Chron order?
Should any attempt be made to organise this page in chronological order? -- Avron 07:38, 14 May 2004 (CEST)
- I think alphabetical order is preferable here - we don't know enough about most of the captains to really devise a correct chronological order. It should definitely be integrated into the web better, though. I just established the first link to this page - creating orphans just doesn't work... -- Cid Highwind 12:33, 14 May 2004 (CEST)
- What about adding an indication of when they served as captain for those we know details of then (like Picard, Kirk, etc)? Maybe something like Captain Jonathan Archer (Enterprise NX-01 2151-) for example? -- Avron 12:55, 14 May 2004 (CEST)
- Did Archer really "start" being captain of NX-01 in 2151 (he could have been its captain well before the first mission)? Could he have had the rank of captain before that? What date(s) do we include for captains that commanded more than one ship? I think the few dates we know should be listed on both the characters' and the ship's page, not necessarily here. -- Cid Highwind 13:04, 14 May 2004 (CEST)
- Especially since some of these captains are not ship commanders or regular assignmwents (like JAG captain Louvois and Scotty)... --Captainmike 15:50, 14 May 2004 (CEST)
UTS?
- Um.. I hate to be a wet blanket, but i'm doubtful there has ever been a canonical mention of the prefix "U.T.S." for timeships besides the dubious StarTrek.com mention.. I think we have a definite "U.S.S." on the Relativity. --Captainmike 17:17, 21 May 2004 (CEST)
- if you check out the screengrab at MMoM's siteexternal picture link it is confirmed: this image shows the Relativity correctly as "U.S.S." --Captainmike 17:17, 21 May 2004 (CEST)
Temporary captaincies?
Should temporary captaincies be included, provided the officer in question is a captain by rank (such as Jellico in Chain of Command, Parts I and II and Riker in "Best of Both Worlds, Part II" )?
How about Admiral Riker in "All Good Things..." for future timelines?
- Jellico was always a captain, his position was temporary, but his rank wasn't. As well, Riker was an Admiral, not a Captain. Also, please sign your comments with the --~~~~. Thanks. --Gvsualan 21:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Order
I believe, quite logicly, that it makes sense to put the REAL unnamed captains above the ALTERNATE/UNREAL captains. It is also logical that people ranking above captain should not be on the page, theres even duplicates of them on the page from when they were captains. In the name of logic, change it back. (User:Noahmj - signiture added by AJHalliwell)
- If the inuse boiler plate is up, someone else is already making a big edit to the page. You can't edit a page when that is up. Also, please write -~~~~ at the end of your posts on discussion pages so people can see who wrote them. And if you have an opinion that majorly alters an article, please post it on the discussion page before enforcing it.
- As for your question, Captain can refer to rank or position. I believe this page refers to the position, as spoken in an episode of DS9, its tradition that the commanding officer of a vessel be referred to as "Captain", even if that's not their actual rank. So if an Commodore was seen commanding a vessel, then they'd be counted as that vessels captain, even if they had the rank of Commodore. An example of this is Matt Decker. -AJHalliwell 05:32, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
matt decker was never refered to as captain. even if it was refering to COs, what about the order? doesnt it make sense to put 'real' characters before alternate ones?--Noahmj 05:36, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Nowhere in this list does it state that this is only individuals of the rank of captain. Specifically it says: "...officers captaining starships and/or holding the rank of captain." A Commodore commanding a starship, or a Lieutenant Commander commanding a starship, either way, is traditionally known as a "Captain"...this is cited both in the captain article *and* in DS9: "Behind the Lines". Therefore explaining why those starship commanders are listed. As far as order, M/A has maintained the practice of giving credit to *named officers* before *unnamed officers*. Real or not, they are still *named officers*. In other identical cases, those left unnamed are mentioned at the bottom of the page or in separate articles altogether. Cardassians is currently formatted in the way and so was Romulans before it was splintered into Romulans and Unnamed Romulans. So despite your logic, our logic makes its own sense and is already (and equally) used across the board. --Gvsualan 05:40, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Besides, Noahmj, I'd like to see information you intended to be removed put on the talk page or a separate section. Deleting the information outright creates a difficult situation for an archivist who might wish to create a list cross-referencing the officers whose names you removed.
- Nowhere in this list does it state that this is only individuals of the rank of captain. Specifically it says: "...officers captaining starships and/or holding the rank of captain." A Commodore commanding a starship, or a Lieutenant Commander commanding a starship, either way, is traditionally known as a "Captain"...this is cited both in the captain article *and* in DS9: "Behind the Lines". Therefore explaining why those starship commanders are listed. As far as order, M/A has maintained the practice of giving credit to *named officers* before *unnamed officers*. Real or not, they are still *named officers*. In other identical cases, those left unnamed are mentioned at the bottom of the page or in separate articles altogether. Cardassians is currently formatted in the way and so was Romulans before it was splintered into Romulans and Unnamed Romulans. So despite your logic, our logic makes its own sense and is already (and equally) used across the board. --Gvsualan 05:40, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Why don't we remove the officers who commanded a starship as a cmdr/lcdr, etc to a subsection where it notes that their rank is not captain but their position was captain. It would be helpful, as it would explain to the readers exactly who this situation applied to.
- It would also remove the annoying situation of:
- Captain XXX
- Captain XXX
- Captain XXX
- ...if we sorted them by ranks we would only need to list the names. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:00, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'm starting an edit on the article to sort some of these issues out.
- ...if we sorted them by ranks we would only need to list the names. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:00, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'm having difficulty with the pictures, as it is difficult to edit them all clumped in a table at the top, and I find the table architecture to be cumbersome (sorting the images by subsection, setting them to clear the borders seems to be an easier and less code intensive situation to them breaking section borders).
- Personally I would not like having the pictures on a *list*, nevertheless, the deal with the images was that it made for the best fit without adding the {{clear}} and adding a lot of unnecessary gaps between categories in the list. --Gvsualan 16:28, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Protection
Some maroon who can't take a hint keeps adding fanon crap to this page, so I've gone ahead and protected the article for now. --From Andoria with Love 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Civilian Command of Starfleet Ships
There was a TOS episode where a Commissioner took command of the Ent. from Kirk. Should he (or they) be included in this list, since it appears that Commissioners can take command if necessary or needed.
Rewrite with alternate timelines
An anon reworked this page today, moving all of the Enterprise people into the alternate reality under the "new timeline". This, to me, doesn't seem right. In fact, it seems oh so very wrong. However, so many other changes were made to the page, that I'm hesitant to simply roll it back, and am uncertain exactly what really needs to go where. -- sulfur 20:15, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Pike as senior captain
In the 2009 movie, Admiral Richard B. Barnett gives the following order to Kirk during the award/promotion ceremony at the movie's end:
- "By Starfleet order 28455, you are hereby directed to report to Admiral Pike, USS Enterprise, for duty as his relief."
This statement establishes that Pike was in command of the Enterprise until his relief by Kirk. The statement further establishes that he is an admiral prior to being relieved. Thus, he was in command of the Enterprise, as an admiral, until relieved by Kirk. He should therefore be listed among the "senior captains." --98.204.140.83 23:57, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
- It does not establish that he was an admiral prior to being relieved. For all we know it occured simultaneously with the change in command, as he was not shown performing any actions as captain of the ship while an admiral.--31dot 00:06, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
It does establish that he was an admiral prior to being relieved. If Kirk is to report to Admiral Pike, USS Enterprise, then Admiral Pike is assigned to the USS Enterprise. If he is to relieve Pike (implicitly as captain), then Pike is in command prior to being relieved (inherent in the concept of relief of station), even if he isn't aboard the ship or performing any non-ceremonial functions as captain - much as Kirk immediately becomes captain of the Enterprise, but isn't aboard at the moment of the ceremony.
Recognize, too, that Pike is wearing the insignia of an admiral prior to his relief by Kirk, which would not fit with your suggestion even if the above were inaccurate. --98.204.140.83 00:48, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree, however I don't care about it enough to press the issue anymore.--31dot 00:53, September 10, 2010 (UTC)