Talk:Expeditionary strike group

Expeditionary Strike Groups
Removed the USS Saipan Expeditionary Strike Group from list, as the USS Saipan was decommissioned on 20 April 2007.--Asacan 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the whole thing needs updating as I believe now all the Tarawa-class vessels are either decomissioned or in reserve, and the new America class one's are not mentioned.
 * Also, the whole article needs serious re-working: the "Organization" section is not about the organization of an ESG but gives some past examples of ESGs (and similar predecessor units) and some akward overview of their service histories of some of them; then the "Expeditionary Strike Groups" section gives an outdated list of ESGs; followed by the "ESG units" section which gives an woefully incomplete akward (and outdated) overview of the service histories of 4 of them in a manner similar to that in the "Organization" section.. Plus the leade has unexplained acronyms.  Gecko G (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've researched it and this whole concept is outdated, the navy has redifined what an ESG is. In a nutshell it's any amphibious force of an ARG or larger when commanded by an O-7 (or higher) instead of an O-6, and it no longer has surface combatants nor subs attached.  I've got sources prepared and it's just a matter of finding the time to write everything up and wikify it given my schedule and lack of 'net time.  Gecko G (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2015 (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? (I will add this note to the talk page of the other article as well.) —KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:28, 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)
 * Per Navy style and Wikipedia style, neither expeditionary strike group nor carrier strike group should be capitalized unless they are part of a proper name. They are simply common nouns that designated generic military units or organizations, such as company, destroyer, submarine, platoon, command center, squadron, division, etc. See MOS:MILTERMS. Thus, I will move this page to "Expeditionary strike group" after a short time for comments. Holy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are proper names. "Carrier Strike Group One" or the "Nimitz Carrier Strike Group". Same with the ESGs and ARGs. Let's not get too carried away with this mass decapitalization scheme... - the WOLF  child  10:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, by itself, "expeditionary 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. Holy (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, quotes 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)

Organization section
The Organization section is very poorly written and is almost incomprehensible to a casual reader. It should be completely rewritten in simpler sentences and a more detailed explanation to prevent the reader's eyes from glazing over. 174.63.31.146 (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Expeditionary Strike Group → Expeditionary strike group – Match Wikipedia (and worldwide) style for capitalization of common nouns and use of terms denoting generic types of military units and formations. See MOS:MILTERMS and discussion on talk page. Received "A page with this name already exists" error. Holy (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC) (1) MOS:MILTERMS is straightforward, and generally follows almost worldwide style standards on this issue: Comment on (1): Expeditionary strike group is a type of formation, like a company, a fleet, an infantry battalion, or a destroyer squadron. Thus:
 * (Adding the following on 2 April; see my "Support" comment below. If this edit disrupts the flow, I'll move it back down to my "Support" comment.)
 * Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under Titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general.
 * Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper names and should be capitalized. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army. Unofficial but well-known names should also be capitalized (the Green Berets, the Guard).
 * Correct: the Fifth Company; the Young Guard; the company rallied.
 * Incorrect: The Company took heavy losses. The 3rd battalion retreated.
 * "The Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group returned home yesterday."
 * "Carrier Strike Group Three will have a change of command tomorrow."
 * "The budget included funding for ten expeditionary strike groups and eleven carrier strike groups. Fifteen destroyer squadrons will support the ESGs and CSGs."

(2) 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]

This is pretty simple stuff. The only reasons why this is confusing, that I can think of, are these:
 * (a) Modern writing by people in the military and the business world—whose writers and editors, if any, are often NOT aware of style standards, and often have no experience with professional writing with high standards of style consistency—is often so riddled with over-capitalization that readers may infer that it is correct. When readers see correct capitalization by professional writers, who understand consistent style conventions and typography, and thus use and apply those consistent standards, it seems jarring to see terminology NOT capitalized.
 * (b) Readers may see specific units' names in print far more often than the generic terms. Again, when they see the generic terms NOT capitalized, it's jarring to them. Note that almost every example User:Thewolfchild provides here and on other pages (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carrier_strike_group#Article_location?) is an example of CORRECT capitalization of a specific unit name, which doesn't disprove that it's also correct to use sentence case for the generic term. Holy (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Use on official military pages and in news sources all seem to indicate this is a proper name that uses title case. Is there evidence to indicate otherwise?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This includes both military-focused news sites, as well as general ones like Reuters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, plenty of examples of lowercase use. News items are almost always about specific proper-named groups such as Expeditionary Strike Group Two or Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group, which of course are capped.  The military page caps the generic use, because they're the military; that's not our style. Dicklyon (talk)


 * Oppose - proper name. - the WOLF  child  00:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Not clear why the wolf child claims it'a proper name; the article says it's a concept.  Sources often use lowercase, except when either defining the acronym (ESG) or naming a particular ESG, e.g., . Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Simply stringing a couple of common nouns together doesn't make them into a proper name. Trying to match the capitalization on "official military pages" is falling prey to the specialized-style fallacy, nothing more. And Wikipedia's style is not to capitalize just to illustrate the origin of an acronym. Chris the speller   yack  17:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Not sure if I'm supposed to "vote" since I originated this, but since the requested move was generated by an automatic protocol, I didn't have the chance to put forth various arguments here for others to see. So, I've added a few points above, so as not to disrupt the flow of "support" and "oppose" comments here. Holy (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It follows established MOS guidelines which even the Navy follows with certain exceptions made in their own style guide. Neovu79 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By "established", you mean "recently re-written", right? - the WOLF  child  23:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Thewolfchild: These principles of capitalization have been consistent for years in Wikipedia and decades outside Wikipedia. I don't know what you think is a recent innovation. Maybe there have been edits or clarifications to related portions of the MOS, but the standards we're discussing are not novelties. At any rate, both the MOS and the underlying principles are really clear on this. You should read WP:SSF. The two footnotes are particularly interesting for our discussion. Note this quotation from footnote 1: "In technical publishing, there seems to be a running battle between technical writers and technical experts over capitalization. Technical experts like to use initial caps for practically every component and process in a system. Also, technical experts (and management) typically use all caps for text they consider important and want readers to attend to. Meanwhile, technical writers and editors (rightly) insist on using caps for proper names only. ... As a technical writer, hold the line against capitalization. Capital letters are distracting .... Capital letters create a busy text, which sends lots of unnecessary signals. Capital letters are traditionally intended for proper names"


 * As I've said, all or almost all of your supposed counterexamples are actually examples of specific unit names that are properly capitalized. Cheers! Holy (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy is correct. Expeditionary strike group is too broad and not specific and not a proper name. Expeditionary Strike Group 4, on the other hand, is designated as a particular expeditionary strike group, and therefore a proper name, and should be capitalized. Neovu79 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I, like many others here, agree with the 'experts'. You seem to agree with the 'writers'. Other than that, "caps are distracting and send unnecessary signals" is a bunch of nonsense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "Expeditionary Strike Group". OTOH, "Expeditionary strike group" looks silly. Many more article titles having the caps removed look even more ridiculous. And since when is Wikipedia "traditional"...? But as I already said, these changes are going through anyway, regardless of what anyone does or says in opposition. I just wanted my 'oppose' on the record, which it is, so now I'm done here. Ciao. - the WOLF  child  06:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per proper grammar and wikipedia rules. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.