. are automatically copyrighted at the time of publication. I don't see the connection between that and deleting all Star Trek articles. Powers ^T 15:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The pins are copyrighted by a guy called Robert Fletcher, I think is his name. He invented the insignia system used on the "red jacket uniform". The stripe system from the Original series was invented by William W. Thesis as was the pip system used in TNG. The movie pins are copyrighted in someway but it is rarely enforced (the original pins were invented in 1982 for ST:II). The stripe system of the Original Series is not under any copyright since it is a simple system based itself on the US Navy. The same too for the TNG pips. They are simple silver circles worn on a uniform (although the uniforms themselves are copyrighted) but the pips alone are not. I could even make one right now: OOOO - very obviously not copyrighted by Paramount. But yes, the pins are. -OberRanks (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chakotay

Chakoty held the rank of Lieutenant Commander. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria

While I am by no means any expert on the subject, I have changed most of the licences for the images on this page so I thought I would mention this. The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is broken down into ten clauses as follows. Some are open to interpretation but my views on each clause are as follows:

1. No free equivalent: Star Trek is a copyrighted and trademarked property so specific rank insignia almost certainly fall under the same copyright. Therefore no free equivalent is possible.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities: This is probably the most important. I do not believe that these images in any way limit the commercial opportunities of Paramount or the Star Trek franchise. The most applicable commerical vendor would be replica costume vendors but they deal in physical copies which are not limited by images alone.
3. 1. Minimal usage: One image cannot accurately convey the information as each insignia is different. Text descriptions alone are open to interpretation in a way that images are not.
   2. Minimal extent of use: These images, and the article, only use the insignia, a small portion of the costumes as a whole. Entire works, costumes and franchise, are not being used.
4. Previous publication: Insignia has been previously published in, for example, the Star Trek series and films.
5. Content: The "general Wikipedia content standards" and whether this "is encyclopedic" are more complicated but I would say that these images meet these standards and are encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy: Wikipedia:Image use policy is also more complicated but I would say that these conditions have been met.
7. One-article minimum: Images used in this article only.
8. Contextual significance: "Omission would be detrimental to...understanding" of the subject. Descriptions alone would not suffice.
9. Restrictions on location: This is an article, so this clause is met.
10. Image description page: These insignia are derivative works of copyrighted material and need to be licenced as such on the image description pages. I believe I have done this for all existing images. Any future images (eg. Enterprise insignia) will need similar licences.

Hopefully this helps at least focus the copyright/fair-use discussion even if it doesn't resolve it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• 51 non-free images is not minimal usage by any stretch of the imagination. You can't get round tbat by claiming each one is different, I'm afraid, because the article is not about each individual image (thus failing WP:NFCC#8). It is a generalised article, and thus needs to show examples rather than every possible image. Indeed, only five articles in the entire 3 million plus on Wikipedia have more non-free images than this one (link). There is currently a discussion here as to how this article could be made compliant with policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Commander in Chief" vs. "Chief in Command"

In Star Trek VI, the C in C is listed in the credits as "Chief in Command" rather than "Commander in Chief." While the latter is used in real life, the presence of the former in the credits should establish it as canon. The reference at StarTrek.com can be found here: [1]. Thoughts? Brad E. Williams (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Budding Edit War & The Number of Images

To start with, here is the policy regarding Minimal Usage, which seems to be the basis for the recent reversions:

• a.Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
• b.Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

Now, this article foes indeed have just over fifty individual images. This is uncommon but not unique on Wikipedia. That doesn't make the number wrong - maybe there should be more articles in that range, maybe they just haven't be written yet. However, to go back to the policy here, the phrase that strikes me the most is "if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I do not believe that just one example can convey enough information, especially for the movie-era insignia that show no regular pattern. The best and simplest way to get the information across to the reader is to just show them a picture. So, I say that the minimal number of images is actually just over fifty in the case of this article. The policy is based on the commercial impact of having these pictures on show on Wikipedia. Again, I see no harm to anyone's commercial interest here. Now, I can see a way to slightly reduce the number of unique images but keep the present format (essentially, reusing a single image of a pip for the required rank) but that strictly breeches the policy just as much, especially as no mention of any strict number is attached to the description "minimal." - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a free encyclopedia. This is a core function of this website. To suggest there should be more articles that violate one of our core policies is frankly ludicrous. There is no way that fifty non-free images can be justified in a single article, especially when most of them are functionally identical. One example of each style is enough. "Minimal" is not subject to interpretation - it means "zero, or the fewest possible whilst still meeting all the criteria of WP:NFCC". There is a location for such use of non-free imagery, and that place is here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that this article doesn't violate one of our core policies and that other article may not violate it either. I'm saying that there is a way fifty non-free images can be justified as I have already done so here. Mimimal means "the least possible" (not zero) and I'm saying that one example each is not enough, especially with the movie-era insignia as mentioned. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, to get back to the compromise I mentioned. Two images could be used to represent seach set of insignia with a set pattern. Using random images from Commons as an example: TNG-era Commander & TNG-era Lt Cmmdr . I don't mean to use those images, I'd suggest taking them from the images in this article already, but that could work (Voyager-era might require "bookend" images at either end). I could even write a template to cover most of it, if that would help. That would reduce the individual image use, if not the number of occurances, while preserving the information inherent in visually displaying each rank. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And also, no, I reject your declaration on my talk page that disputed material is "vandalism." Try reading Wikipedia:Vandalism, especially WP:NOTVAND. Even the most bad faith reading of my actions can't be more than disruptive editing, which is explicitly not vandalism. At worst, this could be a matter for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I am not going to revert this article at the moment as we are at the discussion stage of the BRD cycle. I will, however, revert the article back again if you do not show any attempt to discuss this disagreement. I believe that the previous article was better and that Wikipedia is fractionally less with its omission. I have mentioned three times now a potential compromise with no repsonse. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The current state of the article is as much of a compromise as our policy allows, and even then I've stretched it a little - it could be argued that even fewer images are necessary. Also, I'm not sure what makes people believe that they aren't committing vandalism when they're clearly doing one of the things explicitly defined as vandalism in the policy. I'm sorry if WP:VAND is unclear to you, but "...using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware ... of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the ... relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user." seems quite straightforward. If you'd put a few more images back into the article and said "how about that - what do you think?" it would've been a basis for discussion, but putting 45 non-free images back in when they clearly fail WP:NFCC#3a, as was pointed out, and probably a couple of other NFCC criteria as well? However, as a regular editor I didn't template you this first time (WP:DTTR). Black Kite (t) (c) 06:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think Black Kite is correct. The overuse of images here was extreme, making it the 5th highest user of non-free images of any article on Wikipedia. Our m:Mission here is a free content one. Having 50 non-free images was massive overuse, and had to go. Many of these images were just not necessary. For example, TOS ranks were just replicates of each other, +/- gold braids and the center swatch. We don't need 11 images to convey that the TOS ranks consist of solid or dashed gold braids arranged as (descriptor of each rank). The two in use now is in my opinion overuse. You only really need File:STTOS Starfleet Fleet Admiral rank.jpg with a description of the braids for other ranks. This issue was discussed to some extent at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#OK.2C_this_should_be_interesting, as I think you are aware Adam. It shouldn't come as a surprise that these images were stripped. This article was tagged at least as early as 8 February 2010 as containing excessive use of non-free images. Plenty of time was given to clean this up, but nothing was done. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Minimal", per U.S. case law, means "no more than needed to achieve the purpose claimed". You don't assess that - one way or the other - just by counting them. Rather, for each one, you need to ask whether fewer images could convey equivalent significant information. I'm not making any judgment on any of the images here, but that is the test that per policy needs to be applied. Jheald (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You are exactly correct. Hence, per WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS, one image per style is the minimal amount required, since each individual design is not discussed in the article, and each image is not individually notable enough to support a non-free image. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that just create an incentive for editors to rewrite the article to discuss the differences? Croctotheface (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but then that discussion needs to have reliable secondary sources. That's the counter balance to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You realize that using bullets goes against WP:TPG#YES, right? I suspect that it would be possible to find secondary sources that discuss just about anything, especially for a topic like Star Trek that has inspired a lot of content over the years. Now, you could then come in and say that such-and-such doesn't deserve weight in the article...but this gets precisely at my point from before. The notion that our guidelines mandate that we write about images as images first doesn't find support in the text, and second it warps the discussion so that we no longer have a self appointed fair use police, but they also become the self-appointed EVERYTHING police. Why is your interpretation requiring discussion of the images/discussion of the differences better than an interpretation that just asks whether readers know more about the subject from seeing the images than they did before? Croctotheface (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• If reliable secondary sources exist regarding a specific rank, then having an image about it within the discussion makes sense in relation to that references discussion. Whether something deserves the weight becomes an editorial decision, not one of policy, and I don't think we need weigh in on that. If our criteria for including an image is the bare "readers know more about the subject", then why limit fair use images at all? We could have a gallery containing images from every in-universe-important scene. There'd be no limit. I'm not saying that every image has to have a reference indicating it's notability. But, if an editor is including an image to support a passage in the article, the passage not having a reference dramatically weakens the WP:NFCC #8 weight claim for inclusion in the text; it smacks of original research instead. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Quite. But that's not even the point. Not even History of painting, which is one of the most unfree pages on enwiki, can support that many images. A minor article on a very minor point of a single TV franchise certainly can't. As I said above, we have Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki, for such content. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Croctotheface. Editors may certainly wish to rewrite the article to discuss every single image, but that still doesn't make them suddenly pass WP:NFCC. This is the reason why we don't have galleries of album covers in artist articles, why we don't have galleries of character photos in TV series articles, etc. The article is about insignia as a whole, not about every single minor detail of every single insignia. Some of these issues are arguable; including 50 images in a single article, most of which are functionally identical to many others, isn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I'm not taking a position on this case. To be honest, I didn't even look at the page before and after. I commented because I saw a spurious argument put forth on the discussion page and felt that it needed a response. What has always troubled me is that some editors go around "enforcing" their interpretation of the relevant fair use policies and guidelines. Those interpretations may be right, and I may even agree with them much or all of the time, but that doesn't mean that "this interpretation of policy" is the same as "policy." When someone responds by making their case for why the article should have all those images because they significantly contribute, then the response should be about why they don't significantly contribute. To your credit, you've put fort that sort of case in this comment. However, what inspired me to comment was the contention that the images must be discussed as images. That language does not exist in any policy or guideline; it's an interpretation of policy, and there's no evidence that it's the consensus interpretation. If you want to make the argument that there is so much fair use that it's no longer significant, then OK, engage on that issue. But don't insist that failing to adhere to a standard that's not articulated in the policy means that it inarguably fails the policy. Croctotheface (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Croctotheface, I assume you mean me. I didn't say what you're claiming I said. I said discussion needs to have reliable secondary sources. That IS policy. Hell, it's even part of Wikipedia:Five pillars. I'm not making it up, and it's not my personal interpretation that I'm parading around the project demanding everybody adhere to. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• HS note that (1) an image doesn't (necessarily) need to be discussed for it to add to reader understanding, (2) primary sources can suffice for verifiability, at least for purely factual elements, though secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the subject as a whole. As I presume you remember, we discussed that in this thread over at WT:NFC a mere two weeks ago. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to work out why we're having this conversation about an article that had FIFTY non-free images in it. On no planet in this solar system does that equal minimal use. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• @Jheald; I was responding to Croctotheface's apparent assertion that I'm making policy up and trying to get Wikipedia to adhere to my idea of how things should be. Nothing could be further from the truth. I haven't made any assertions disagreeing with what you just said. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This began because I responded to this as an argument against inclusion: "Each individual design is not discussed in the article." I just want to be clear: we all agree that the policy does not require discussion of an individual fair use image for it to be included, yes? Croctotheface (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Black Kite made no assertion that images had to be discussed by referenced content. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What was his assertion in the text I quoted, then? And just to be clear, you agree that the text doesn't need to discuss the image for it to be acceptable, yes? Croctotheface (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not - sometimes an image is necessary to describe something which cannot be easily explained in text, i.e. the unusual appearance of a character in a film. But that's a separate issue to the one we're having here. We simply don't have image galleries - which is what was in this article, because they always fail #3 and the guidelines in NFLISTS. In this case, they also failed #8 because many were so similar that they didn't really increase the reader's understanding. As I said above, in some articles you could probably address some of that by re-writing the article, but since in this case there will never be significant discussion in reliable sources for each individual insignia, that's not an option. In this case, practically every reference for each most insignia comes from a single source. There is no way in which 51 images can be justified (in fact I'm not even sure if the current six pass the criteria, to be honest). Black Kite (t) (c) 06:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can easily solve the problem of the number of images. The pins are all mine and I can just take a picture of them all together so we are only using one image. Having a picture of all of the ranks makes just as much sense to the article as having a picture of all of the ranks in the US Military rank pages. Just one pic of one rank certainly wouldn't make any sense there and it doesn't make any sense here either. Each individual rank isn't discussed in that article. --Flans44 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Now that is the best idea I've heard for a long time. Need to make sure that the image is clear enough that the pins are individually identifiable though. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I can do this in one of two ways. I can either take all of my original and individual pics and combine them into one or I can take a brand new picture of all of them at once. The first option would have each of them show up a lot more clearly but I don't want to do that if it is not acceptable. Just let me know.--Flans44 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it'd have to be one image - though we could probably stretch to two or three if that's going to make it a lot easier - after all we're replacing 51!. Unfortunately if you combine images they count individually. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)