Talk:Chief of Space Operations

Merge?
I created Office of the Chief of Space Operations due to an apparent need for the page according to United States Space Force. However, I'm not sure exactly why the two pages need to be split. There's only a single secondary source discussing the Office of the Chief of Space Operations. I have no objections if anyone wants to implement a merge of the stub. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally think we should hold off on merging (the Space Force was only founded a few days ago) – we are probably going to see a lot more sources on the Office of the CSO once it starts to take off and the content will likely be very different than the CSO page. Keep in mind the USAF Chief of Staff has a different page than the Air Staff. Garuda28 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We could just redirect it for now per WP:WOOD. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Merge - The Office of the Chief of Space Operations is analogous to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, which redirects to Chief of Naval Operations. Considering that the CNO position is over 100 years old, the scope for expansion of the CSO article is probably quite small. I haven't checked the other service chief articles, but I wouldn't expect them to be much larger either. - BilCat (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll probably just say that just because Office of the Chief of Naval Operations doesn't exist at the moment, does not mean it could never possibly exist. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Merge There isn't really a precedent for this, as there is no equivalent article for the other branches. As noted above, this article was likely created to resolve a red link in the template. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  03:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The precedence actually exists through the Air Staff (United States), which is the equivalent body for the Air Force. It could be split out later though. Garuda28 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that it could always be split out later, but for now, there's no need for two stubby articles on basically the same topic. Since all the participants agree, and this isn't a formal merge discussion, would either of you like to do the merging? I'd do it myself, but I'm "retired". :) - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Date format
This article was originally created (by User:Garuda28) using the day-month-year (DMY) date format, for which he added a Use dmy dates tag at that time. This was in accordance with Wikipedia practice for US-related military articles, as the US military generally used the DMY format.

This is explicitly allowed in the MOS 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.

Per MOS:DATETIES, If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

Please do not change the existing DMY format to MDY without a clear consensus here to do so. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)