Talk:Second Fleet - Revision history

MJohnston: /* A little glitch... */ new section

2016-10-31T17:24:52Z

A little glitch...: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 31 October 2016
Line 47:		Line 47:

	::::"Detached Duty ships assigned to Second Fleet." hmmm, that sounds OK[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 14:15, 29 September 2016 (PDT)		::::"Detached Duty ships assigned to Second Fleet." hmmm, that sounds OK[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 14:15, 29 September 2016 (PDT)

			== A little glitch... ==

			Did anyone notice that 2nd Fleet's flash is spelled "Gyphon Fleet?" Might need an "r." :) --[[Image:o6n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MJohnston\|CAPTJG Marcus Johnston]], [[OC]], [[CGM]]'''

JNeitz at 21:15, 29 September 2016

2016-09-29T21:15:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 29 September 2016
Line 45:		Line 45:

	::::Right, but additional doesn't quite do it justice, either... to my mind. Historically, vessels not assigned to any echelon force within a fleet are on "detached duty." Would that be a possible alternative explanation? --[[Image:RMN F-1 Flag.png\|30px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 09:01, 28 September 2016 (PDT)		::::Right, but additional doesn't quite do it justice, either... to my mind. Historically, vessels not assigned to any echelon force within a fleet are on "detached duty." Would that be a possible alternative explanation? --[[Image:RMN F-1 Flag.png\|30px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 09:01, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

	::::"Detached Duty ships assigned to Second Fleet." hmmm, that sounds OK[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 14:15, 29 September 2016 (PDT)		::::"Detached Duty ships assigned to Second Fleet." hmmm, that sounds OK[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 14:15, 29 September 2016 (PDT)

JNeitz at 21:15, 29 September 2016

2016-09-29T21:15:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 29 September 2016
Line 45:		Line 45:

	::::Right, but additional doesn't quite do it justice, either... to my mind. Historically, vessels not assigned to any echelon force within a fleet are on "detached duty." Would that be a possible alternative explanation? --[[Image:RMN F-1 Flag.png\|30px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 09:01, 28 September 2016 (PDT)		::::Right, but additional doesn't quite do it justice, either... to my mind. Historically, vessels not assigned to any echelon force within a fleet are on "detached duty." Would that be a possible alternative explanation? --[[Image:RMN F-1 Flag.png\|30px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 09:01, 28 September 2016 (PDT)
			::::"Detached Duty ships assigned to Second Fleet." hmmm, that sounds OK[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 14:15, 29 September 2016 (PDT)

MDGarcia at 16:01, 28 September 2016

2016-09-28T16:01:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 28 September 2016
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Independent? It is better than "non-aligned," but still gives a sense, IMO, of "independent from the fleet," which they are not. We will keep thinking about it. My best idea so far is "'''Additional units assigned to the fleet.'''"		Independent? It is better than "non-aligned," but still gives a sense, IMO, of "independent from the fleet," which they are not. We will keep thinking about it. My best idea so far is "'''Additional units assigned to the fleet.'''"
	[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 08:54, 28 September 2016 (PDT)		[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 08:54, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

			::::Right, but additional doesn't quite do it justice, either... to my mind. Historically, vessels not assigned to any echelon force within a fleet are on "detached duty." Would that be a possible alternative explanation? --[[Image:RMN F-1 Flag.png\|30px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 09:01, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

JNeitz: /* BatRon 1 Questions */ comment on "independent" nomenclature.

2016-09-28T15:54:44Z

BatRon 1 Questions: comment on "independent" nomenclature.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 28 September 2016
Line 39:		Line 39:
	:::For Order of Battle at the Fleet-level, we should do top-level echelons, and go down one level. For /each/ existing echelon, we'll have a separate main article, as with [[Task Group 91.1]] and [[Battle Squadron 2]] in [[Tenth Fleet]]. So, the Fleet Order listing should be: Fleet -> First Echelon -> Subordinate Echelon. Any more echelons will be folded under the larger ones with something like "Main Article: ''[[Battle Squadron 2]]''." Divisions within an organized Squadron are left off automatically, but Divisions without an organized Squadrons that report to the Fleet or a Task Force/Group will be listed. Honestly, [[Tenth Fleet]] has the format we'll be using for the order of battle. :)		:::For Order of Battle at the Fleet-level, we should do top-level echelons, and go down one level. For /each/ existing echelon, we'll have a separate main article, as with [[Task Group 91.1]] and [[Battle Squadron 2]] in [[Tenth Fleet]]. So, the Fleet Order listing should be: Fleet -> First Echelon -> Subordinate Echelon. Any more echelons will be folded under the larger ones with something like "Main Article: ''[[Battle Squadron 2]]''." Divisions within an organized Squadron are left off automatically, but Divisions without an organized Squadrons that report to the Fleet or a Task Force/Group will be listed. Honestly, [[Tenth Fleet]] has the format we'll be using for the order of battle. :)
	:::As for the Non-Aligned Units, how about "Independent?" --[[Image:F1n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 22:08, 26 September 2016 (PDT)		:::As for the Non-Aligned Units, how about "Independent?" --[[Image:F1n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 22:08, 26 September 2016 (PDT)


			Independent? It is better than "non-aligned," but still gives a sense, IMO, of "independent from the fleet," which they are not. We will keep thinking about it. My best idea so far is "'''Additional units assigned to the fleet.'''"
			[[User:JNeitz\|JNeitz]] ([[User talk:JNeitz\|talk]]) 08:54, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

MDGarcia: /* BatRon 1 Questions */

2016-09-27T05:08:44Z

BatRon 1 Questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 27 September 2016
Line 37:		Line 37:
	[[User:JNeitz\|Westmarch]]		[[User:JNeitz\|Westmarch]]

	:::For Order of Battle at the Fleet-level, we should do top-level echelons, and go down one level. For /each/ existing echelon, we'll have a separate main article, as with [[Task Group 91.1]] and [[Battle Squadron 2]] in [[Tenth Fleet]]. So, the Fleet Order listing should be: Fleet -> First Echelon -> Subordinate Echelon. Any more echelons will be folded under the larger ones with something like "Main Article: ''[[Battle Squadron 2]]''. Divisions within an organized Squadron are left off automatically, but Divisions without an organized Squadrons that report to the Fleet or a Task Force/Group will be listed. Honestly, [[Tenth Fleet]] has the format we'll be using for the order of battle. :)		:::For Order of Battle at the Fleet-level, we should do top-level echelons, and go down one level. For /each/ existing echelon, we'll have a separate main article, as with [[Task Group 91.1]] and [[Battle Squadron 2]] in [[Tenth Fleet]]. So, the Fleet Order listing should be: Fleet -> First Echelon -> Subordinate Echelon. Any more echelons will be folded under the larger ones with something like "Main Article: ''[[Battle Squadron 2]]''." Divisions within an organized Squadron are left off automatically, but Divisions without an organized Squadrons that report to the Fleet or a Task Force/Group will be listed. Honestly, [[Tenth Fleet]] has the format we'll be using for the order of battle. :)
	:::As for the Non-Aligned Units, how about "Independent?" --[[Image:F1n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 22:08, 26 September 2016 (PDT)		:::As for the Non-Aligned Units, how about "Independent?" --[[Image:F1n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 22:08, 26 September 2016 (PDT)

MDGarcia at 05:08, 27 September 2016

2016-09-27T05:08:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 27 September 2016
Line 36:		Line 36:

	[[User:JNeitz\|Westmarch]]		[[User:JNeitz\|Westmarch]]

			:::For Order of Battle at the Fleet-level, we should do top-level echelons, and go down one level. For /each/ existing echelon, we'll have a separate main article, as with [[Task Group 91.1]] and [[Battle Squadron 2]] in [[Tenth Fleet]]. So, the Fleet Order listing should be: Fleet -> First Echelon -> Subordinate Echelon. Any more echelons will be folded under the larger ones with something like "Main Article: ''[[Battle Squadron 2]]''. Divisions within an organized Squadron are left off automatically, but Divisions without an organized Squadrons that report to the Fleet or a Task Force/Group will be listed. Honestly, [[Tenth Fleet]] has the format we'll be using for the order of battle. :)
			:::As for the Non-Aligned Units, how about "Independent?" --[[Image:F1n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 22:08, 26 September 2016 (PDT)

JNeitz: /* BatRon 1 Questions */

2016-09-26T18:18:59Z

BatRon 1 Questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 26 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==BatRon 1 Questions==		==BatRon 1 Questions==
	* In looking through [[MEDUSA]], I'm not seeing any formal divisions within [[BatRon 1]]. What are the divisions located within? --[[Image:F1n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 01:30, 24 September 2016 (PDT)		* In looking through [[MEDUSA]], I'm not seeing any formal divisions within [[BatRon 1]]. What are the divisions located within? --[[Image:F1n1.png\|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia\|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators\|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia\|contribs]])</sup> 01:30, 24 September 2016 (PDT)

			Michael, I will add in the BatDivs.

			This brings up another question: would it be desirable to have a different subsidiary header style that drills down another level (or two!) in fleet echelons to make the outline clearer? Right now there are, under the "Order of battle" header, three levels:

			FLEET
			-Top Level

			--Second Level (if applicable. Header with smaller font)
			---Ship


			Which results in (in case of BatDivs)
			FLEET
			1. TF21
			2. TG21.1
			2. BatRon 1
			2 BatDiv 11
			3. Ship


			This gives the subsidiary echelons (task group, squadron, division) equal "weight." The relationships would be much clearer if we could make it:
			FLEET
			1. TF
			2. TG
			3. squadron
			4. division
			5. ship

			with at least increasing indents for each level? However, we then run into the issue of some divisions reporting directly to fleet, with no intervening echelons (in TRMN we build echelons from the bottom up as new chapters are founded).

			* "Non-aligned units." Could we come up with different nomenclature for this? I know you are defining "non-aligned" as "those ships that are not assigned to an echelon below fleet level," but it just doesn't sound right-- makes it sound like they are not even part of the RMN. They are part of the fleet like all the other ships. My solution was "Other fleet assets." Perhaps "Additional Fleet units" ?


			[[User:JNeitz\|Westmarch]]

MDGarcia: Created page with "==BatRon 1 Questions== * In looking through MEDUSA, I'm not seeing any formal divisions within BatRon 1. What are the divisions located within? --~~~~"

2016-09-24T08:30:04Z

Created page with "==BatRon 1 Questions== * In looking through MEDUSA, I'm not seeing any formal divisions within BatRon 1. What are the divisions located within? --~~~~"

New page

==BatRon 1 Questions==
* In looking through [[MEDUSA]], I'm not seeing any formal divisions within [[BatRon 1]]. What are the divisions located within? --[[Image:F1n1.png|15px]] '''[[User:MDGarcia|CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia]], [[KCE]], [[OC]], [[GS]], [[RMN]]''' <sup>([[TRMN:Administrators|'''Administrator''']] - [[User_talk:MDGarcia|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/MDGarcia|contribs]])</sup> 01:30, 24 September 2016 (PDT)