Talk:Unattainable ranks

Titles
You can get Ambassador as a title though... :) -- Lem (talk)  19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can? --Flibby 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, its a reward for creating an account before a certain date, there is also 'Special Envoy' if you joined even earlier. I have them both, no idea what the required dates are though. -- Lem (talk)  19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, nice, never knew that. --Flibby 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidate for Deletion
None of the things listed on this page are ranks; they are positions. There is no page with player titles and how to get them (Ambassador, which you can no longer get as Lem explained; Envoy, which you can still get through May; etc.). That would be more helpful. There are other Admiral ranks above Rear Admiral - and it has been speculated that these ranks may become available in future additions to the game - but whether or not they deserve their own page is up for debate. This page doesn't add anything useful to the wiki so I believe it should be candidate for deletion. - Veranis 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are ranks, but I'd agree that this article adds little to the wiki but the ranks listed are used in the game by NPCs and I guess if anything it shows NPC ranks that the player isn't capable of getting. --Flibby 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NPCs display titles which sometimes correspond to their ranks. You could be a Lieutenant Commander (rank) and be an Ambassador (title of position) to a new world, for example.  In the same way you can set your display in-game to "Ambassador " instead of your rank.  Ambassador is what you do (like a job), not what rank you hold.  I cite Star Trek canon, the New Oxford American Dictionary and my English degree as sources. - Veranis 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing on whether they or ranks are not, the point of this topic is whether the page should be deleted. --Flibby 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would make more sense to call this page 'NPC titles' if we do keep it. I am not sure what use it is in it's current state, it is more confusing than anything. -- Lem (talk)  14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally after thinking about this page I'd say just remove it all together. If the need arises later on we can just remake the page (which I doubt we'll need to). --Flibby 15:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, get rid of it. ~bobalobabingbong -=[ T  + C  ]=- @  16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)