Currently, our articles are all over the place when it comes to distinguishing military rank (=where you stand in the military hierarchy) and position (=your post of employment). For example, executive officer/first officer is described as a rank, when it simply means (AFAIK) whoever is second in command aboard a vessel, regardless of actual rank. For example, in Thrawn, the First Officer (=position) aboard the Blood Crow is Senior Lieutenant (=rank) Deyland. Similarly, the commanding officer is whoever is in charge, which Thrawn also makes clear.
Many other articles are affected by the confusion, like chief gunnery officer, first and second weapons officer, intake officer, taskmaster, commander-in-chief, controller, communications Officer, deck officer, loyalty officer, overseer, quartermaster, Second Officer, tactical officer, yeoman... The list goes on and on. In fact, the more I look at it, the more I suspect our "military ranks" category is mostly filled with positions.
(Now, in some cases, I must admit that the sources themselves are a bit problematic. For example, the Databank itself states that Yogar Lyste was promoted from Supply Master to Lieutenant, which makes zero sense if the former is a position and the latter a rank. But it wouldn't be the first rime the Databank is wrong.)
So, what exactly do you think we should we do? Rename the "military ranks" category into "military ranks and positions"? Create a separate "military position" category? --Lelal Mekha 
(Audience Room) 11:40, April 11, 2017 (UTC)
- Without diving into full on matter right now (although I do agree it needs further clarification and probable splitting of the category), creating the separate category as "military position" would be possibly misleading as some of the positions might not be in the military. Executive officer refers to the second-in-command of starship – that starship might not necessarily be a military vessel. And this issue is not confined to Canon, and so we must also take Legends into account when deciding to split it. For instance, the Canon and Legends versions of Taskmaster have very different responsibilities and the Legends version is not a military rank at all. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 11:53, April 11, 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for being the first one to give input! When it comes to the very specific issue of taskmaster, you're absolutely right, the Legends and canon version of the article describe very different duties, but that's because they shouldn't be regarded as each other's counterparts. Their current matching is erroneous. --Lelal Mekha
(Audience Room) 12:04, April 11, 2017 (UTC)
- Thrawn includes a lot of the Imperial ranks and positions that we currently know about so that's a pretty good starting place for a lot of the distinctions. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:51, April 12, 2017 (UTC)
- True, the Taskmaster example is not the best one, but at the same time a lot of military positions (quartermaster/communications officer, etc) could probably also relate to stuff like pirate gangs. A Category:Military positions might be a good start, but ideally we have to take into account any variables like that so an additional category might be needed as well. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 12:42, April 12, 2017 (UTC)
- True, the Taskmaster example is not the best one, but at the same time a lot of military positions (quartermaster/communications officer, etc) could probably also relate to stuff like pirate gangs. A Category:Military positions might be a good start, but ideally we have to take into account any variables like that so an additional category might be needed as well. - Sir Cavalier of One
- Thrawn includes a lot of the Imperial ranks and positions that we currently know about so that's a pretty good starting place for a lot of the distinctions. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:51, April 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for being the first one to give input! When it comes to the very specific issue of taskmaster, you're absolutely right, the Legends and canon version of the article describe very different duties, but that's because they shouldn't be regarded as each other's counterparts. Their current matching is erroneous. --Lelal Mekha
