Talk:Uniforms of the United States Space Force

Why does this article exist?
Seriously. There's so little material here because there's no long history to require a full article, unlike the other services which have decades, centuries even, of uniform history to cover. The uniforms lack independent notability, and can and should easily be covered in a section of the main article. This is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and false balance being used to justify an article that is unneeded. Heck, that risk article exists and Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard doesn't (it's just a redirect to the section of the main article) says a lot.

(Well, in the USCG's case it's because someone crated a Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary article without bothering to check if there was one for the actual service; really the CG Aux uniforms are literally the regular USCG uniforms with silver buttons and insignia instead of gold, and that's really all that needs to be said about them.)

Either way, this article is an unneeded split of insufficient material for a separate article that can be easily merged back into the Space Force article without making that article too long. oknazevad (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merging with United States Space Force rank insignia is probably a better option. I'm not a fan of dumping image-heavy tables into main topic articles, and both of these smaller articles are topic-related. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it has enough notability to exist as is, and it is likely to only grow from here. It doesn’t really fit into the main article, so if it does need to be merged I agree with that United States Space Force rank insignia would be the best home, perhaps renamed United States Space Force uniforms and rank. Pinging  since they’re a major contributed to this page to see if they have any comments. Garuda28 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As it stands the info on uniforms isn't too large to include in the main article.
 * And the rank insignia article is, frankly, also unneeded, as there is literally no difference between the Space Force insignia and Air Force insignia. Even if the idea of using naval rank names for the Space Force does go through, that would have no effect on officer insignia as naval officer insignia is the same as the other services on all except dress uniforms. A Navy captain wears the exact same eagle as an Air Force colonel.
 * In short, for a service that has been a separate service for less than a year, we don't need to have all these articles. The idea that they are "likely to grow" is WP:CRYSTALBALL. For all we know the next Congress could decide that the whole idea of having a separate service instead of just a command within the Air Force is an embarrassing exercise in military pomposity and merge it back in before it gets too far along into wasting money on needless trappings. We can't predict anything. That's why CRYSTALBALL exists. We can only judge things as they stand now, and what exists now is that the Space Force is using the same uniforms and insignia as the Air Force. That is literally all that needs to be said. It certainly doesn't need three separate articles. oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"Guardian" or "guardian"
In various USDOD style guides, employee titles (not necessarily ranks) like airman, soldier and sailor are to be capitalised when referring to US personnel. While it is understandable to deviate from that rule when referring to military personnel around the world in a generic neutral way (e.g "airmen often wear similar uniforms to soldiers", referring to a general pattern across all air and land forces), I think there is an exception to be made with "Guardians".

"Guardian" is not a general term for members of a space force, but specifically the US Space Force so I don't think that capitalizing it in line with DOD press-release style would be violating WP:NPOV as there are no other "guardians" that the capitalisation would imply greater importance or superiority to.(e.g "US Airmen and French airmen" adds weight to the US despite the ostensible equivalency, while the equivalent for space forces would be "US Guardians and French space personnel" or "US and French space personnel")

It is also important to note that "guardian" has an alternate legal and cultural usage that airmen, seamen, sailor,soldier do not. So capitalisation has a greater value in differentiating it than those terms. JSory (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we can't do that. Further, this is not an issue that can be decided here, as it is already covered by MOS:MILTERMS. The relevant portion of the guideline states: "Terms such as soldier, sailor, marine, and coast guardsman are not capitalized when describing an individual or a group, but are when used as a rank." Please follow these guidelines until such time as they are changed. You are welcome to make your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and see what happens. BilCat (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "We can't do that". Please refrain from using this argument in the future, MOS is not a policy citing it when addressing a concern about the MOS is irrelevant. JSory (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I will not refrain from using this argument in the future, as the MOS is relevant here. Further, I'll raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters myself if you chose not to, and we'll see what the consensus is there. BilCat (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this before I raise it at the MOS talk page? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , JSory does raise an interesting point. I think an argument could be made for capitalization in this case, but if we do I think Marine and Coast Guardsman also have an argument for capitalization as well, just to ensure we are being consistent with the most common services to be capitalized. Garuda28 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that argument for "Guardian" as having a realistic chance of getting an exception to the guideline. I certainly can't see "Marine" ever being allowed on Wikipedia. As such, I'm probably not the best person to advocate for "Guardian" at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. If I bring it up, it would be to add "guardian" to the list. BilCat (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)