Title vs. RankEdit

Isn't Deputy Director more likely a title than a rank? Like Yeoman or Commandant, Starfleet Academy? Cory 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Deputy Director" is more a Billet/Title/Function that a rank in its own right.

Comments from userEdit

For what its worth, in my own Sim Group[1], I have taken this pin and built/expanded it into a system for "Flag Staff", officers of regular rank on permanent attached duty to someone Admiral-level or higher. An Admiral has the authority to select and maintain a limited staff of no more than 5 in any combination of Flag Ensign to Flag Commodore(5 staff-pips, "Staff" being the underscoring rod).

In my system, this is a Flag Captain. To keep the Flag Staff system simplified I don't allow for half-ranks; thus for example a Ltjg also receives a bump to full Lieutenant as well as the lateral promotion to Flag Lieutenant.

This system is my own Intellectually Developed Property... If you wish to adopt it for your own use ----including the addition of flag half-ranks---- please provide credit to me!! Drop me a line and a link as well.

Love Robin, Fleet Admiral; Star Trek:Federation And Beyond; a Fan's Sim Group – Love Robin 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to Fleet CaptainEdit

I removed:

The insignia for Deputy Director has been equated by many fans to that of a Fleet captain.

For being speculative. Also, please don't spam. --Alan del Beccio 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I put it back in before reading this (sorry). But, in any event, we should have some link, either in a background note or "see also" link linking this article to Fleet Captain. There is just too much fan mateiral out there about this to not include that Sloan's rank insignia is often equated with that of a fleet captain. -FleetCaptain 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is from novels, then change it to state that "in many novels such and such is referenced as this" and so forth. Stating "many fans believe", or the like, comes across as very speculative, as fan material itself is not considered palatable content here. --Alan del Beccio 11:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I left it as just a plain old "see also" for now. I ask that this is not removed without cause and it simply provides a link to another article which mentions deputy director in the background section. Cutting out "some fans have said" is a good policy, though, and I agree with that. -FleetCaptain 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Our rule of thumb is discussing "removed" links/references (see above), discussing them, then readding them if necessary. You still have no legitimate link between the two titles. Additional, why do you keep changing the text above it. There was nothing inaccurate about it, neither too vague nor too speculative. Introduce the subject, then reference it as it was used in the citation, two parts. Not just one sentence/idea. --Alan del Beccio 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didnt change any sentences above the "see also" link unless it was done by mistake. All I ask to include the "see also" link so these two articles are connected. -FleetCaptain 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see I reverted by mistake which cut out some legit text. Apologies for that. The background section I just added should be good enough to cover all points on this. -FleetCaptain 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok... I re-removed this speculation that was incited.
Numerous fan internet sites and comic books have hailed Sloan's insignia as a reappearance of the rank fleet captain, although there is to date nothing in canon to support this.
Please do NOT re-add this until it has been discussed to everyone's satisfaction. That and... the "fan internet sites" crap is brutally bad. If you can find a reference to it in a comic book, then make a note of it here. At that point, we'll re-add it. If it can't be found... we don't add it. It's that simple. -- Sulfur 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As I asked way up in the conversation, can we simply have a "see also" note that links these two articles together. That is not unreasonable, doesnt harm the article, and doesnt violate canon rules. It escapes me why people are so against this. -FleetCaptain 22:54, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Evidence from the script notesEdit

Its too late at night to start another battle, but I just learned that there are script notes from the original episode "Inquisition" that the DSN producers intended this rank to be a "re-born" version Fleet Captain. This is not just pulling stuff out our a**sses here, this is referenced by the show producers and I mean COME ON it is clearly meant to be a rank between captain and rear admiral that would match up exactly to what a Fleet Captain is supposed to be. I'll give this a few days, but will revisit it with direct references from script notes. Why people are being so stubborn about this is beyond me as it was very clearly meant by the show producers that this is a 24th century version of Fleet Captain. -FleetCaptain 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Script notes are different. That would allow some background information. Do you have access to them? Share them? etc? -- Sulfur 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will dig up what I can and find a good refenence. The history behind this episode is kind of fascinating. From what I've been told, the original intent was to have Sloan actually be a commodore and introduce the never-before-seen one star admiral boxed pip. But, due to costume problems, the producers simply came up with the "captain insignia on top of a gold bar" idea and then the script writers, attempting to explain it, stated that it was a 24th century version of fleet captain. Somewhere along the line, the script got changed to deputy director. I dont expect anyone to take just my word for this and I will look for a reference. Sorry for being a d**k about some of this; I have just had the privelege to directly speak with Star Trek writers about some of this and am eager to share what I know. Thank you for not changing the line I added about fleet captain. I will find a refenence. Have a good night. -FleetCaptain 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How are we being stubborn? I removed something that was "speculative" and you readded it without justifiable cause, without discussing the issue or coming to a resolution with the community on the issue. We are following procedure by not readding it and trying to discuss it. That is not being stubborn, that is following protocol. So, as I believe I stated before, there is *no* indication that Sloan outranked Sisko, in fact, Sloan's "power" over Sisko came in the form of an order from the Federation Council: "All right, people. This is Deputy Director Sloan of Internal Affairs. He's here under the authority of the Federation Council. I expect you to give him your full cooperation." Futhermore, if the title "Deputy Director" in "real world" usage of the term is any indication of where he stands, ie Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, then his position is an "executive" role or title, and not a rank. So again, any speculation about his rank being higher than a captain, based on the design of his insignia, is little more than that, speculation. With that said, it would be much appreciated if we could remove said bunk from the article and leave it as it was, succinct, yet accurate to *what we know* as fact. --Alan del Beccio 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the note above as I was attempting to explain that some of this comes from the script notes. It is becoming pretty clear that you do not want any reference to fleet captain in this article and are willing to go so far as to lock the article so that others can't edit it (see below). We can keep out the reference until I can find a script note reference but I ask you remove the very slanderous note at the top of this article that says it was locked due to "edit warring" with the second note which appears to covertly reference me. -FleetCaptain 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible solutionsEdit

I dont plan to add anymore material until I get a good source for the script note I was told about (mentioned above), although we might want to add in a rank navigation template box to the bottom of this article. What does everyone think of that? -FleetCaptain 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I added in a link to Deputy Director in the general rank navigation box and explained why at Template talk:Ranks. If an admin will unprotect the article and just add in the template box, then I would consider that a complete solution. What does everyone think of that? -FleetCaptain 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal Protest against "Edit War" ProtectionEdit

I dont mean to ruffle feathers here, but the fact that User:Gvsualan reverted my edits to his preferred version and then locked the article so that no one could edit it was completely uncalled for and an abuse of admin powers. We weren't having an edit war, we were ironing out differences and discussing them. At no time was an "edit war" occuring. Please unlock the article as that is clearly a conflict of interests for a party involved in a content dispute to revert to thier version and then lock out other editors who they personally disagree with. -FleetCaptain 05:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like either of your actions. You (FleetCaptain) are right - Alan shouldn't have protected a page he is involved in editing. He shouldn't have protected it "infinitely" instead of temporarily. He shouldn't have changed it back to his version just before protecting it. Alan, please review the admin policies regarding this - would have been better to involve someone else.
However, the way I read the page history and this talk page, Alan has tried, several times, to start a discussion about the information you tried to add to the article - and, unless there's more information about the topic than has been brought up here until now, he seems to be completely right. Why do we need to reference some "random" other title, if there's no definite connection between those two? If you can find and present such information, that's great - but until then, why not leave the article as is? Also, I have to say that I don't like the way you tried to spread this conflict to half a dozen other talk pages.
Let's have the rest of the discussion here - I changed page protection from "infinite" to 3 days, giving both of you the rest of the weekend to sort that out. I hope you can get this settled, or else the next page protection will be by someone who isn't involved in the edit war. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 10:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly never saw myself as edit warring. We were working through issues. The "some fans have said" stuff was cut out (fine), we added in the background section (also fine) and then a question was raised about whether deputy director was senior to captain. It was at that point that the article was locked. For what reason? I mean really? With the explanation above about the line provided that DD might not have really been a senior rank to captain, taking it out also would have been fine. My original suggestion of adding a "see also" note was never addressed. I also think we might want to add a rank template navigation boc to the bottom of the page to link all ranks. What does everyone think of that? I just think that locking an article and saying that a major contributor was editing warring was not the right thing to do here. I mean, a simply note on my talk page saying, "Hey, FC, dont add in suchandsuch again or else the article might be locked becuase it looks like an edit war is developing". I probably would have said okay. -FleetCaptain 15:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cid pretty much explained why I locked it, which I tried several times to discuss on the talk page, but you were not reading the discussion, nor acknowledging that the readdition of something that is being discussion should perhaps not be readded to the page while it is being discussed. Keep in mind, I initially removed the link in question almost 3 weeks ago. While I understand you didn't see my message until after the fact, it should have been removed then discussed first, rather than left to be hammered out and then removed again later if *facts* supported its inclusion. Again, as I have said, and as Cid has now said, your "see also" is being linked to what looks like nothing more than a completely random title. I would understand it if this were the biochemistry article and the "see also" referred to biology and chemistry, as the are undeniably linked, but in this case, I see no evidence that "deputy director" and "fleet captain" are at all linked.
Secondly, Cid, regarding the "indefinite", that was completely random. Simply knowing that one way or the other the lock would be lifted in less time than that I just threw in something to satisfy the page's time request, knowing full well that locking it in general would hopefully (finally) spark the discussion that is not happening with the edit-revert war. Secondly, before I locked it, I essentially changed it back to the version that was still on par with what was originally there, combined with what Sulfur had rewritten, all while remaining within established *fact*. Nevertheless, I have reverted it to the original version that it was at before the undiscussed changes/readditions were made. --Alan del Beccio 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to cut the background section and picture, especially while the article was protected. We can keep the Fleet Captain reference out. I also offered up the solution to include deputy director in the rank navigation template and leave it at that. I'll leave the article alone for a few days and see if anyone else comes along to offer any other ideas. But the B-ground section (without the reference to fleet captain) should go back in since cutting it out and reverting all the work put into yesterday appears to be an attempt to get this article back to its original state to where you want it. For now, though, I give up. You've got the admin powers and are apparently using them to get your way here. I can't compete with that. -FleetCaptain 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it real? Edit

Are we even sure that this is a real rank, I mean it was being worn by a member of Section 31 and they aren't exactly trustworthy are they?--UESPA 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was worn in a holodeck simulation where Bashir and Sloan were the only real people (that we know about). However, Bashir made no comment about Sloan's title or rank being fake/wrong and appeared to recognize his authority over Sisko. So, it probably was a real rank/title and Sloan was just using it for his purposes in the holodeck situation. -FleetCaptain 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Background section & Picture Cut Edit

Okay...the article was still protected and now has been reverted by one of the parities involved while it was still protected to an even earlier version which cuts out the background section and picture of Sloan, all of which was already worked out and agreed upon I thought. I'm not going to start another edit war, but there was no need for that. -FleetCaptain 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, and more or less per Cid's instruction, it was reverted to the version point in history at which the "conflict" started. What is *now* being discussed is whether the inclusion of the information I originally removed should be readded, as should have been done in the first place. --Alan del Beccio 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you or I should be doing anything to this article while its protected. That's all. But hey, its Friday and I'm taking a break. Have a good 3 day weekend. I dont agree professionally with what you've done and have stated why and you have countered; thats all fine and good for you. There are no hard feelings on this end. Have a great weekend. -FleetCaptain 22:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that is rather less than more per "my instructions" - first, because I didn't give any "instructions" in the first place, and second, because according to our Protection policy, not only is protecting a page you're involved in editing a bad idea - it's even worse to edit a page that has been protected before. The only way to level the field, so to speak, seems to be to lift protection completely, which I'm doing right now. Have fun editing. -- Cid Highwind 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, everyone wants to be an administrator until some actual administrating needs to be done, so who does it? Me. And who is always the bad guy? Me. You know, everyone is so quick to bitch about what I do, but really, you (Cid) have been no help in actually resolving the issue at hand, (I removed something for discussion and a dozen reverts later there is still no productive discussion) nor have the other half dozen administrators who have been editing in the past 48 hours, any one of which could have stepped up and actually done something. The only reason Sulfur did, is because I asked him to get involved on the talk page to reiterate what I was saying about "discussing first, readding later." But like usual everyone has so far just turned a blind eye until it actually affects something they are personally involved with. I locked it so to finally get some attention to this discussion, and similar discussions like it are happening elsewhere on this site where there is a discussion going on, stop adding speculation to the article, and talk, and I'll be damned if I catch any more hell or questioned about trying to doing what no one else here wants to step up and do. --Alan del Beccio 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its safe to say having a direct link to Fleet captain has been debated enough to prove its too questionable to add into the article. I do not expect my sole word about script notes to be accepted as proof. And since I cant find a good hard source, I think the debate has reached its conclusion. My plan is to now develop a new navigation template to show all Starfleet ranks and titles to be separate from the normal rank navigation template which we now use. That however is another project. See everyone around. -FC 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deputy director insignia Edit

Tng fcapt

I dont know where exactly to put this: Why is this image always titeled "Deputy Director insignia"? Sloan wore it once in "Inquisition". But that doesnt automatically mean that this is the insignia of a (or every) deputy director. As stated (many times) before, it could be a fleet captain insignia. Or maybe all Internal Affairs officers have a gold underline. My point is since we dont know anything else, the image should always be referred to as "Sloan's insignia" or something like that and not "Deputy Director insignia". --Maxwell Fawkes 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The only known title/rank associated with it is deputy director, to suggest it is anything else (like Fleet Captain) is simply speculation. --Alan 05:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is correct that the only known title associated with the insignia is DD, also the only known branch associated with it is Internal Affairs and as far as I recall, no other Internal Affairs officer was ever seen on-screen. So you could also argue that the underline is the insignia of Internal Affairs (much like the Red Squad insignia). It is only canon that ONE DD wore this insignia, and in my opinion it is not reasonable to assume that DDs in general wear it. That the insignia denotes the rank of fleet captain would be cool but it is speculation. That the insignia always denotes a DD is speculation too, even though there has been one DD wearing it. --Maxwell Fawkes 10:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at who's speculating: If we buy your idea, then it would mean that deputy directors wouldn't wear deputy director insignia at all, and that the one deputy director whom we have seen would wear some insignia that would mean something completely random and would be unrelated to his actual position. That's not speculative? You might want to check other insignia which were only ever worn by one character to see how we deal with such. --TribbleFurSuit 08:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Then lets look at the facts: There is Sloan who is wearing that special and unique insignia. So we have to ask what is so special about him that he can wear such an insignia. Obviously its position (deputy director) comes to mind. So because he is the only DD ever seen on-screen AND he has that unique insignia, one can conclude that the insignia denotes a DD. So far so good. But also for example: He is the only Internal Affairs officer ever seen on-screen, so the insignia (or the underline) is a symbol for IA. And Im sure there are other unique connections. Im not saying that either is true or false, just that they are all speculative. --Maxwell Fawkes 16:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no support in canon for the idea that there are different insignia for different branches, departments or secret forces of Starfleet. But there is all kinds of support for the ideas that there are different insignia for different ranks, and that people wear insignia indicating their rank, and that Deputy Director is indeed a rank, and that people don't omit their rank insignia and instead put on some other decoration. Our content is fine the way it is: article text makes clear that "Deputy Director" status is a little uncertain in the precise rank hierarchy, but to imagine that it's not a rank and that holders of the position/title don't have an insignia for it is indeed speculation. So are all the other possibilities you talked about - except for the one we started with. That was: treating it like a rank insignia, which it very obviously is, and to treat it like a legitimate one, a standard one, a canon one, and a unique one. Your initial suggestion here was "re-name the image". Well, that would be the very least of the issue, if anybody were to care about having a consistent encyclopedia after making such a change. Besides mere image filenames (or captions, if that's what you meant), we have several actual articles whose current content depends on this, and right now they're all consistent with each other and with what little we know canonically about Deputy Directors and Internal Affairs. --TribbleFurSuit 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
To Maxwell, I would say speculation is bad here but at some point one must cross the border into something that is obviously implied. For instance, it is actually never stated on screen in a Next Generation episode that four pips on a collar of a uniform mean someone is a Captain. Yet that is assumed by everyone. In the motion pictures, taking the Commander rank pin, no one ever stated: "Commander Sulu wore an onlong winged pin with two internal bars denoting Commander rank" yet he is obviously a Commander and that is obviously his insignia. I knew someone in high school that argued Picard's pips denoted years of service in Starfleet and that the Commander rank pin was actually the insignia for someone who was the Helmsmen or Navigator. The situation here is very similar. In fairness though, both the four pip Captain insignia and the movie Commander pin have also appeared in publications and manuals from the film/show producers while Deputy Director has not. Yet, we must go by what is so obviously implied and that this is the insignia worn by someone who is a Deputy Director. Alan also points out (rightfully so) that we had this conversation before and agreed not to ever say it was Fleet Captain :-) -FC 20:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Tribble: I agree, the article itself is fine. My discussion was only about the caption of the image which says (not only here) "Deptuty Director Insignia". And that is something I dont agree with.

Re FC: Granted, we have to assume at some point. No one said Sulu was a commander. But it was a reasonable assumption that he was. It is also reasonable to assume that 4 pips denote a captain. Why is that both reasonable? Because we know the rank table and because there are additional (non-canon but permitted) sources which agree. And we all agree that it is also reasonable to assume that deputy director is not a rank but a title like Chief of Starfleet Security or something like that. That is reasonable because we look at today's military and see that they have dds too.

But I still dont understand (and I apologize if I get on everyones nerves) why it is reasonable to assume that a Starfleet dd has a special rank insignia. If you assume that, you need at least some (canon or not) outside sources or examples that give you a hint. Otherwise it is just speculation. For example: dds in today's military dont have a special insignia too. But we know that Red Squad had a special insignia, so why is it totally out of line to assume that IA has one too? Ok, its more speculation than assumption, but so is the dd insignia. Only because one dd wore that unique insignia is is not obviously a dd insignia. --Maxwell Fawkes 14:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you weanted to change the caption to read "Special insignia worn by Sloan" I guess that would be okay. No one is stopping you from making edits to the article. And, as it is written, the insignia is mentioned in the background section only which does a very good job explaining it (a result of the Fleet Cpatain-DD debate of a while ago which was actually very good for the article and I'm glad we had it.) -FC 16:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"why it is reasonable to assume that a Starfleet dd has a special rank insignia" - what we're assuming is that DD in Trek is NOT like DD in real life, that in Trek DD is a distinct rank. Read Starfleet ranks. The reason it's reasonable to assume this is that "the position does warrant some command authority over a Captain." The other thing that's reasonable to assume is that this is a rank pin and not some extra special pin like Red Squad's. Red Squad did not replace their rank insignia with their club patch, and Sloan was not wearing this in addition to a rank pin. It IS his rank pin. --TribbleFurSuit 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Tribble: I dont think we are assuming that DD is a distinct rank, that would be hightly speculative. We are assuming that it is a special titel which is ok. "The position does warrant some command authority over a Captain." What position? The position as a DD alone does not. His position as a IA officer on the other hand does. Red Squad wears its insignia in addition to the rank, correct. Sloan could be a captain and wears the IA insignia (just the gold underline) in addition to his captains rank insignia. But again, this is speculation on my part but not less reasonable than the DD insignia theory. --Maxwell Fawkes 22:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not much else has been said about this. I went ahead and made the very minor change discussed above, i.e. simply stating that the insignia was "Sloan's insignia" rather than "Deputy Director". The first covers all the basis, and is without a doubt factual. -FC 04:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)