Talk:Fast Carrier Task Force

Major Re-Edit

Just wanted to document that I made a major re-edit of this page yesterday. I added an Info Box, section headings, and some more explanatory text. The article was good but I felt it jumped down into details rather quickly and I provided some background (e.g., how the FCTF was an innovation in terms of carrier centric vs. battleship centric doctrine) and tried to give it some flow from one topic to another. This still needs work. Needs some word smithing and there is a little repetition. I plan to edit a bit more in the next few days. Mdebellis (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the change requiring a reference that Halsey was passionate (which I changed to aggressive, more consistent with how he is described) and a press favorite. I want to have an actual book before I cite the reference so it may take a few days to get my hands on the right one, and may change wording a bit more once I do. Mdebellis (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You know, Halsey was first and last a fighter. He did not mind the press, and may have enjoyed it, but he was there to bring destructive force upon the Japanese. A risk taker and a fighter is how he might best be described. Here is what I had on the two men on the Halsey article:

The split command structure was intended to confuse the Japanese and created a higher tempo of operations. While Spruance was at sea operating the fleet, Halsey and his staff, self-dubbed the "Department of Dirty Tricks", would be planning the next series of operations. The two admirals were a contrast in styles. Halsey was aggressive and a risk taker. Spruance was calculating, professional and cautious. Most higher-ranking officers preferred to serve under Spruance; most common sailors were proud to serve under Halsey.

Just a thought. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was great. I especially liked what you said about the common sailor vs. high ranking officers. That was what I was trying to get to when I originally said Halsey was passionate, there was an emotional aspect to him that Spruance lacked I just copied that text and reference as is. I'm a new editor but my understanding is its OK to copy from other articles as long as you note it in the change history which I did. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks for the feedback. Mdebellis (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, that's fine, plus you have it sourced already. I sometimes alter the wording for variety sake but that is not at all necessary. Copying text from a source is of course not looked upon kindly, but copying text from a different wiki article is fine. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)