The Encyclopedia agrees with me, anyway. :-) Alex Peckover 19:30, Jun 11, 2004 (CEST)
Superiority over CommanderEdit
As far as I'm aware, the statement that subcommander is treated as above the Starfleet rank commander comes only from the example of T'Pol. Since she was first officer, she would have authority over commander-rank individuals on Enterprise regardless, in the same way that Doctor Crusher (who is also a commander) was subordinate to Riker on the Enterprise D. Unless there's more evidence for the statement (which, I suppose, is what I'm asking), I think it should be corrected/clarified that subcommander is most likely equivilent to a Starfleet commander, as Vulcan captain/commander is most likely equal to Starfleet captain. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sman789 (talk • contribs).
"a Vulcan subcommander has been treated as being a grade below a Starfleet captain and above a Starfleet commander."
This statement makes no sense. There IS no rank between Star Fleet Commander and Captain. Therefore, a Sub-Commander would be equivalent to a Commander. Just as in the real world Navy, ultimate authority derives from position in the command group. A ship's first and second officers may both be commanders, but the second officer takes orders from the first. In much the same way, T'Pol became first officer over Trip, though both were considered commanders (and why didn't Trip have to wear the shiny spandex suits? But I digress).
The real question lies in what to call a Vulcan commanding officer? Typically, they are referred to as Captains, but if their seconds are sub-commanders, shouldn't they be Commanders? Though they would still be equivalent to Star Fleet Captains (just as Army Colonels are equivalent to Navy Captains).
It all depends on what we decide the translation of "Khart-lan" is (the Vulcan word for the officer equivalent to Captain). 188.8.131.52
Page move Edit
I recommend this page should be moved, as the spelling "Sub-Commander" is definitely more common in scripts from Star Trek: Enterprise (that is, if there were any references to "Subcommander" at all!) --Defiant (talk) 06:54, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
Having now carefully read through the script for each episode in the first two seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise, I can report that I've seen no uses of "Subcommander"; it's always formatted "Sub-Commander". --Defiant (talk) 14:24, December 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Enterprise is not the only series with this reference. How about all the other series where the term is referenced? Tom (talk) 15:25, December 30, 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I've found so far:
I also intend to check the scripts for TOS: "The Enterprise Incident" and VOY: "Message in a Bottle". Judging by even the non-ENT scripts alone, it's certainly seeming as if "Sub-Commander" was used more often than "Subcommander". --Defiant (talk) 11:52, December 31, 2015 (UTC)
Erm... I thought we usually go with what's most commonly used(?) In which case, I'd opt for going with "Sub-Commander", with a redirect at "Subcommander". Seems to make most sense, given the evidence... --Defiant (talk) 22:16, December 31, 2015 (UTC)