Difference between revisions of "Talk:Second Fleet"
m |
|||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 05:08, 27 September 2016
BatRon 1 Questions
- In looking through MEDUSA, I'm not seeing any formal divisions within BatRon 1. What are the divisions located within? --
CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia, KCE, OC, GS, RMN (Administrator - talk - contribs) 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" ?
- 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?" -- CDRE Sir Michael D. Garcia, KCE, OC, GS, RMN (Administrator - talk - contribs) 22:08, 26 September 2016 (PDT)