Talk:United States Space Force

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jadolphe (article contribs).

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

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

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

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. GMG^talk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)