Talk:Second-in-command

Those whose rank are Sub-Commander usually are Second-in-Command. While people who are Second-in-Command are not necessarily in "Sub-Commander" rank. --TX55 09:10, 7 September 2007

What the hell is this?

Just wonderin'. -hx 21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was in a hurry yesterday, so I put the temporary file here. I'll delete it once ASAP. --TX55 02:29, 8 September 2007

Ugh

This page -- as of the time I am making this comment -- is terrible. I think it may even be worse than Sub-Commander, simply because there is more junk on it. I disagree with the assertion that Grimlock is second in command "Mainly in every continuity except for G1 Cartoon Series". The references are not nearly specific enough. "Rhinox - He has the ability for leadership" doesn't belong. A simple list format is not going to cut it in more complex cases. Cheetor, for example, was second-in-command during BM, which is actually given a specific citation, but he obviously was not highly-ranked in BW. Cases like that need to be explained right there in the body of the list. Also the English stinks, and the article should be moved to Second-in-command. I know it would be more productive to fix things myself rather than just complain, but there is so much wrong here that I don't have tha patience for it. All that said, I support the idea of this catchall page existing in place of the other articles. --Steve-o 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Primal explicitly named Rattrap his second-in-command in Chain of Command. Not Rhinox or Dinobot. -22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Suggestions

I understand the need (common shared functions have to be covered somewhere), but wouldn't [i]alot[/i] of the problems with pages like this and others like it be solved by just listing the functions(US, Foreign, whatever) in the opening paragraph of every character. Or would that be too much work? Was there a reason functions shunned from in the first place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.200.150.23 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Many characters have more than one function. Their functions apply at least to their tech-specs-continuity incarnations, but not always to their depictions in comic or cartoon media. Listing functions on character pages without accompanying lists or categories would make it impossible to find characters with related jobs. --Steve-o 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Commander

Since when is there any Duke of Destruction besides Megastorm? -LV 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I want to know. Find me a citation where Movie Starscream is indicated to be the "Duke of Destruction," and I'll eat my freakin' hat. --ItsWalky 18:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• So do you guys want to extend this article to include Decepticon/Predacon seconds-in-command as well? -- SFH 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I want to delete it. --ItsWalky 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it should only document uses of the rank "Sub-Commander." The only one that comes to mind when I think of the term is Inferno in Beast Wars. --KilMichaelMcC 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we can cite some other usages, I think this needs to redirect to Inferno, if it exists at all. Chip 06:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, what's wrong with this one? -- SFH 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Of course you want to delete it. It's not like I provided any references...oh, wait a minute! I did. -- SFH 06:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has this article started to get out of hand? It uses the term "Sub-Commander" as if it's a specific rank, yet lists a bunch of character who I suspect have never been referred to as sub-commander. Category:Deputy Commanders suffers the same problem. I think we should change both of them to a more generalized "second in command" or "high-ranking characters" sort of thing. The way they are written currently borders on fanon. --Steve-o 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just removed the unsourced ones. -- SFH 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need this page? If so, is there some way to lock it so the unsourced stuff doesn't find its way back in? Chip 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate that someone is actually using the 'send multiple footnotes to one reference' feature...? I think it's incredibly confusing to see numbered footnotes with section prefixes, and on a page this small the degree to which is is more confusing outweighs the degree to which it is better. -Derik 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Just delete the damn thing. I don't care any more. I'm not writting articles on canon ranks anymore. You people are just too demanding. -- SFH 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But you didn't source anything other than the Ultimate Guide references. Saying Grimlock was a "subcommander" via the "Marvel continuity" doesn't actually source anything. I want to know the issue number in which he was called a subcommander. Likewise, Megastorm only seems to be on the page because you've arbitrarily decided that "Duke of Destruction" means the same thing. --ItsWalky 04:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put Grimlock on there. -- SFH 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But you did put a lot of others on there, who we've had to remove. And still, the "Duke of Destruction" thing remains. That IS yours, I checked. That's the reason you've faced so much opposition here. It's largely fanon. --ItsWalky 04:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I put that on there because I was under the mistaken belief that it was the Japanese term for the second-in-command. I'll remove it. -- SFH 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But see- that's part of the problem. "I thought it was equivalent to X..." those Japanese titles don't exist in American continuity, not even as 'different names for the same,' the Emperor of Destruction article gets into the specifics.

Japan likes to declare the biggest toy int his year's assortment "Emperor of Destruction!" The result of that particular brain-dead mindset is that a renegade political dissident criminal (Megatron (BW)) holds the high-and-glorious rank of "Emperor of Destruction" marking him as the supreme commander of the Predacons. ...do you see the conflict here? The Predacons are a politcal body with at least 100,000 members, probably millions. Megatron's entire command consists of 5 Predacons. But he's Emperor of Destruction because... Japan.

(Fuck, now I'm tempted to create a page called "Reasons to ignore Japan", and only the fact it'd be subject to increasingly-joyless dogpile edits is stopping me.)

Where was I? Equivilancy! So if we're now including 'equivalent' ranks, shouldn't we be listing vice-commander, etc?

That's not a joke- the fact is has a holiday makes me think Sub-commander is a catchall term for any second-in-command with a large degree of autonomy, just like Personal Assistance get to celebrate Secretary's Day— the title of their job position isn't important- their duties are those of a secretary. (The SCD strip was poking fun at bosses forgetting Secretary's day, so I think it's an apt comparison.) -Derik 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's weird that the 'sub-commander' page doesn't mention Sub-Commander's Day, or Magnus.

Frankly I'm kinda iffy on rank pages like this. Knowing, say, Thundercracker has been a Sub-Commander doesn't tell me much. He's been in like 500 comics and he was someone's second-in-command once, so what? How is Sub-commander more important than, say... Vice-Commander, which means the same thing, except dounds liek an actual rank and not a job description?

Style note-- I strongly feel that pages like this should leave the disambigs on names visible in the lists. This article applies to no single continuity, and I had to mouseover to see that Scorponok was G1 Scorpy, not Energon Scorpy (Energonw as my first assumption, since he served under Arm Megatron in his backstory, whereas G1 Scorpy has always been the leader of his own group.) -Derik 04:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it does mention SCD in passing- but that same comic establishes Magnus is one. And since there's an actual holiday named after the rank I feel liek it need more than an obscured-link passing reference. -Derik 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could add it, but as you've seen, you will need to source where he is listed as such. And I have no problem moving it to a general second in command page, as long as Sub-Commander redirects there. -- SFH 04:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing's not a problem-- It's explicitly and completely sourced int he SCD article-- I'd crib from it. -Derik 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why the article was deleted after I had removed the unsourced stuff? -- SFH 15:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)