This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
@69.116.73.107: I believe there is no need to list both USAF and USSF as General Raymond's service branch, as he was an AF officer that transferred to the SF. Adding the USAF seal clutters the table and doesn't add much added information. Furthermore, double counting the commanders list with him both under AF and SF misrepresents the amount of SPACECOM CDRs from each service, hence the reason for counting him only under his final service (SF) and adding a note the AF one explaining it. Please respond here, rather than reverting again. Garuda28 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of commanders you want to count him under only one service, I am fine with that and the note, but he was appointed when he was a USAF general and served as a USAF general when USSF didn't exist, that should be acknowledged in the seal, one extra seal doesn't clutter a table, the future doesn't change the past. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He spent the majority of his time as SPACECOM CC as a USSF officer and finished his tenure as a USSF officer though. Listing him as an AF officer would be misleading, as he transitioned. Service affiliation always reflects the most current service, not what they were when appointed. The note that he was Air Force but transitioned should be of sufficient note. Readers can see he was AF previously on his own article - it just isn’t necessary or makes sense to have here. Garuda28 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Service affiliation always reflects whatever the service was at the time, it doesn't retroactively change. Total service was less than a year 8 months vs 4 months isn't that large a difference. It is misleading and unencyclopedic not to include the fact that he served as AF and as SF. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving that extra Seal, and the "he's double-counted" bit out of that table is not "unencyclopaedic". Adding it makes that entry look clunky. Tables and lists are for quick reference, we don't need to cram in unnecessary info. The General's table entry is linked to his BLP and everything the readers wants or needs to know is right there. (jmho) - wolf22:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
