Talk:Carrier strike group/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rank in command

What rank is in command of a CSG? Rear Admiral? 75.157.163.55 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

CSG Commanders are typically 1-star (RMDL). They often get promoted during that tour to 2-star (RADM).E2a2j (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a one-star admiral in the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard, and the whole notion is dumb speculation. ALL rear admirals in the U.S. Armed Forces wear two stars for their insignia, regardless of their pay grade. There never has been a one-star admiral here.
The insignia of one star is that of a commodore in the Navy or the Coast Guard, and that rank is not used in peacetime.
The rank of commodore was used for some officers during World War II because that gave them seniority over captains under their command. Ever since then, the rank of commodore has been rarely or never used by the United States. For the status of commodores during World War II, you can check into the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II by Samuel Eliot Morison, and some other references.
You see, I don't just shoot my mouth off. I have read that history, and it is 14 large volumes long, plus the 15th volume that is just an index. The entire series of books was completed in 1962 after a massive amount of work by Dr. Morison (of Harvard University) and his team of associates.98.67.166.26 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That is the most ridiculous statement I have EVER heard. You're edit was undone because of your inaccurate statement. See rear admiral (lower half). Neovu79 (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

a bit of naval rank history...

  • @98.67.166.26 - "you don't your shoot your mouth off"...? What do you call it when you are claiming everyone is wrong but you, and that you know everything...? (and based on a 60 year old book?) Well, it's great that you're all read up, on everything, you know... right up to 1962, but a lot has happened since then, eg;

Meanwhile, by the early 80s, some Brigadiers in the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force were whining that they didn't have a One-Star counter-part in the Navy, because at that point in US Naval History, all Admirals started out as Two-Star Rear Admirals. To try and make everyone happy, the Navy tried out a new One-Star rank; "Commodore Admiral". But it was about as popular as the clap, and didn't even last a year, being abolished by 1983. Apparently, there was something about it being informally abbreviated to just 'Commodore' in everyday use, which would make these guys feel like "less than". They didn't want to be lumped in with lowly Group-Captains when they should be partying it up with the rest of the star-zarati (or maybe it was just too many syllables and oh-so important Flag Officers didn't have time for all those syllables!) But anyway, they took all the Rear Admirals in the Navy (everyone between Captain and Vice Admiral), listed them by seniority, then cut the list in half. The guys in the top half of the list with the most seniority became (or continued to be) a Two-Star Rear Admiral, 'Upper-Half' (RADM), (Pay-Grade O-8), and guys on the bottom half of the list became a One-Star Rear Admiral, 'Lower-Half' (RDML), (Pay Grade O-7). Everyone lived happily ever after and this is exactly how it happened, and in fact, I think I'm gonna copy & paste this post right into the 'history section' of the main US Navy page. Anyways... keep reading your big history books, and check back in from time to time. It's been about 10 years, so I'm sure you've made some progress. You can tell us all about the cool new class of ships the Navy is just about to start building, the Knox-class frigate... - theWOLFchild 13:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

More specific information

In this article there is reference to several Carrier Strike Groups (CCSG-2, CCSG-7, CCSG-9). This should be detailed in this article using appropriate sources. __meco (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List update for 2010

Will have to do some additional research, but it appears the list Carrier_Strike_Group#The_CSGs may be out of date. Especially for CSG-2 on the USS George H.W. Bush, which is getting a new commander, Rear Admiral Nora Tyson[1], the first female CSG commander, on July 28, 2010[2]. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Wasn't in as bad shape as I first thought, I found references for many of the list entries under "COMCARSTRKGRU NUMBER", still need a few more. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion

This article appears to conflate the Air Group and the Task Group and it's not entirely clear which it's about. the introductory paragraph implies that the CSG is the entire task group; Carrier, Air Group, Escort Group, logistics support. Later in the article it looks as if the CSG is just the Air Group, with this being reinforced by the list that indicates what platform the CSG is embarked in.

Can someone with some better knowledge of this please clarify what the meaining is.

ALR (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


Carrier Strike Group → Carrier strike group — Like carrier battle group, this is not a proper noun. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support per nom. walk victor falk talk 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as stated from the official U.S. Navy website, carrier strike group should only be capitalize when used with the name of a ship, i.e. the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group. Neovu79 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Calling them numbers

Why call them numbers like 'Carrier Strike Group One'? Seriously, it would be easier to just list them as 'Carl Vinson Strike Group' or something...--98.201.120.60 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Blue Alpha Six Actual

Because warships get reassigned to different number strike groups all the time including, but not as often, carriers. For example, if the Enterprise were to get transfered from Carrier Stricker Group 12 to Carrier Strike Group 3, the commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 would then become the Commander, Carrier Strike Group 3/Enterprise Strike Group. Neovu79 (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Article location?

I noticed that, oddly, Expeditionary strike group redirects to Expeditionary Strike Group, while Carrier Strike Group redirects to Carrier strike group. Shouldn't these be parallel? I would expect the canonical articles for both to be capitalized or not capitalized, but not one of each. Is there a subject matter expert who know which formulation the Navy uses? The Relocation discussion above would seem to imply that Expeditionary Strike Group should moved as well. (I also have added a note to the talk page of the that article.) —KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Your observation is a good and just one. The redirect of "Carrier Strike Group" to "Carrier strike group" is wrong. According to the United States Navy, it should be with capital letters as in "Carrier Strike Group", See: The Carrier Strike Group. I will make the proper fixes. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
This is incorrect. According to the official U.S. Navy Style Guide, carrier strike group is not capitalized unless a ship name precedes it. Neovu79 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
"Because warships get reassigned to different number strike groups all the time including, but not as often, carriers. For example, if the Enterprise were to get transferred from Carrier Strike Group 12 to Carrier Strike Group 3, the commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 would then become the Commander, Carrier Strike Group 3/Enterprise (Carrier) Strike Group. Neovu79 (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)" - and all of them capitalized. Some guys here are getting carried away with this mass-decapitalization scheme, and of course, all the needless pagemoves, across the entire project. It's getting to the point of ridiculousness. - theWOLFchild 10:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Your examples all prove the point. Those are names of specific CSGs, not generic references. No, by itself, "expeditionary strike group" or "carrier strike group" is not a proper noun or name. Mass over-capitalization in military writing doesn't make it so. "Expeditionary Strike Group One" is a proper name. "The Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group" is a proper name. But "There are seven expeditionary strike groups" is not a proper name in any universe or style convention, particularly Wikipedia's.
Even the Navy, which often gets writing matters wrong in practice, has it right in its style guide at http://www.navy.mil/submit/navyStyleGuide.pdf, with quotations following:
carrier strike group - Capitalize when used with the name of a ship.
battle group - Do not use "battle group." Rather, use "carrier strike group,” "expeditionary strike group" or “amphibious ready group.” [Note the lowercase] Holy (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Holy (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that even your own quote proves the point: ". . . get reassigned to different number strike groups [lowercase] . . . ." Holy (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A) not my quotes. B) you see one out Five and that's somehow compelling? - theWOLFchild 18:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a quotation that you posted. Did you not post the quotation that includes "get reassigned to different number strike groups"? I'm looking right at it. What is the one out of five that you are referring to? Holy (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Pfft! What's the point? It's been changed. It's not going to get changed back. This decapitalization campaign is going to continue, regardless of how stupid it makes some article titles look. (yep, I said 'stupid'. I could try for more eloquence, but again... why bother?) - theWOLFchild 23:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Carrier strike group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrier strike group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carrier strike group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carrier strike group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carrier_strike_group/Archive_1&oldid=1074312457"