Uniform Insignia Forum

Semi-Cannon Post-TMP-Era:
http://www.st-chronicles.de/scripts/ranks_01/index.html

Un-Cannon NEM Dress:
http://www.st-chronicles.de/scripts/ranks_03/index.html

Un-Cannon TNG Duty:
Version 1: http://www.st-chronicles.de/scripts/ranks_02/index.html
Version 2: http://www.st-chronicles.de/scripts/ranks_04/index.html

They have been created by me with the support of Steven Marriot from RPG-I. Hope you enjoy them.

toXic wrote:Semi-Cannon Post-TMP-Era:
http://www.st-chronicles.de/scripts/ranks_01/index.html

These insignia, although used in the ST Encyclopaedia, are incorrect. The correct forms are shown here:
http://www.captainmike.org/Galactopedia/insignia.html

Proteus wrote:

toXic wrote:Semi-Cannon Post-TMP-Era:
http://www.st-chronicles.de/scripts/ranks_01/index.html

These insignia, although used in the ST Encyclopaedia, are incorrect. The correct forms are shown here:
http://www.captainmike.org/Galactopedia/insignia.html

Hence the name: SEMI-cannon

toXic wrote:Hence the name: SEMI-cannon

They aren't semi-canon. They're anti-canon.

Toxic,

Thank you for showing us your work. It is nicely draw and looks like it would make a fine graphic supplement to any ST role-playing environment. However, as there are purists in abundance, please refer to them as your work - not associated with any Paramount(tm) product.

Proteus,

Please be kind to those who share. If something is not to your liking, please reserve comment. If we all jump on those who do get off their collective duffs and actually bring something new to the table, we will have nothing very soon. Maxim - criticism without corrective alternative is NOT constructive. Semantic squabbling is quite detrimental to our cause.


Erskine

Erskine Calderon wrote:Maxim - criticism without corrective alternative is NOT constructive.

That's why I pointed out the correct versions.

And I was not rude at all, I merely pointed out that the insignia were incorrect, and that an incorrect version of something is not semi-correct, but wrong.

Hmmm ... let me confess to be amazed of something: as soon as we start talking about ST we end up sooner or later biting each other ... first with that copyright nonsense now with this ... I wonder if perhaps we shouldn't just ban everything related ot ST (to my greatest sorrow, I should add) ...

Miklós - I know you are just thinking out loud about the ST thing but you are right there are 3 things you should never talk about on the net - politics, religion and......... Star Trek

OK Just Kidding - “Tempest in a teapot" as my old “scot’s granny” would say.

Toxic, Proteus , Erskine,Miklós
If may say this in general - except for this board and some technical Forums/BB's I generally don't participate in internet discussion. I do occasionally skip into a newsgroup, but one of the reasons I don’t is that the “net” has become a little too “yes it is / no it isn’t / yes it is……”. You may notice, I don't generally use "Emoticons" and very rarely "Smilies" just my preference. As a consequence I try to be really careful about what I say and have a few facts to back me up. (.......and I still screw up – just like everyone else). I have been on the Net since the ARPNET / UUNET days when it was totally “collegial” and this Board is the most professional in tone and information that I have seen for a long time on the “net”.

However nothing wrong with an honest difference of information, in fact that’s part of why we are here.

Toxic/Proteus – You were not “rude” (nor did Erskine say you were) . I think all that Erskine was really saying was that it is so easy to offend someone – especially on this board with so many languages and cultures involved. If you object to something no problem but rather than “No it isn’t / yes it is” just add a few facts to support yourselves. Most speculative rank systems are open to much debate and even the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself had a tough time deciding what was Canon ./ Non Canon. Actually the really funny thing about the whole Canon / Non Canon thing is that it makes it sound a little like a religion. Hmmm.

Anyway we are all part of the most unique little constituency on the internet truly multi cultural so lets keep it that way. I am glad to participate in this group and try to conduct myself as I would like to be treated – (as I think we all do)

On a final note – huge Star Trek fan myself (though I don’t go as far as the wearing the ears or a costume) so love to see this information. I give the site organizers/administrators/moderators full credit for having this section as I would not have though of it.

Hear! Hear! The voice of reason sounding from beneath the seas :lol:
There is nothing I couldn't agree in what you've said, Robb! And also, let me emphasise one thing: not only are we multicultural, but also there are rather significant difference in the level of English-knowledge amongs us ... so, it's quite simple to create misunderstandings and offend people. I think, perhaps we should add an announcement at the beginning of each forum, stating that no matter how offensive the wording may seem to be, it's apparent offending character is due only and exclusively to the less than perfect knwoledge of English and by no means due to negative intent. I must confess, that there were posts which made me think that some people actually intended to be ofensive, but I did reconsider my position and have given the benefit of doubt to all, always prefering to believe that one doesn't speak/write well English instead of thinking him a bastard purposely bent on hurting peoples feelings.

Hello folks,

thank you all for the whise words. But let me get to the topic for one little second. There are many rank-schemes out there for the era of Trek in question. Depending on what sources you consider, either of them is right or totally wrong. I'm personally using the Okuda-1-scheme from the first Encyclopedia. I used this not because it's cannon or correct - I actually know that it is quite incorrect especially in the flag-officer ranks and the LtJg-rate. But it is the best looking of all schemes available - at least for my taste.

Proteus, just for all and good: This is not about right or wrong. Star Trek is a work of fiction created by nearly a hundred of authors plus a fandom that goes into the thousands or millions. So in the end there are roundabout a million of considerations of whether a ranking-scheme is right or wrong. In the end there cannot be a "correct" scheme - as it remains a matter of taste.

If you don't like the scheme I use then I cannot help it. But the statement that it is not correct is not helpful at all even with the refence to another site that some other people might say that it displays an incorrect rank-scheme.

Miklós Lovász wrote:Hmmm ... let me confess to be amazed of something: as soon as we start talking about ST we end up sooner or later biting each other ... first with that copyright nonsense now with this ... I wonder if perhaps we shouldn't just ban everything related ot ST (to my greatest sorrow, I should add) ...

BTW that copywrite nonesences is still a pressing matter

toXic wrote:In the end there cannot be a "correct" scheme

I'd say the rank scheme used in the movies is the correct one, which is the one designed by Robert Fletcher.

Spike wrote:

toXic wrote:In the end there cannot be a "correct" scheme

I'd say the rank scheme used in the movies is the correct one, which is the one designed by Robert Fletcher.

Well, the insignias used in the movies are incorrect - or rather incosistent - in themselves. As they had many costume issues. You pointed some of them out on your own site. However, I want to make sure, that I never claimed my ranks to be correct or fully cannon and I believe they don't need to be. Period.

Hi Everybody!
Chuck Anderson here!!

If I may chime-in and add my two cents worth, I'd first like to bring up what toXic was talking about, mainly that "In the end there cannot be a "correct" scheme".

It should be up to the people that create something (such as Star Trek), as to what is correct and what is incorrect within the body of THEIR work, and Star Trek is indeed THEIR work. While it would be nice if they could provide an explanation for a major change in (or glaring error), of their storyline, they are after all the creators of the story and have ultimate creative control.

See ya'!

Chuck Anderson
USAFWO1_1975@military.com

Hi Chuck I just wanted to support your comment about Trek ranks in particular and fictional rank systems in general.

We have all seen (through this board if not elsewhere) just how much change takes place in an actual military rank system over say 10 or 20 years, in 50 or 100 years some are virtually unrecognizable to the current system.

I applaud anyone who goes to the time & trouble of creating a system, (that is why a lot of us are here we are interested in such things). But Chuck is right, whether it is incorrect, un-liked or inconsistent, whatever the rank system shown in each movie/TV series is what it is. The only one who can say different would be the “owner/creator/copyright holder”.

Someone may produce a better version or even the best version but it is not “correct” unless (in this case) “Fleet Admiral Paramount Pictures” says it is.

I’ve been a fan for years and even I can not tell you what rank James T. Kirk actually held when he was made “Admiral”.

They are after just movies or TV .

(On a separate note if you really go back and look at the original concept as written by Roddenberry, he thought there should be no enlisted or officers just one group - neither officers or enlisted. The North American audience had such difficulty with that they had to recreate this whole service in a more familiar context of today’s rank system.)

I’ve been a fan for years and even I can not tell you what rank James T. Kirk actually held when he was made “Admiral”.

Rear Admiral.

Spike wrote:

I’ve been a fan for years and even I can not tell you what rank James T. Kirk actually held when he was made “Admiral”.

Rear Admiral.

Thanks, but even Roddenbury "the Great Bird" himself would not confirm Kirks rank which with the same insignia has been reported as Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral and Admiral by various "canon" sources.
In the WOK The novel he is an "Admiral"
The first version of the ST encylopedia he is an "Admiral"
In the last version of the ST encylopdedia he is a "Rear Admiral.
In the shooting scrpit for Wrath of Khan he is a "Vice Admiral"

all I am saying is.... it is fiction and when the creators can not agree on what rank he has... how can we.. as annoying as that is..

If you looked at the USN - from David Farragut's sleeve rank after Cheasepeake Bay most of us would assume he was a Fleet Adimral instead of a (at first) Flag Officer then Rear Adimral.

How many people remember that for over 100 years 3 gold sleeve rings meant Captain not 4 gold sleeve rings.

Here's a little bit of food for thought regarding Star Trek ranks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_(Star_Trek)#Captain

I recognise alot of those insignia from a paricular website that listed the original series movie Costume Director's original ideas for each rank as well as all the other fan canon variations in a table, but I can't for the live of me find that site at the mo...been looking for an hour..

If I manage to find it again, I'll defo put up the link!

Star Trek ranks and uniforms - what an emotive subject and what a complete minefield!

Star Trek suffers badly from an apparent lack of logic and continuity where Starfleet uniforms are concerned and, at the end of the day, this is mainly down to the fact that it's a TV show for goodness sake!! There are massive inconsistencies and no amount of geeky pedantry can get around that - you just have to go with a best approximation and live with it!

There are some broad areas where consistent details of Starfleet uniforms and rank insignia are known for each era of Star Trek productions but, despite this, most of Trek falls down badly because there are HUGE areas where costume design, construction and useage did not follow established continuity. There are plenty of occasions where the wardrobe staff simply get it "wrong" or new costume designers modify an older uniform design but don't stik to the established style.

The producers also like the idea that they can change costumes and costume detailing when they want to; it adds interest and updates the look and feel of the show for the audience (which is entirely reasonable!) but from within the Star Trek universe it appears to run counter to any sense of reason that might exist in an organization as big as Starfleet when it comes to introducing new items of clothing at apparently random moments!

I have not yet found any DEFINITIVE reference material, whether in print or on-line (including many "official" books!), that does not include mistakes, misunderstandings / misinterpretations or conjectural designs to fill in the "gaps" - some of which are acknowledged as conjectural but some passed off as "canon" because the authors like their own work. The flag-rank cuff stripes for the Original Series uniform are a classic example of this - there are some regularly copied versions on the web but they are not in any way "canon" although they are often copied from one site to another and used as if they were.

Over the years, I've drawn up quite a few versions of Trek insignia from the various eras of the TV shows and the movies - and, yes, I've designed conjectural insignia to cover the gaps where some insignia have just never been seen. I'm always very careful to follow the stylistic details that HAVE been established and to take my cues from that. I also make sure that my designs maintain an internal consistency within whichever set of insignia I'm working. All of this means my versions of the "missing" are often quite different to some that are widely accepted BUT my designs are no more right or wrong than anyone else's...!!

Maybe Miklós is right - probably better not to discuss Trek at all...!!

I have always found the insignia of Star Trek quite fascinating. I have detailed some of my Star Trek experiences elsewhere on the Forum. But as I read all these interesting comments, I am reminded of my visit with the Costume Designer of several of the films, Robert Fletcher. When I asked him about his designs he said he chose them because they looked good, and followed a loose progression from one level to the next. He admitted he was a costume designer not a military designer. In fact, he told me he replaced the cuff lace on one of Kirk's uniforms because he found out that it was identical to that used in Battlestar Galactica! This is the core of the reason why there are so many inconsistencies within the insignia of the Star Trek universe. The personal artistic eye of the costume designer and director who go for looks more than for function or reality.

Absolutely - I couldn't agree more!