Width[]
Might I suggest making the table more narrow by putting the dual division sleeves on top of each other instead of side-by-side? --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- You read my mind. I'll be getting to it shortly. Thanks for the help, Kev! -- Captain M.K.B. 22:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. As it so happens, I'm working on it right now.
- Kevin, this is the second time you've ignored my "in use" notice -- you're editing the page at the same time I am. I put the notice there so i could continue working on it in a text editor, and it makes it hard for me to update it. just letting you know that this is what the "in use" notice is for. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever you did here, i just saved the last version of the one i was working on over. i'm sorry. did you not want me to work on this anymore? if you ask, i'll remove the "in use notice" and work on the page elsewhere if you really are so against me continuing! -- Captain M.K.B. 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize from having to cut you off like that. I was in the middle of trying to save the file when you edited and did the same thing i did by changing the rows, but then i was trying to edit it again and the file had been moved? i don't think people should move files if they have the "in use" notice on it, because it resulted in me trying to save the article after it had already been moved to a different location. if you feel the need to rename this article, let me know and i can make it so. "alternate" is definitely not the word i want to use, so cut that out. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. Also, sorry about the note on your talk page. I'm a little angry right now because of a few things and I overreacted. The "Alternate" designation, as I noted earlier, is only temporary until we can integrate your material into the original article. How about this: you continue to work on the page under your user name and I just delete this page since the material will be going into the original page anyway? --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know how to look up the original versions in the history and save them for you Kevin. I'd be more concerned with you, as an admin knowing that problems are of your own causing when you are moving pages while a user is admittedly ({{inuse}}) working on the page, and that moving another page into that place could result in a page being written over, unbeknownst to the user, who was copying text into a window which was opened by typing in the page name, therefore not realizing that another edit or move had been made. I'm going see what improvements I can make to my own version, but when you are done with the "regular" rank page, I expect to still edit contributions into how that page is formatted -- but I'll wait until you are done with it.-- Captain M.K.B. 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead[]
Go ahead and just move this stuff to the original page. I'll delete all of the extra pages. --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Should the "original"/"regular" page be this one, with the (2260s) modifier? -- or do you definitely want to pin these down to "(2265-2270)".. ? -- Captain M.K.B. 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
CMCPO, FMCPO, MCPOSF[]
I've been thinking about it, and just like the debate over the FADM rank, I don't think that CMCPO, FMCPO and MCPOSF would be anything other than command. They're one-shot positions that can't be held more than one person in the same command, and I doubt they'd be sciences. What do you think, Mike? --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is the possibility of the officer wearing more than one division, however -- for example, starship executive officer is definitely a command position, but Spock wore sciences division colors and insignia. its possible it could occur for these positions also. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- That at least makes sense. should we make only MCPOSF as command only? -- Captain M.K.B. 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead an put a deletion notice on each of them so that you can delete them speedily (as a 'user requested deletion') rather than having to wait for individual discussions. Just wait til i get a chance to save them to my hard drive, then i will put the deletion notices on. -- Captain M.K.B. 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Mike[]
Since a lot of other rank styles have the separate styles split into separate pages, should we move the assignment patches to their own separate page so this page isn't too big? --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Move[]
I'm going to move the assignment patch ranks to their own page so this page isn't too big. --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion moved from Talk:Terran Starfleet ranks (23rd century)[]
Aren't these the same as the "regular" universe rank insignia? I believe this page is redundant, like wise Terran Starfleet ranks (22nd century). --TimPendragon 07:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly seems like they are. No one has spoken up in defence of these articles in all this time but I'll give it until the end of the weekend just in case the hordes arrive. – JayLR 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Changed this to a redirect to the primary universe ranks. It mentions in that article that these ranks are the same as the mirror universe ranks. The 22nd century is actually different so it will remain. – JayLR 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)