Talk:United States Space Force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Space Corps Dead in the Senate

From the version of the House NDAA. Section 6605 says "No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to establish a military department or corps separate from or subordinate to the current military departments, including a Space Corps in the Department of the Air Force, or a similar such corps in any other military department." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by B787 300 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

POV and general quality

This article doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. It's also lacking a lot of details. Would be much better to remove the list of people who "support" and "oppose" and instead insert content that speaks on what the proposal is and on the history of the U.S. Air Force Space Command and related components. Jon Ivy (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Reason it lacks a lot of details is because there are almost none on the proposal. Almost everything out there is individuals supporting and opposing the proposal. History of related components is found on those components pages, and as such has no direct correlation to this page. No POV as both support and opposition is addressed. Garuda28 (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Confution

When this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_States_Space_Force&oldid=846440445

Was started it simply read "United States Space Force" with no mention of a draft.

Now there's an entirely different article titled "United States Space Force" with no mention in the edits of the article I created.

Why is this? --Bojackh (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The draft was underway for nearly a year before today. It is always best to check for the presence of a draft before creating an article on a topic. bd2412 T 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Only other drafts I saw came from today and were deleted. How do I see the list of previous drafts again? --Bojackh (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Since the previous draft has now been moved to the current article title, you can see the history of that draft in the article history. To search for a draft under a specific title, just search in the search bar for "Draft:[TITLE]". bd2412 T 00:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is very inaccurate and as noted doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. The US Navy is also involved in US space operations. The information showing that US space interests are currently handled by multiple entities is available yet not cited in this article. Please update this article to reflect the numerous entities, including the USAF, currently overseeing US space interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.224.132 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide an example here of the language you would propose to include, and the sources you would propose to support it? bd2412 T 00:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not take a point of view to construct a fact based article. It takes research. NASA and SPACEX were both examples of non-DoD entities handling US space interests. Again, this article doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.224.132 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

All content in this article is well sourced and is just stating what has happened. Can you please provide a segment that you believe violates NPOV or some text you wish to add that would rectify this problem? I would also like to point out this article is about the military service proposal, not private corporations, unless they are linked by a creditable source. Garuda28 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Purge the USAF bias

Horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F1B3:AFD9:5BC9:9516:1143:C194 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

can you please be more specific?Garuda28 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A number of comments and edits made to this article appear to complain that too much emphasis is given to the existing role of the U.S. Air Force as the dominant branch of the U.S. military with respect to operations in outer space. Some vague references have been made to operations by other branches of the military in space, but absent specifics (with sources), it is impossible to say what, exactly, those making the complaints have in mind. There does not appear to be any source contradicting the proposition that space operations are overwhelmingly the domain of the U.S. Air Force. bd2412 T 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Wild accusations

Very for-profit commercial solicitors keep adding USAF trash in the intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F178:EDD1:A4DC:437D:4C9D:AE93 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

can you please be more detailed as to which section you take issue with? Garuda28 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
From this and some of the previous IPs' posts, it appears some pro-space force fan-people seem to not want the USAF's views to be in the article, for whatever reasons. It would be best if these users would speak plainly and focus on reliable sources instead making wild unsupported accusations. - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, it is trivially easy to source the uncontroversial fact that the U.S. Air Force currently has a Space Command, and is responsible for a substantial majority of U.S. military activity in space. This fact is clearly relevant to the lede of this article, as this is the entity that would either be replaced by or relocated into the proposed new military branch. Frankly, I can't see why this is even controversial to anyone. bd2412 T 22:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguity

The paragraph that starts "In June 2017, the United States House Committee on Armed Services (HASC)" discusses a proposal to create a US Space Force, and then ends with a move to ban the creation of such a service. The following paragraph mentions a number of senior figures who have opposed "this proposal" or "this effort". It is not made clear whether the proposal or effort that they are opposing is the creation of the space force, or the banning of its creation.

190.236.206.160 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been fixed - thanks a lot.

190.236.206.160 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Concern over rational section

The rational section states that one of the reasons that the U.S. is developing a space force is because of the capability of China to launch ASAT missiles, however the source in question (http://theweek.com/articles/779779/does-america-really-need-space-force) just states this in the context of what warfare in space would look like. I do not believe that this is an inherently inherently wrong conclusion, however the use of this source out of context appears to violate WP:SYN since it is making a conclusion that the article itself does not reach. Garuda28 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Would this article increase in quality if a "Criticisms" section was added? It seems that the "Space Force" has gotten some negative attention in the press, and this article still is just a proposal and the pros. It might benefit from a section along the lines of http://time.com/5316007/space-force-trump/. 50.39.171.4 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITICISM, no. Legit criticsm can be appropriately be mentioned in relevant sections. Garuda28 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Have we distinguished between Space Force and Space Command?

since the WH released a memorandum for a Space Command?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/text-memorandum-president-secretary-defense-regarding-establishment-united-states-space-command/

BlueD954 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes we have. See United States Space Command. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok so this is a proposal as well as that? BlueD954 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
No. The "Space Force" was proposed by Trump as a new branch of the US Armed Forces, the sixth, with it's own department, Secretary, etc., but it didn't happen (the White House house then considered having a "Space Corps" instead, still a separate branch, but part of Dept of Air Force, like the Marines with the Navy... that didn't happen either). So now they are re-activating "Space Command", a Unified Combatant Command instead. - wolf 13:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Now I get it

https://spacenews.com/president-trump-issues-order-to-create-u-s-space-command/

BlueD954 (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible Edit

Hello

Can the following be included as an update?

Thank you 

Space force
United States President Donald Trump summarized a six-point agenda that considerably expands the USA’s missile defense. This plan includes sensors based in space to spot hostile threats. Said sensors have the capability to track and target advanced threats that come from hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles. President Trump presented the Missile Defense review at Pentagon on January 16, 2019 which called for research and investments to guarantee American security for the forthcoming decades. 
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/01/17/space-based-interceptors-and-drones-with-lasers-the-pentagons-missile-defense-review-wish-list-revealed/ 
The six-point plan includes the building of 20 new ground base missiles located at Fort Greely in Alaska and the creation of a missile shield that will protect all cities of the United States.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/3443-anywhere-anytime-any-place-trump-lays-out-space-force-plans 
Trump also gave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) a 100 percent commitment. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-touts-space-force-plans-pentagon-n959861

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Hi, I removed Neil deGrasse Tyson from the listen of supporters, because I don't see any clear affirmation of support in either ref [2] [3]. Instead what he seems to be saying is the idea has been around for a long time so it's not a crazy idea. He himself suggested it way back, but at the time they decided it was better to just keep the air force in control. However no where does he say he agrees the time has now come to make a space force (or any similar sentiment). The closest is where he says that the space force should be given additional responsibilities but that's still a bit different. It's fairly common for people to suggest stuff that should happen if an idea is implemented, without necessarily saying that the idea should be implemented. And of course, there's nothing suggesting that the space force is necessary for the responsibilities anyway i.e. no where does he say we couldn't do this if we don't make a space force. (He also says that in general he doesn't think space force is going to significantly change what the military is doing, as it mostly is just stuff they are already doing.) Neil deGrasse Tyson is of course an astrophysicist, and while he has written and talked about military and space before, AFAIK he has limited military experience so he may reasonably feel he doesn't know enough to say which bureaucratic organisation style is best, especially without studying it in detail which he probably hasn't done recently. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Its official... I guess

I just overheard on the news that Trump was officially beginning the USSF. Could someone with far better research skills fix the page to reflect current events? ArmageddonAviation (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. They've revived space command. They haven't created a separate branch of the military, because doing so would require Congressional approval. GMGtalk 20:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Concern about seal

I cannot find one source for which the seal comes from. The link on the wikimedia file goes to pbs but there is no accompanying article. It does not follow any of the other logos and looks terrible but seemingly has been implemented in many wikipedia articles already. - AH (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, the other photo comes from a facebook verified space force account; but there is no claim that it is the official seal or background or any thing of the space force. I do not have privileges to edit the article, because of its semi protected status, but if someone else could; i would recommend the removal of these pictures from this article and the uniformed services article. - AH (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It’s not the seal per say, but it is the closest thing there is to a logo for now. As long as it’s not represented as the seal it shouldn’t be a problem. Garuda28 (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Disappearing edits

Hi everyone, I am enthusiastic about Space Force becoming a reality and tried to add the information I found while researching the topic. Eventually I was able to get the additional information onto the page and formatted correctly (the best I could) and then it disappeared almost immediately. Thinking I had done something wrong - perhaps pressed the wrong button or something technical I had missed, I went through the process several times. Then I got a message that I was engaging in a EDIT WAR! That was never my intention, it happened so fast I didn't realize it was a person who was deleting my edits immediately after I posted them. I am embarrassed, I feel very bad about the hours I spent trying to add to the Space Force entry, and wish I could get the money I donated to Wikipedia back. I am sorry. LCDR MMR/USNR over and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrayson (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pgrayson: First off, don’t be sorry – it appears to be an honest mistake and this is a learning opportunity. Your edits were reverted because they did not have sources attached to them or an explanation of how they are relevant. A good start would be discussing what you’d like to do here. Garuda28 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I am in touch with the Public Relations firm that represents our Space Force - in Arlington VA. and the Public Affairs office at (our) Space Force Headquarters in Colorado. Through them I have access to photographs cleared for publication, press releases, backgrounders, access to speeches by officials, and if arranged far enough in advance telephone interviews with spokespersons. I usually get paid for what I research and write so someone is going to have to tell me how to add successfully to (our) Space force Wikipedia Page if you want me to do this for free.

First thing is you have a page called "space force" which is what the US Space Force calls themselves. I recommend that someone who cares do something about the space force page so that when someone searches for information about (our) Space Force by typing in the search block "Space Force" they get to the US SPACE FORCE page. One way would be to change the name of the "Space Force" page to "Space Forces Of Earth" and that the search term "Space Force" take people directly to United States Space Force since that is what US citizens were probably meant when they typed in "space force", I know that is what I meant. Pgrayson (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what particularly you want? A modification to the general space force page wouldn’t be advised, as that is for the type of military branch. Garuda28 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, lets do one at a time. How many people need to agree to get the search term "space force" to turn up the US Space Force page? Pgrayson (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The guideline you're looking for is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Do you have any suggestions for titling the current Space force article, that would free up that name to redirect to United States Space Force? Just noticed you did suggest one. I find "Space Forces of Earth" to sound a bit cartoony. Any other ideas for a title? Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, how about "Space Forces of the world" or "World Space Forces"? Pgrayson (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

adding comment: I expect most readers who are looking for this page would look for "us space force", which redirects to this article. This article actually has a lot of redirects to bring readers here:
  • American Space Force
  • Department of the Space Force
  • Secretary of the Space Force
  • Spaceforce.mil
  • U.S. Space Corps
  • U.S. Space Force
  • United States Department of the Space Force
  • United States Secretary of the Space Force
  • United States Space Corps
  • United States Space Force
  • US Space Corps
  • US Space Force
  • Www.spaceforce.mil
I don't think finding the article will be very difficult. Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur. Garuda28 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You are missing one. They answer the phone saying "Space Force". I was searching for the Wikipedia page using the term "space force" and it took me (and how many other people) to a page that says it is the page for "Space Force" which is not the same page as US Space Force. I was about to leave the Wikipedia when I accidentally found the US Space Force page. Pgrayson (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to see something interesting, Space Force is on social media and the conversation appears to be unrestricted. See what they call it. Pgrayson (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

We don’t link Air force to United States Air Force. Why would we do the same with United States Space Force when it itself is linked three times on the Space force page?Garuda28 (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Only one reason. I went to Wikipedia and put in "Space Force" and it took me to a page I did not want to be on. I am your typical unsophisticated user who would use Wikipedia more if it were more user friendly to me. Other unsophisticated / infrequent users like myself might use Wikipedia more often if it were more user friendly to them. How many users are you inadvertently turning away. Your search term statistics, which I don't have should tell you. How many of the people that searched the past two weeks did you send to the less impressive "space force" page when they really wanted to go the the other page? Pgrayson (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Pgrayson, first, an off-topic observation: please read WP:THREAD and learn how to format your replies properly. Proper indentation in threads help everyone keep track of a conversation.

Since only Garuda and I have responded here, I think it would be helpful to get more editors looking at the question. I will set up a request for comments and notify other editors to get additional input. Consensus will determine whether we change the title for Space force and redirect that term to this article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Rfc started at Talk:Space force#Rfc on title of current Space force article and advertised on WikiProjects Spaceflight and Military history. Schazjmd (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion on renaming Space force has been closed, with consensus against renaming. See Talk:Space force#Rfc on title of current Space for article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of pertinent information in this article

Per BilCat's request creating a discussion on a recent edit. Should the amount of funding for the Space Force as well as political context surrounding the creation of the Space Force be included in the article?-Splinemath (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you for coming to discuss the content. There are three issues with the information added: 1) the $738 billion is the total amount in the NDAA, which only a fraction of which ($32 million, if memory serves) was appropriated for the Space Force. The larger amount has no bearing on the Space Force and does not add anything to this page, but rather could give the incorrect impression that is the actual finding amounts for the Space Force itself. It would, however, be appropriate for the 2020 NDAA page. 2) The statement that the U.S. President said that the Space Force was the largest ever investment in the military appears to be incorrect, based on the source material. Rather, it appears he was speaking about the NDAA at large. 3) There is no reason to add the Military–Industrial Complex category, as it does not appear that the Space Force has any more relation to the military–industrial complex than the other services, which are not listed in that category.
The political context surrounding the Space Force's creation, from the 2001 Rumsfeld Commission to the 2017 Space Corps proposal are discussed in detail. I’m not sure exactly how significant the 2020 NDAA is to the Space Force, other than it served as the vehicle for its creation, similar to how the National Security Act of 1947 created the Air Force. Garuda28 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Garuda's statement. I was going to revert the initial edits my self for those reasons, but he beat me to it. - BilCat (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Note, I wouldn't have expressed the reasons as well or as succinctly either. :) - BilCat (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Logo/Insignia

There should be a mention about the insignia resembling the Starfleet logo in Star Trek. It's getting some press. Victor Grigas (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not so sure. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and honestly these associations of the logo with starfleet seem to be more sensationalist than based in any real facts. The press on it will probably fade away in a few days. It’s like when last week the internet blew up in the same way that the Space Force adopting OCP uniforms was related to Endor in Star Wars. Maybe if the Space Force acknowledged some similarities, but as of now all they’ve said is the Delta was used for space forces since 1961 and in the Air Force since 1942.Garuda28 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I concur. If CBS, the rights holders to Star Trek, ever file a legal claim, that would certainly make it notable. But if I were them, I'd leave it alone. Perhaps CBS could say that the similarities exist because the USSF is a predecessor organization of Starfleet. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be included because you even have international organisations such as the BBC and Canberra Times covering it. If it was just a minor thing, it wouldn't have got out of the US based reporting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Minor as in we don't report every single news mention in our articles, or else they would be extremely long. This is covered by the "Wikipedia Is Not News" guideline linked above. Interestingly, the only story I've found so far that attempts to put issue in the larger context is here, but there may well be others. - BilCat (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course the international reaction of surprise and ridicule to the logo and inferable attitude of a US military branch deserves to be mentioned, as it fits well in the general esteem or lack thereof for the USA under the Trump presidency by the rest-of-the-world. The article definitely lacks a section about the views held by populations and governments all around the planet on the creation of this new operations service branch and the perceived analogies to literary, tv, and movie fiction. An open question about the logo might be whether CBS wishes to sue as they own the copyright to the Star Trek logo in all its variations. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to put it into the context of the Trump Presidency (which I agree is the root of most of this) then perhaps the Presidency of Donald Trump would be a better location to put all of this, so it can be seen in context. On the second point, I haven’t seen anything serious saying CBS would sue the government, and even then, the wouldn’t have much standing to on this considering the seal was derived from the Air Force Space Command shield and the delta is actually traditional military heraldry. Garuda28 (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It's actually not a new issue. See this forum thread from 2007. Anyway, this current hype is all probably just collision between the government and ViacomCBS to promote Star Trek:Picard. Someone should let Adam Schiff know before the impeachment ends. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This is interesting: Trump’s Space Force Logo Was Apparently a Surprise to the Pentagon. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@BilCat: While interesting I think we need some additional sources to verify this. Its possibly they were referencing the logo instead of the seal. Last week SpaceNews stated that "According to sources, Trump has approved a Space Force seal design and it will likely be revealed on Twitter soon, perhaps by Trump himself." which is exactly what happened. I'm not sure what the Washingtonian is trying to get at, but SpaceNews seems to have been spot on. If I had to make an educated guess the Washingtonian is confusing the official seal (which SpaceNews said was authorized a week+ ago) with the service logo. (SpaceNews article)Garuda28 (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I was just putting it here for information. It's hardly been 24 hours since the seal was announced. We'll see what happens in the next week, and then after. In my opinion, unless the seal is "disavowed" by the USSF in some way, or a suit is filed by ViacomCBS, there's really nothing worth mentioning in this article. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • BBC here, and space here (of space.com) have mentioned the similarities. This is not news. The notability guidelines does not apply to the content. The emblem/logo/flag is not an event or news. It will stay there till they introduce a new flag. I believe we should include "ABC, PQR, XYZ, among others have pointed out similarities" in the article somewhere. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The point is moot, as we now have an article, Seal of the United States Space Force, that covers the seal/logo in detail. Indeed, the similarities to other seals/logos is already covered there, as it should be. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

3. Organization - "co-equal" is not a real word.

The Space Force is organized as one of two [co-equal] military service branches within the Department of the Air Force, with the other service being the United States Air Force. Both services are overseen by the Secretary of the Air Force, who has overall responsibility for organizing, training, and equipping the Space Force and Air Force.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fejjisthemann (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed the problem.Garuda28 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Seal Explanation

It would be useful if some-one could give background on the seal, including history and an explanation of such things as the patterns of the stars. Are they constellations, numerological references, arbitrary patterns and numbers, or an artists' visual patterning based on intuition or design theory? The best I could find was an article about its similarity to the Star Trek badge and comments on alleged sources from NASA's insignia via Star Trek ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/star-trek-space-force-seal_n_5e2b6e92c5b6779e9c32b607 ) and a link found there-in (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/symbols-of-nasa.html ) but nothing explaining the star patterns. Kdammers (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

So far as I know, no such information has been released by the Space Force, or by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry, which designed the seal. Perhaps it will in the future, but perhaps not either. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kdammers:, an explanation on the seal's meaning is now published on the USSF Fact Sheet page. - BilCat (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS Debate

There is current debate over whether this article's infobox conforms to WP:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. To start

  1. INFOBOXFLAG states that "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes" however provides "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions". Military articles, for the longest period of time, especially U.S. military ones have had flags displayed in the infobox and it appears to be the de facto consensus of the community and that needs to be establish as having consensus to change. Basically it appears acceptable to use flags when the country is being directly represented (such as political geography) rather than where the country is a place (physical geography). Reguardless, the use of flags is not prohibited in any sense, and there is long standing usage on U.S. military articles to use (which is an acceptable use of WP:Some stuff exists for a reason).
  2. SEAOFBLUE states "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link (a "sea of blue")", however this is primarily geared towards sentences; Adding military rank, like president or general, is common practice on military articles, especially U.S. military articles. MOS is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule; it works with the consensus of the community.Garuda28 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
For transparency and to pull in military editors on articles that could be affected by this discussion I have put a notice at WP:MILHIST, the U.S. Armed Forces page, and pages of the other military service branches. I would also like to note that the same format that is the subject of debate on this page also exists on those pages, and that per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason it is useful to keep internal consistency on the matter. Garuda28 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Support Re: INFOBOXFLAG--Flags, as well as pennants, banners, guidons, etc. have long been a part of military tradition in most countries around the world. I see nothing wrong with using flags in the infobox of articles related to military history and the Military History Project. It has been done in the past with very little controversy and to change things now would involve hundreds, perhaps thousands of modifications to the Projects infoboxes.Cuprum17 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Support Re: SEAOFBLUE--Nothing wrong here either. Establish a policy that within the Military History Project that the linking of a rank next to the notable military figure is okay in the Project articles.Cuprum17 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:INFOBOXFLAG states flag icons should only be used in military conflict infoboxes and infoboxes about international sporting events. The example provided at Template:Infobox military unit does not use any icons or flags. TrailBlzr (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Support the use of the US flag. It could be argued that this is moderately common in articles on military formations. and so there is, arguably, a de facto consensus.
Oppose the other five flags badges and emblems in the infobox, which seem to me to simply be contrary to both the MoS and normal practice.
Support re SEAOFBLUE giving ranks and names. This is all but universal and seems to be covered by the "When possible" in the MoS. And, as has been pointed out, this is primarily geared towards sentences, not infoboxes. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say that Gog the Mild above has the right of it. The US flag is fine but the rest aren’t needed. The links are fine as well in the infobox, as we are much more liberal using links there and it isn’t really possible to refactor in infobox-speak to avoid them as we can in prose. CThomas3 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Article ownership

Please note that Garuda28 has authored 56.9% of this article as of the time of this post. For source see this.-Splinemath (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I encourage all users to be mindful of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.-Splinemath (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a particular problem with this article (also the link you provided has nothing to do with Garuda28. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Please excuse the error. I have since updated the link.-Splinemath (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
As for any problems I do not believe that an article with roughly 10,000 average daily pageviews should be comprised of half its material by one person.-Splinemath (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Why not most users here have no idea of the number of page views they just edit articles they have an interest in, its a fairly new page so the number of individual contributers is likely to be low. its natural when you have contributed a lot of effort and time into an article to then keep an eye on it its quality, nothing unusual in that. So unless you have a real problem we can close this. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate you not referring to this discussion as something other than a "real problem". 56% is a large percentage of any article regardless of its age.-Splinemath (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
OK but I still dont see what your issue is, 56% is not unusual for one article. You need to explain what you think is wrong so we can help, but changing the historic profile of who edits is outside of our control. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The percentage a person has written is totally irrelevant. What matters is how they behave when other users edit the material they wrote, or add other information to the article. In my interactions with Garuda, he is knowledgeable about the subject of US military services, and is a good writer. Taken together, he's able to add relevant content tjat other users may not have the background to write intelligently about, myself included. My Wikipedia talents lean more to the editing side, as I'm not a skilled writer. If you believe Garuda is limiting or excluding content from the article, or adding content that you believe shouldn't be there, you are free to discuss those content issues here. But so far you haven't given any concrete problems you've had with the content, or even with Garuda's behavior. And yes, what you have mentioned so far is not a "real problem". - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I assume this has to do with this discussion several sections above from a month ago. You have yet to respond to Garuda's detailed comments there. -BilCat (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The OP is apparently concerned about this series of edits that he made on January.5, which Garuda reverted only once. I reverted it again, with a request to open a discussion here, which the OP did. However, the OP has not responded there since that time. - BilCat (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Splinemath: After reviewing WP:OWN I can’t seem to find any mention of the percent of an article edited by a single user to be an object for concern. It seems the primary issue is one of intent and content. I’m extremely proud of my contributions to this article, but what makes this article (and so many others) amazing is the collaboration between many different users (of which I am just one of dozens). I genuinely do not see my actions constituting ownership behavior on this article (I believe my actions are more consistent with WP:STEWARDSHIP), but if you see behaviors that go beyond that I would really appreciate if you could share them with me. Garuda28 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Acronym For Space Operations Command

Whoever can edit - per the Space Force website - https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2048114/14th-air-force-redesignated-as-space-operations-command - the acronym for Space Operations Command has a lower-case 'p' - SpOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.170.224.15 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

on it! Garuda28 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's all hope the SpOC lives long and prospers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Details on the 23 USAF units that are transferring to USSF

This article in SpaceNews has the details on the 23 USAF units that are transferring to USSF in addition to the 5 space wings that transferred in December 2019. Might be helpful in improving the article. N2e (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That list includes the 17th Test Squadron, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; 18th Intelligence Squadron, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH; the 25th Space Range Squadron, Schriever AFB, CO; the 328th Weapons Squadron, Nellis AFB, NV; the 527th Space Aggressor Squadron, Schriever AFB, CO; Operating Location A, 705th Combat Training Squadron, Schriever AFB, Colorado (ultimately part of the 505th Command and Control Wing); the 7th Intelligence Squadron, 659th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group, 70th ISR Wing, Ft. Meade, Maryland*; Sixteenth Air Force/Advanced Programs*, Schriever AFB, Colorado; the 32nd Intelligence Squadron, Ft. Meade, Maryland*; the 566th Intelligence Squadron, Buckley AFB, Colorado*; the 544th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group, Group Staff & Detachment 5, Peterson AFB, Colorado; Detachment 1, USAF Warfare Center, Schriever AFB, Colorado; the 533d Training Squadron, 381st Training Group, Vandenberg AFB, CA (initial training); the National Security Space Institute, Peterson AFB, CO [4]; the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Research Lab Mission Execution, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio*; the AFRL Space Vehicles Directorate, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico*; the AFRL Rocket Propulsion Division, Edwards AFB, CA; the AFRL Electro-Optical Division, Maui, Hawaii & Kirtland AFB, New Mexico*; the AFRL Sensors Directorate, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio*; the Counter-Space Analysis Squadron and the Space Analysis Squadron, collectively half of the Space and Missiles Analysis Group, National Air and Space Intelligence Center (-->National Space Intelligence Center?), both at Wright-Pat; the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center Detachment 4, Peterson AFB, CO; and the Air Force Safety Center – Space Safety Division, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Kennedy quote from Rice speech

What's the reasoning behind the inclusion of that Kennedy quote in the green box? In the same speech, Kennedy said, "For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace." The use of the Kennedy quote in this article appears to be intended as a snippet of backstory to the establishment of the US Space Force. However, Kennedy's speech at Rice stated a promise contrary to the concept of a US Space Force, and Kennedy himself did nothing to further the establishment of a US Space Force. If there is no good reason otherwise, I believe the use of his quotation is misleading, or at least questionable, and ought to be removed. Jaimalalatete (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t add it, but I can see it’s value in framing the early military space period. Kennedy was also a huge proponent of that Air Force’s early space program, which became the Space Force. Garuda28 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Garuda28. The quote by Kennedy in the green box does not contradict the other statement made by JFK of having space "governed by a banner of freedom and peace." JFK made it clear, in the following words: "...only if the United-States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theatre of war." You see, according to him, peace in space can only be sustained by being diligent and strong militarily in space.Davidbena (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit Needed for ranks in use

Hey the page still says the only rank in use is that of general, this needs to be updated. The current confirmed ranks in use are the ranks of Chief Master Sergeant, Second Lieutenant, and General. CPena02 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverting removal of 61st Air Base Group

I have just reverted Garuda28's removal of the 61st Air Base Group from the organisation of the USSF [5]. The 61st ABG runs LA Air Force Base in direct support of the Space and Missile Systems Center. I would kindly encourage Garuda28 to note that the Space Force will include not just operational organisations like the SpOC, but a whole number of less operational organisations, like SMSC and its base administrative organisation, and the men and women of the 61st ABG are just as much assigned to the USSF, and contribute, the same alongside the organisations that fly and drive satellites. Unless we have a WP:RELIABLE source that the 61 ABG has been inactivated or retitled, we should not make arbitrary changes (which also assume that the SMSC is an 'operational' organisation!!) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) "I wanted to clarify with you that I removed the group from the org chart since it wasn’t an operations unit like SpOC’s wings or the 614 AOC – not because it was reassigned outside of SMC or the USSF (which I have seen no indication of). After seeing your edit summary, I felt it would be best to make sure we were on the same page with regard to the reasons for the edit. Garuda28 (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)"
It's not an operational organisation. Neither is SMSC!! SpOC and SMSC are co-equal, one operational and one systems acquistion, as the indents should make quite clear!! Leave SMSC & 61 ABG both alone unless you have a reliable source!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
(Was preparing a more detailed answer, here, but had an edit conflict) :@Buckshot06: I initially made the removal for two reasons. First was that the ABW is simply the administrative side of LAAFB, under SMC. It didn’t seem to make sense that the ABW was on the primary org chart when none of the other space wings MSGs were listed. Second was that it was a group, which was a level of administration lower than a wing. I felt it was sufficient that the ABW was listed at the SMC page’s org chart, along side it’s directorates. Now that I’ve explained my reasoning, I also want to say I see yours as well. I’m not opposed to leaving the ABW on the main org chart, just wanted to explain my rationale once the edit was challenged. Garuda28 (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The 61 ABG is not a same-numbered, subordinate to a wing, component part of a wing, such as the 35th Mission Systems Group or some such in regard to the 35th Space Wing. It is a separate organisational component, with the SMSC acting something like an air division. Looking at the old AFSC org chart (in the Air Force Magazine almanac), you will see that 14 AF was separate, with all its wings listed, 20 AF (before AFGSC) with all it's wings listed, and SMSC at the same level, with the 61 ABG subordinate. Basically we're listing all first-level administrative divisions - SpOC and SMSC; and all the second-level administrative divisions under SpOC. Why single out the second-level administrative division under SMSC for removal? In that case, working by your previous logic, we'd only have SpOC and SMSC listed, with none of their subcomponents. Finally, the Air Force org charts lists it, and we consistently list all the entities the Air Force, now Space Force does. So that's a third reason to leave it there. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: I see your point, and you’ve convinced me. On that note, do you think it makes sense to list SMC’s directorates (GPS, MILSATCOM, Launch, etc.) on this org chart? They used to be full fledged wings before being redesignated as directorates a few years back.Garuda28 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
What the discussion seems to be on the news stories following USSF (hope you've seen that COOL but completely misleading recruiting video clip) indicates that they are going to use different organisational terms, "because this is the Space Force and we're new". The two launch wings at the Cape and Vandenberg are going to lose their title of "wing." So at the moment things are super in flux, we may be happy to dig into these details, but let's not confuse the issue at the main USSF page. At the SMSC article yes all these details should be added. I know you're focused on this page, but all the Space Force associated pages will need to be revised. Are you interested in making a little mini-project of the SMSC page as well, or would you rather just focus on this page? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Of course! I’ve also read that SMC will be renamed Space Systems Command and that groups will be going away as well. Garuda28 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

The direct antecedent of the Space Force, Air Force Space Command, was formed on September 1st, 1982 with responsibility for space warfare operations.[3] The National Defense Authorization Act for 2020 redesignated Air Force Space Command as the U.S. Space Force, and established it as an independent branch of the U.S. Armed Forces on December 20th, 2019. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 22:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please link to the COMMONS category.

Please add in the SEE ALSO section, at the top, just below the 

== See also ==

add

{{commonscat}}

-- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added to "External links" section as recommended by MOS:Layout. - BilCat (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Add Request: Reference "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

Please add some info on the connection to this influential document. I found it interesting there's no mention of it considering it's directly out of the document from 2000. Much of this was implemented during the G.W. Bush years. Space Force didn't make it until now ..

Page 57 (68/90): https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses/page/n11/mode/2up/search/homeland .. ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America's_Defenses

Tertiary7 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry. I’m a little unclear. Can you help explain how these documents relate to the Space Force? Garuda28 (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
From briefly reading Project for the New American Century#Rebuilding America's Defenses, the document advocated creating a military space service, along with many other things. All we could add at this point might be a brief mention that a space force was advocated in the document, even that might be undue weight. However, in order to state that the document directly influenced the creation of the USSF, we'd need high-quality verifiable published sources that support such influence per WP:RS. - BilCat (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I’ve been studying this topic extensively for the past four years, and I have to admit this is the first I’m hearing about this specific document. I’ve heard much more about the 2001 Rumsfeld report. Garuda28 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Procurement as a Subsection

As a footnote to the main topic, an additional subsection for space procurement should be made to preempt any existing infoboxes, Wikiprojects and or categories (exp.: 'Category : Companies Under Space Procurement with...") for the topic. This should not be confused with Space Trade. Habatchii (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

US Space Force assets

I wanted to ask contributing editors here who may have worked on this article whether or not there is a place for a sub-section describing the assets deployed by the US Space Force, such as the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6), and which has been written about in this recent article, dated 17 May 2020, entitled "United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches the Sixth Orbital Test Vehicle for the U.S. Space Force"? See article here. Is this something that should be mentioned, just as we would mention that US aircraft carriers are essential assets of the US Navy?--Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

getting to that is certainly on my to do list. Garuda28 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Garuda28 by this edit you removed a mention of the X-37B as well as the best current list of on-orbit satellites we had. I've reverted it, but please avoid such mistakes in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Buckshot06 Thank you for catching that. My intent was to move it to that equipment section, but some real life events happened and unfortunately distracted me. I’ll move it there right now. Garuda28 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Satellites do belong in the organisation section, however (not sure whether that's 'as well' or not). They need to be right next to the units that operate them, once we copy in which squadrons operate which satellites. The equipment section needs to have higher level text about what types of equipment, Systems Command, and why, not just the usual stupid fanboy chart with every visual bell and whistle. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure I entirely understand what you are suggesting? Looking to the other services pages no mention of ship types or aircraft are in their organization section, but rather in the equipment section, but I’m assuming you’re talking about something different? Garuda28 (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at Eighth Air Force#Air Force Global Strike Command. See the aircraft types right next to all the entries for the wings? Space Force has less operational formations & units listed that Eighth Air Force currently, and thus there's space, ample, to put the satellite types right next to the wings-->deltas that operate them. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah – I understand now. With the current structure I don’t think that could be done well (since pretty much everything would be under the 50th), but if the deltas become more specific and tailored that should be easy to do! Garuda28 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

OCP is the Army's uniform 2605:6000:1805:43A5:201D:6BB1:8CF8:70C9 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And the Air Force and Space Force use it as well. What changes do you want to make to the article? oknazevad (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If the Delta logo is public domain, why don't move it to Commons? Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. How would we do that? Garuda28 (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The easiest thing to do is to add {{Copy to Commons}} to the file page, and an "expert" or bot will perform the move. I've tagged it using Twinkle. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!Garuda28 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lineage of Deltas

Depending on the discussion which has actually started at Talk:Buckley Garrison, regarding whether there is unbroken lineage between Buckley Garrison and the 460 SW, the new Delta pages may have to be merged with the previous Operations Groups. I would ask Garuda28 to kindly hold off creating new Delta pages for the immediate moment, because we have a page for Space Operations Command, the immediate higher headquarters, and every new piece of data can be placed there. It's a very short page. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging @AFLBulawan: so we are on the same page. Garuda28 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Garuda28: @Buckshot06: Noted. Have you read this article though: [6]? --AFLBulawan (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I have. There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies and confusion on redesignation vs new units over there. The only remaining Delta page that could be made with no conflict with existing possible predecessors in Space Delta 9, as we don't have a page for the 750th Operations Group here on wikipedia yet. Garuda28 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible lineage conflicts

No word of lineage conflicts

Thank you for this detailed listing Garuda28. I appreciate it. I would encourage you to see the situation with Buckley Garrison and Deltas 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, as potential continuations of lineage in full accordance with AFHRA practice. Delta 7 is clearly a tangle and requires more information; Peterson-Schriever Garrison needs a stub; STAR Delta could probably go ahead with a stub; would encourage no action as yet regarding Deltas 2 & 4. Do note that official military pages can contain major errors; I once saw a page for the new 6th UK Division that mentioned all three of the 6th Airborne, 6th Inf, and 6th Armoured, when the lineage in question was clearly that of the 6th Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Also, AFHRA may not have been properly consulted or involved, especially with COVID-19 disruptions, which may result in retroactive amendment for up to decades afterwards (ask LG about the AF lineage changes of 1985). Comments welcome and appreciated, especially Lineagegeek. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I’m in agreement on this. We can always split pages later if this is ascertained not to be the case. The only pages that then need to be remerged are Buckley Garrison. Garuda28 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Grand. Please do note AFLBulawan that deltas are wing-equivalent formations for the Space Force; that the only Field Commands are SpOC (live long and prosper!!), SSC, and STARCOM-to-be; and that for the moment all delta pages should only be placed in Category:Units and formations of the United States Space Force. We may in time rename the category Category:Wings of the United States Space Force - wings and deltas of the USSF? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and made a separate category for deltas and garrison commands. If my intuition is right, wings may become a historical organizational unit in the Space Force quite quickly along with groups, which are getting merged into deltas. Garuda28 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hold off on the garrison commands, please. With only 2 so far, they go in the main category, in line with WP:SMALLCAT. That rule would mean, if properly applied, we wouldn't even have a Field Commands category. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Garuda28: How does this situation differ from the redesignation of the Fourteenth Air Force to Space Operations Command? --AFLBulawan (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Because with 14 AF there never was any conflicting news saying it was inactivated, just redesignated. Garuda28 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Garuda28: Right, so if it was only redesignated, is it correct to assume that their lineage don't break off? And if so, shouldn't they not be separated? --AFLBulawan (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
That’s correct technically. SpOC is also complicated as it seems there are indications this first SpOC may not be the final field command SpOC. There’s a lot of confusion with regard to this. Garuda28 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not actually too complicated. It has been explained in the releases. Water rolls downhill, and an Air Force MAJCOM, Air Force Space Command, is being upgraded into an entirely new service, USSF. In DC, a new HQ Space Force has been created which will assume many of the administrative functions previously carried out by Air Force Space Command. HQ AFSC/US Space Command, Colorado --> HQ SpOC (second formation, Peterson, to be established, timing not announced), will take over the functions of SpOC first formation. HQ 14 AF --> SpOC (first formation, Vandenberg), will deactivate in time. I would guess that the headquarters personnel will disperse. I have no clue about lineage links if any between HQ SpOC, first formation, and HQ SpOC, second formation. Live long and prosper!! I believe that's most of the overall picture. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: Exactly, my point was that should Space Operations Command (SpOC), in its first and current formation as you have explained having been only redesignated from HQ AF14, shouldn't it have the same lineage as AF14 which in that case the merger of Space Operations Command and Fourteenth Air Force? Note though that releases say the current formation will be renamed and not deactivated.--AFLBulawan (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

HQ 14 AF --> SpOC (first formation, Vandenberg) clearly share & continue lineage. I do not think there's any major issue or disagreement about that. Thankyou for alerting me to the fact that the releases imply SpOC (first formation) will be renamed. Would like to see that link. The problem as far as I can see is that there will be a field command (SpOC, second formation, Peterson), supervising all operating formations. That means SpOC (first formation, Vandenberg) must be scheduled to do one of two things: (1) downgraded to a delta, in which case it will report to SpOC-second-formation, or, (2) disestablished. I cannot see any other alternatives. Very happy to hear thoughts!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: It's on the last sentence, 7th paragraph here: [7]. So Space Operations Command in its current formation (regardless of future plans for it) should be merged with Fourteenth Air Force?--AFLBulawan (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I did see that release. Yes, when everything settles down finally, there should be one WP article containing the entire history of 14 AF, and it's brief time as SpOC "Live Long and Prosper" (first formation). But that should only take place after we know exactly what is to happen to the formation. I have been warning Garuda28 at the other page about moving too fast; we should take no more moves now (WP:NOTNEWS). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buckshot06:@Lineagegeek:@AFLBulawan: I think we may finally have gotten an answer to this question. Today at the SpOC standup (video:https://www.dvidshub.net/webcast/24904) when they inactivated the Fourteenth Air Force (the first SpOC) they mentioned that they're splitting the lineage and history - the aviation lineage (presumable the Flying Tigers and its time in the reserves) goes to the Air Force, while its space lineage (likely time as the Fourteenth Aerospace Force and certainly time under AFSPC after 1992) is going to the Space Force (specifically to SpOC West). I think this shows us the way forward. We'll likely have to partition the articles, so hypothetically with the 21st Space Wing do one page that's the 21st Space Wing and space only, and the other being the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing, with its aviation lineage and honors. As I've been working on these pages I've been doing it with that in mind, so for the vast majority of pages it should be a quick, clean slice once we get the details on split lineage for these units. Garuda28 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

New U.S. Space Force general officers

@Maliepa: and @Garuda28: I thought you both would be interested in this. The Space Force is about to get four new lieutenant generals who are being transferred from the Air Force and will serve as director of staff, deputy chiefs of space operations and commander of Space Operations Command, via 10 U.S.C. § 601 found HERE. They will also have their permanent ranks of major generals retained and transferred from the Air Force via 10 U.S.C. § 716 via HERE. Neovu79 (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like @Maliepa: beat me to the information hours before hand. Way to he on top of things. Neovu79 (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong format used for dates

Although the American date format is used for the citations, someone has changed them to the British format. These should obviously be fixed. I just repaired that same problem for the United States Space Command article, and have a feeling there may be many more such erroneous formats. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

US military related articles use day-month dates, unlike other US related articles, as that's the common convention within the US military. oknazevad (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:MILFORMAT, "In some topic areas, the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military, including US military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage." BilCat (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Space Fence is a core tech behind new Space Force

Why is it not mentioned? 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:A582:3BC3:7955:781A (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The equipment section is very underdeveloped. We'll get around to it eventually. Garuda28 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of that, thanks. My first thought was "we are going to build a space fence and make the Martians pay for it?". In a similar vein, I've wondered if the Space Force has a service academy and if the academy's members are called Space Cadets. That would be almost enough to get me to join. I'll see myself out. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Change name

Need to take out Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense and change to new Sec Def Christopher C Miller, in the current officers section, as of Nov. 9, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.73.147 (talk) 20:50, November 9, 2020 (UTC)

Should have a section for criticisms.

the whole idea sounds horrendously costly, and would probably only be good for disabling the satellites of enemies, and i'm pretty sure we don't have any enemies with satellites (except maybe china). 2600:8805:2300:31D:F5EF:7C88:C91B:C9FB (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I generally think sections for criticism are a bad idea (see WP:CSECTION). If there is legitimate criticism of the Space Force that is notable and persistent (I would assess most of the political criticism it is facing due to who the president is will likely fade, and shouldnt be covered per WP:NOTNEWS) then it can be covered in the history section. Garuda28 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism is judging the merits and faults of something, and is applied to all aspects of human endeavor, such as the arts, religion, commerce, politics, and war. Legitimate criticism of the Space Force by qualified sources helps maintain the neutral point view, which is an essential part of Wikipedia. @Garuda28: The concept of a Space Force was around before Trump. How he pushed it through a compliant Congress is irrelevant to the fact it now exists. So most the criticism has to do with wasteful spending, the myth of organizational efficiency, and the power of the defense contractors over the budget. For example this statement from the Center for Defense Information:

President Trump’s cherished Space Force is a bad idea that predated his presidency but received a major boost during his tenure. A new military bureaucracy geared up primarily to spend more money, it could cost tens of billions in the years to come while only increasing the risk of an arms race in space.[1]

  1. ^ Mandy Smithberger; William Hartung (November 30, 2020). "Shrinking the Pentagon". Project On Government Oversight. Retrieved December 1, 2020.

Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 12:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Senator2029, I'd be in favor of including criticisms in the article somewhere. That quote about military bureaucracy and costing billions of dollars is a great viewpoint. Because of WP:CSECTION, we should probably make a "Reception" type section that contains both positive and negative viewpoints, rather than a "Criticism" section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
As is, the article is quite positive. But about "criticsm": I'd urge editors to see it as the means to go "in depth" rather than an article only presenting "such-and-such happened" sIt isn't a bad thing that a person or organization has legitimate viewpoints from outsiders that are contrary to the one the media relations department spins to reporters. Everything has a flaw or error some place. To have that identified, and how it was responded to,—this allows our readers to gain a fuller perspective. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 09:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Senator2029, I started a "reception" section just now. Feel free to rename it to "criticism", add a sentence about your "project on government oversight" source, etc. Whatever you guys feel appropriate. As long as reception, and some of the negative stuff, gets a little coverage, as I feel those two items are important. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it should stay as reception, as there have been both positive and negative receptions to it; it’ll keep it balanced and avoid the issues that WP:CSECTION brings up. Garuda28 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Garuda28, as usual, awesome job on responding to talk page concerns. The two paragraphs you added are really high quality and cite think tank studies. The responses section is fleshing out nicely. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Novem_Linguae Do you think we need the pop culture references in the reception section? I'm personally a fan of it, because its what most people will think of, but I do think that the Space Force's responses should also be included. I'll try to find some more serious think tank/policy ones as well, since that should be the majority of it.Garuda28 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey Garuda28, thanks for the comment. I feel like the 3rd paragraph is too big, goes into too much detail, and is undue weight. I liked my first version, but as a compromise, another idea might be to trim it down to 1 sentence listing the 3 franchises, and 1 sentence concisely listing Space Force's rationale/defense. I think the other 2 paragraphs look pretty good. Thanks as always for your work on this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Novem_Linguae What do you think? Garuda28 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Garuda28, current version looks great. I think this reception section fleshed out into a very nice addition to the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Professionals"

Perhaps there should be some mention of this designation being temporary?[1] (unless it already is and I missed it) Just a thought. - wolf 04:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://taskandpurpose.com/.amp/news/space-force-professional-name
That's a really good point – I've added it under the personnel section with your citation. Garuda28 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks bro - wolf 05:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It now has a name: Guardians (of the Galaxy)! Official Twitter Account. So we would need a disambiguation link. Sebastian --188.195.224.193 (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the "Mission" section

Howdy. So I feel the "Mission" section has some issues.

  • Reads like marketing material. It's a bunch of nebulous and theoretical concepts rather than encyclopedic statements of fact.
  • It's big. Considering that it doesn't say much that's concrete, it is taking up a large proportion of the article.
  • It uses all primary sources. This is probably why the section is so bloated. Secondary sources would probably not give these ideas nearly as much weight.

I'd be in favor of deleting its sub-headings, and trimming the whole section down to a summary that is 2 paragraphs.

I have a feeling this idea won't be popular. I'm sure there's an editor that wrote all that and won't want it shortened/deleted. But I figured I'd throw it out there. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I'm personally in favor of keeping it (at least the general skeleton), specifically the section on the core capabilities (and what they are), because it describes, in essence, what the Space Force does. If you look at the U.S. Air Force or U.S. Coast Guard pages you'll see very similarly structured sections. That being said, I do think there’s a way to reword and cut it down since much of it is taken from primary sources. If you don't mind, I'm gonna take a stab at it today and see how much of the fat I can trim off it. I think we can probably consolidate the core capabilities into a single subsection. I'm on the fence if the congressional mandate needs to be in there, since a lot of it is redundant with the core capabilities (which really is the heart of a trimmed mission section). Garuda28 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Garuda28, Thanks for the quick response and (since you're the original writer) being so open-minded about reducing its size. I think any attempt to reduce its size and increase its clarity is an excellent idea. I would suggest using lots of paraphrase, to express the ideas more clearly than the Space Force's original marketing tone. I look forward to seeing what we come up with. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: Of course! When I first wrote the section really the only thing out there was the capstone document (which you’re right, it is very wordy and ambiguous), but since then there’s been a lot more details about the who, how, and what. It should be pretty simple to move those in, condense, and remove a lot of the ambiguous doctrinal terms. Give me around six hours, I think I’ll have it done by then. Garuda28 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: Okay, I think I've cut it down to a manageable amount. I'm going to start to think about how to expand on it with secondary sources - I have a feeling some of that will come with time. Thoughts? I think this better mirrors what we have at the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps page. Garuda28 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Garuda28, Perfect. Beautiful. Well done and thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Readiness"

Dear Garuda28 you've just reverted this edit of mine. Can you tell me what "readiness" means? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Combat readiness, in this context and the context of STAR Delta, goes beyond the training and education aspect of STAR Delta (533 TRS, 319 CTS, Weapons School, NSSI). Rather readiness, in this context, is the aspect of STAR Delta that focuses on enhancing, testing, and evaluating capabilities (3 SES, 17 TS, 25 SRS, etc). In essence, the aspect that is focused keeping and developing the operational combat readiness of the Space Force, if that makes sense. Garuda28 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
So "readiness", mostly = test and evaluation? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
There appear to be components beyond TES, such a doctrine development, but T&E seems to be the majority function outside of training and education. If you want to change the description from readiness to "test and evaluation, and doctrine development" I think that could work. Garuda28 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Space Staff vs OCSO

CSO has asked to change his staff name from OCSO to Space Staff. I have updated what I could, please make any changes you find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash-Ashley (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dash-Ashley: I have noticed space staff does seem to be used more frequently than OCSO. In the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, I really don’t see an issue with replacing the more cumbersome OCSO with Space Staff, especially since that’s the most common term. Garuda28 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dash-Ashley and Garuda28:, jooc, what are these changes based on? Thanks - wolf 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: I can't speak to Dash-Ashley's specific claims, but recent references in space force press releases primarily refer to the Space Staff rather than the Office of the Chief of Space Operations, including the new Space Staff Badge (OCSO is mentioned in this one, but it is clear that the primary name is Space Staff now) (https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2448510/space-force-updates-uniform-policy-guidance/) and inclusion of the Space Staff in HAF regulations (https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_ig/publication/hafmd1-20/hafmd1-20.pdf). These both support a name change having occurred. It doesn’t particularly surprise me, as the Air Force counterpart is the air staff. I would say the inclusion of Space Staff in a HAF regulation is the most compelling information I’ve found. Garuda28 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes

There is a sentence in the last paragraph "...while in reality it was first proposed by Democratic repetitive Jim Cooper and Republic Representative Mike Rogers in 2017.[122]" with two spelling mistakes that need to be corrected by someone who can edit.

73.254.192.168 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Change start_date = 20 December 2019; 4 years ago (2019-12-20) (as an independent service) to start_date = 4 years, 5 months (as an independent service) like the other branches 69.116.73.107 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Done! Garuda28 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove rank insignia tables

I think that the rank insignia tables should probably be removed from this article. Since there is already a dedicated article linked to at the top of the section, having them displayed here provives nothing substantive and just makes the page longer in my opinion. Just wondering if this acceptable / is there a particular reason why these should be kept. Thanks, Terasail[✉] 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Each of the different service's pages have rank tables in their personnel section; I would be opposed to removing them here unless there is consensus to remove the rank tables on all of the different military branches pages. It does provide an easy visual reference for users on the branche's rank structure, so I would argue there is more to gain by keeping them than removing them. Garuda28 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah makes sense, I thought there might be a some reason for it. I will convert it into a template and then just add them onto each page, since there is no point having multiple pages with the same table which needs to be updated twice. Terasail[✉] 20:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
For two pages it probably isn't worth it to create a template (copy paste would probably be more efficient), but if you want to, have at it. There is the NATO AF templates, but the only issue with that here is that it only includes the service dress rank, no abbreviations, and is oriented opposite to convention for lowest-to-highest. Edit: Very quick! Nice! Garuda28 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Space_Force/Archive_1&oldid=1124729689"