Talk:Space Base Delta 2

Continuation of 460th Space Wing?
Dear, as of this date approximately, the 460th Space Wing has been inactivated and the Buckley Garrison activated. Air Force units trace unbroken lineage right back in some cases to the (Army) Aero Squadrons of 1917. This would mean, if the precedent applies and lineage continues, that there should *not* be a separate page for the Buckley Garrison, but a page move from 460th Space Wing. What is your opinion here? FYI .Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. The most direct source I can find on this is here: https://www.buckley.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/322399/buckley-garrison/. I've also found PA releases that seem to imply that these are totally new organizations. The fact sheets do appear to be copy pasts or minor edits of the old wing fact sheets as well, so its possible the Space Force isn't even clear on this issue yet either. Garuda28 (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just reviewed that page. The history section cites the 821st Space Group; the formation of the 460th Space Wing; and then specifically using the correct lineage term, says, "on 17 July 2020 the 460 SW was redesignated the Buckley Garrison." If I or LG had been going over the 460 SW article, we would have simply moved the page. Unless disagrees, after a week from now, I am going to merge this page's information into 460th Space Wing, and move 460 SW to Buckley Garrison. Comments welcome, and I would be keen to see the PA releases implying totally-new designations so that I could review the wording. . Buckshot06 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article explictly states establishing of new garrisons in the title: . I agree, though, they're not totally new units, but maybe a redesignation and some group units were transferred out of it. --AFLBulawan (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's prudent with the potential merge (I was actually going to do a massive rewrite of the 460th page, so I'll be sure to build it in a way that a merger fits right in). The first one I noticed was this article, where it talks about the deactivation of the space wings (https://www.buckley.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2287167/us-space-force-establishes-new-garrisons/), the second was this one (https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2287005/space-force-begins-transition-into-field-organizational-structure) where it talked about the space wings being inactivated and then the garrisons being activated. What struck me about that was that wouldn't a redesignation be able to happen without an inactivation? The other was from the facebook-hosted ceremony where it was activation and inactivation ceremonies (https://www.facebook.com/USSpaceForceDoD/videos/228716078203689/). It also mentions at 7:04 the activation of the Buckley Garrison begins its history and lineage, which would indicate a totally new unit. These were the things that jumped out at me to make me suspect that not all of the SF components are talking/on the same page on this.Garuda28 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A redesignation is a one-step process. Inactivation at one date in time, closes the unit down, then could be reactivated much later. Redesignation is simultaneous.
 * Review User_talk:VilePig. Official military sources get their lineage facts wrong constantly; eg "9th Infantry Regiment" at Ft Lewis which was actually the 199th Infantry Brigade (Light); or the 11th Aviation "Regiment" which was actually a group. We'll hold off and see what LG has to say. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears Lineagegeek (if I read this right) have point out in a question posed by Garuda28 last January 2020 about the SpOC lineage redesignation at User_talk:Lineagegeek that that's not necessarily the case where there have been a "number of inactivations and simultaneous activations referred to in publicity as redesignations" but in actuality "they were not."--AFLBulawan (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He said at that link what I just said above, about the 199th and the 11th Aviation "Regiment", effectively. Let's wait and see what he makes of this latest series of changes. He also has a lot of knowledge and access to documents which is not necessarily visible. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is just impossible to tell without seeing the input from the official command historians. Since Space Command is a component of the Department of the Air Force, it's likely that AFHRA will be the focus of this input, at least for a while.  It is more likely than not that this is a redesignation (it appears that the support elemnts of the Buckley Garrison retain their 460 numbers, for example, and at least for now their names).  However, in major reorganizations, there is freqently a desire by the manpower and organization folks to emphasize that the reorganization is a "clean break" from the old, obsolescent organization.  The best example I know of this can be seen in the lineage of Air Mobility Command.  Twice (the change from Air Transport Command to Military Air Transport Service and from Military Airlift Command to Air Mobility Command), there has been simultaneous inactivation and activation, although years later the historians got the separate units consolidated.  There's a real possibility that this is what happened here.  It will probably take a while to have a completely reliable source.  The idea of creating new articles, with possible future merger in mind, seems like a practical solution.  I'd include an explanatory note to discuss the fact that sources refer to this both as a redesignation and an inactivation/activation, since the best sources we have right now are press releases.  I'd also add that any source that refers to the "deactivation" of a unit is not correctly stating the organizational actions involved.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)--Lineagegeek (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thought. There have been instances in the past in which the Air Force discontinued MAJCON (4 digit) units and activated AFCON units in their place.  The directives for these actions stated that even though these were separate units, the new AFCON unit inherited the honors and history (but not the lineage) of the old MAJCON unit.  AFHRA usually ignores this, but the place where this inheritance sometimes appears is in unit emblems (e.g. the 456th Bombardment Wing took the emblem of the 4126th Strategic Wing, which it replaced, rather than the one approved for the 456th Wing in the 1950s.  This "split the baby" type of action is another possibility for what action was taken.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou Would you mind formulating some sort of explanatory note for this page? Your input would also be welcome at Talk:United States Space Force at the discussion at the bottom. Also, I am aware you have extensive amounts of sources/contacts. Any digging you can do resulting in results in the short, medium, or long term would be most welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hold off a couple of days. I have reached out to an acquaintance in the Air Mobility Command History Office, who had already planned to contact the Space Command History Office on the same topic.  Once I hear from him, I should have a better idea of what to say (and perhaps sources to cite, or an idea of which sources to cite).  Lineagegeek (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you doing this. Even something informal can provide us a better understanding of what’s going on. Garuda28 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, indeed much appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)