Talk:Space Operations Command

Command Vice Commander
I came across this article https://spacenews.com/air-force-special-operations-command-officer-named-to-senior-post-in-u-s-space-force/ stating that a Brig Gen Conley was named to succeed Brig Gen Davidson as vice commander of the SpOC dated January 31, 2020. The Vanderberg AFB website still lists Davidson as the vice commander, but it's been updated only as of October 2019, it says. Is this accurate? --AFLBulawan (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is. As of now, Brig Gen Conley has only been selected to be the next vice commander - he hasn’t assumed the position yet. Garuda28 (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Space Deltas
Garuda28: You've indicated the deltas' mission or mission as part of the structure section. I think such should be left out as it's not part of the name of the unit, leaving that to be placed the infobox in its own article (if one would be created). What do you think? --AFLBulawan (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article here actually indicates that they do appear to be a part of the unit's name (much like an (airborne) designation in the Army). https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2287005/space-force-begins-transition-into-field-organizational-structure. It could be that they formatted it incorrectly, but we'll need them to release more information to ascertain that. I think articles should be created as well, but we need more information on them first (like structure). Garuda28 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

USSPACECOM as the infobox command structure parameter
I believe that USSPACECOM was put in the command structure section as SpOC is the Space Force service component command to USSPACECOM; mirrors what we have going on at other service components like United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command, United States Naval Forces Central Command, United States Marine Forces Europe and Africa, etc. Garuda28 (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And that is, at least now, incorrect. SpOC as SpOC is for Space Force; SpOC as CFSCC is for U.S. Space Command. CFSCC has its own page and should have U.S. Space Command in that infobox parameter. And we should have a page for Operation Olympic Defender or at least more on it at NSDC. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we may be on slightly different wavelengths here. I’m in full agreement that CFSCC is an integral component of SPACECOM, rather I’m saying that SpOC is the Space Force’s service component to Space Command in the same sense that 1st Air Force is the Air Force’s service component to Northern Command or U.S. Army Europe is to European Command. They’re (as you correctly say) two different organizations, just with common leadership, which isn’t really pertinent to what I’m trying to convey. The source that describes the relationship is here: https://www.vandenberg.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2047853/14th-air-force-redesignated-as-space-operations-command/. Fully agree on fleshing out Olympic Defender more as well. Garuda28 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * More accurately, we disagree about which of the two options should be placed in the infobox. This is why I almost think we should get rid of infoboxes. Succinctly, this is the admin hat of this command, thus I believe it should be associated with the admin side - the service, USSF. The operational side should be with SpaceCom. Do please elsewhere do not, incorrectly, attribute USAREUR with NorthCom; I believe you may be thinking of United States Army Forces Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a typo on my part - I was thinking Army Europe with European Command. From my perspective looking at it I’m considering SpOC and CFSCC to be two separate commands, although you are 100% correct that CFSCC is pretty much SpOC with some additions from other services and nations. So I can better understand your position on this, would you be willing to articulate your thoughts on why putting the combatant commands in the infobox for other organizations like SMDC or NAVFORCENT would or would not be appropriate? I’m not attached to doing this one way or the other, just trying to keep some consistency in the info boxes for service components to combatant commands. For the same reason, I don’t think it’s necessary to have the Space Force listed as the part of section; I haven’t seen a high level command have the part of section listed as the same as service before, usually just left as blank. Garuda28 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually these formations do *not* have two hats/names - NAVCENT is in both the operational and administrative chains with one single designation. It only makes it complicated when they do have two hats/names, but when they do, let's respect the actual functions being described, and whether they are operational or admin. That leaves us the situation, usually, when they have one name. Does WP have a policy or practice saying they should be "part of" their unified combatant command or their environmental, administrative, service? You seem to be saying that you've been trying to keep some sort of consistency, but is that just your practice? If there are arguments both ways, should there not be a discussion about it as per standard wikiguidelines? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely there should be discussion. It’s certainly something I’ve been focused on, but the practice (and what seems to be consensus among users on this issue) seems to far predate. It does have me thinking - technically these service component commands (all of them) are not technically part of the combatant commands, but rather part of the services providing to the combatant commands. It may make more sense for an infobox parameter to say something along the lines of "combatant command" to be more accurate. Thoughts? Garuda28 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"First and second formations" of SpOC
Transferred from Talk:United States Space Force:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It's on the last sentence, 7th paragraph here: . 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).
 * Transferred for background. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The wild west
this is a redirect and the word "west" isn't mentioned once in the cfscc page. Just sayin'... something to look into. - wolf  23:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just made some edits on the CFSCC page which should clear up the relationship. Garuda28 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool - wolf  23:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Space Operations Command linage question
With 14th Air Force now redesignated as Space Operations Command, would that mean that all of the history, lineage, and awards would transfer over? That’s my understanding, but I wanted to check with an expert first. Garuda28 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If this was in fact a redesignation, yes, the lineage etc. remain. My only caveat is that what I have seen so far about this is press releases and Public Affairs types are not always faithful to the correct organizational terms.  I have seen a number of inactivations and simultaneous activations referred to in publicity as redesignations, which they were not.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I’ll hold off on any of that until something more official comes out. Garuda28 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been informed by AFHRA that Space Operations Command was returned to the Air Force and redesignated Fourteenth Air Force, so a new Space Operations Command has been formed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLDLY transferred from User talk:Lineagegeek, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of a United States Space Force major general.svg

Air Force Space Command lineage
It looks like SpOC is officially a redesignation of Air Force Space Command and has been confirmed from AFHRA. (https://www.afhra.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/2886917/space-operations-command-ussf/). Garuda28 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * what are your thoughts on this? I've already moved over (and I'd say improved) the history section and looking through AFSPC, there really isn't much more there (AFSPC's article is barely standing on its own, as is). I think merging would match how we handled SMC to SSC, except that we knew that one was happening ahead of time and they only recently confirmed the SpOC heritage. Garuda28 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Garuda, AFHRA has recently published several Space Force lineages, also including Space Training and Readiness Command. I believe that WP:MILMOS would call for a merger of the two articles into Space Operations Command, with a hatnote about Fourteenth Air Force's brief holding period for the designation.  Go through the merger process on the articles, I'd support--Lineagegeek (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse Lineagegeek. LG, can you provide links to these seemingly-"hidden" lineages? They don't appear to have activated the main Space Force lineage listing yet..Buckshot06 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! what I've found so far is (https://www.afhra.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/2886931/space-systems-command-ussf/), (https://www.afhra.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/2886936/space-training-and-readiness-command-ussf/). Some of the field units show a change from AFSPC to USSF, but I'm unsure if its to the service USSF or the former AF MAJCOM USSF now SpOC. Garuda28 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. KingEdinburgh (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Live Long and Prosper
Dear and, you're Americans, can you write to your senators please and get this adopted as the command's motto? :) :) :) fyi . Buckshot06 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm writing my congresswoman and senators to ask for "To boldy go..." BilCat (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And Buckshot, you shouldn't have to be told not to put jokes in the articles. We get a little leeway on the talk pages, hence my previous response, but even then sometimes it's too much. BilCat (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the advice I have always been given. I think the last comment I received on the subject was that there was a little leeway for very longtime users. Certainly, my doing so is extremely rare. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Best one I've ever seen was Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_49. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)