Talk:Jonathan Archer
The Star Trek Expanded Universe Database is for fanon and related content. See Memory-Alpha.org for the canon Star Trek wiki.
Where is the "rule" written that we have to list all a character's ranks? It seems quite redundant. If I were to do that for Timothy Sinclair, since he is "seen" in Star Trek: Pendragon in every rank up from Cadet to Captain, the sidebar would get exceptionally cluttered. It is not necessary.--TimPendragon 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've got a better idea. Don't add them to the template. Add a section (like Richard Boswell) showing all of his ranks and only add the most recent rank in the template. --Kevin W. 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- That would definitely be more preferable to putting them all in the sidebar. It would just overwhelm the thing. Not everyone on here is as rank-happy as you are, Kevin ;-) --TimPendragon 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you Tim. Unless people want to put a "service jacket" (not sure what the proper term is) of listing ranks and dates - that's fine but not in the sidebar. Not to mention - what about someone like James T.? What rank do you list? Highest obtained? Last obtained and if last obtained what is your point of reference. Hey for all we know there maybe another Trek movie where they promote him back into the Admirality. :-) --Sneg 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- And in a case like Archer, and most characters, if they reach Captain, it's likely that they were a Commander at some point, so listing both is redundant. And if you read most articles, they'll tell you when a character held a certain rank. Listing 'em all just isn't necessary. Especially in the case of canon characters. --TimPendragon 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- When it comes to canon characters, I think the rule of thumb should be on-screen ranks. We've only seen Archer wearing CDR and CAPT, and Kirk, on-screen, has only worn CAPT and RADM. --Kevin W. 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- You may have a point with Kirk, because he spent significant onscreen time as both Captain and Admiral. Archer was seen as a Commander in a flashback in one episode, and it has little bearing on the character. Should we list Picard's lieutenant rank as seen in "Tapestry"? People writing stories about Picard and Archer know these things, displaying the extra rank on the page is pointless, except to show off your rank images. --TimPendragon 22:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alternate timelines don't count. I think we should show all of the regular timeline ones, though. It's not too hard. Kirk's is probably the longest of them all. He's worn two different ranks throughout three different rank eras. Archer has worn two ranks, Picard has worn one, Sisko two, Janeway two. It shouldn't be too hard. I'll do it myself to save you guys the work. --Kevin W. 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alternate timelines don't count. I think we should show them all. It's not too hard. Kirk's is probably the longest of them all. He's worn two different ranks throughout three different rank eras. Archer has worn two ranks, Picard has worn one, Sisko two, Janeway two. It shouldn't be too hard. I'll do it myself to save you guys the work. --Kevin W. 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- When I referred to "Tapestry", I should have said Ensign, thinking about the post-Academy flashbacks for Picard. What about Riker? He was Captain (2366 style) for all of an episode before going back to Commander - do you plan on showing that? Bottom line, you're missing the point, I think. It's not necessary, it's potentially confusing, and it's redundant. I, for one, don't want to see more than the most significant rank listed on a page, especially the sidebar. Doing it for your Remington characters is one thing, if you're that much of a rank-bunny, but I really don't want to see them on canon characters (or Pendragon ones). --TimPendragon 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- You may have a point with Kirk, because he spent significant onscreen time as both Captain and Admiral. Archer was seen as a Commander in a flashback in one episode, and it has little bearing on the character. Should we list Picard's lieutenant rank as seen in "Tapestry"? People writing stories about Picard and Archer know these things, displaying the extra rank on the page is pointless, except to show off your rank images. --TimPendragon 22:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- When it comes to canon characters, I think the rule of thumb should be on-screen ranks. We've only seen Archer wearing CDR and CAPT, and Kirk, on-screen, has only worn CAPT and RADM. --Kevin W. 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- And in a case like Archer, and most characters, if they reach Captain, it's likely that they were a Commander at some point, so listing both is redundant. And if you read most articles, they'll tell you when a character held a certain rank. Listing 'em all just isn't necessary. Especially in the case of canon characters. --TimPendragon 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you Tim. Unless people want to put a "service jacket" (not sure what the proper term is) of listing ranks and dates - that's fine but not in the sidebar. Not to mention - what about someone like James T.? What rank do you list? Highest obtained? Last obtained and if last obtained what is your point of reference. Hey for all we know there maybe another Trek movie where they promote him back into the Admirality. :-) --Sneg 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- That would definitely be more preferable to putting them all in the sidebar. It would just overwhelm the thing. Not everyone on here is as rank-happy as you are, Kevin ;-) --TimPendragon 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
