Talk:Vandenberg Space Force Base

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Space Force's 30th Space Wing serves as the host wing for the base[edit]

Surely the base hosts the wing, not vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.114.91 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the case. A wing is usually designated at the “host wing” meaning they run the base. Garuda28 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do you mean "designated AS the “host wing”"?

Visitor centers[edit]

Are there visitor centers and rocket exhibitions? Are there tours for visitors?

"Vandenberg is also used for the launch of non-militaric satellites in polar orbits"[edit]

i have very serious doubts as to whether 'militaric' is a real word (apologies if it's a typo)

i think 'military' suits ok - changing article to reflect this

ahpook 13:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle[edit]

"Over $100,000 were spent on the new space shuttle modifications." um, that figure sounds insanely low, but I'm not changing it since I don't have the actual figures. Jafafa Hots 12:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runway Extension etc.?[edit]

I was stationed at Vandenberg in the 70's and worked on the flightline there. Wasn't the runway at Vandenberg lengthened to accomodate expected landings of the Space Shuttle in the late 70's? If so, this should be included in the article. Also some mention of the program in which Minuteman Missiles were test-launched from C-5A aircraft in a program that came out of Vandenberg during the same time. Spyneyes 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abort options for a shuttle going to polar orbit?[edit]

At Other launch sites...? on Space.com's forums, I was wondering what abort options where available for a orbiter attempting to reach polar orbit from Vandenberg by launching south. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy novel...[edit]

I think Vandenberg was the launch site for an ASAT operation in one of the earlier Clancy novels. RobertTaylor21 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slick 6 (shuttle) catastrophic design flaw[edit]

My stepfather worked at VFB for a number of years in the mid 1980s. He told me that the air force and nasa utterly failed in the construction of slick 6 - this is the explanation he gave me:

Slick 6 at VAFB is a closed vented pad. The back (bottom when standing as an upright package) of the shuttle sits nearly at ground level. The pad sits on the top of a high bluff just a few hundred yards from the coast. In order to prevent the exhaust from damaging the facilities and launch vehicle, vent tunnels were created that would vent the exhaust out to the side of the bluff to the ocean. This differs greatly from the space shuttle launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center, where the launch vehicles sit high off the gound at the pad and use a simple deflector to divert the blast off to the sides of the facility.

Now the problem: In at least one case (sorry, but I don't remember and cant find the mission number) the shuttles main engines had started but the launch was aborted before launch at something like T-0:02 (ie: no SRB ignition) and resulting in MECO while on the pad. During the engine shutdown sequence, the fuel/oxidizer mixture becomes unstable and results in a near explosive force as mixture leans out (anyone who has ever gas welded can discuss or demonstrate the "pop" when one shuts off the fuel before the oxygen). It was determined by NASA that if such a shutdown occurred at slick 6, the vents would not be sufficient to counter the overpressure created by such a shutdown and such a shutdown would likely destroy the vehicle, launch assembly, and kill the crew. This is not a problem at KSC since the pads are open vented and such these high overpressures simply disperse. I was told that this is why the shuttle never flew from VAFB as the cost of refitting the pad and all the support structures was just not worth the effort and expense for the air force (since this slick was really for military payloads for the airforce and not for nasa). Also note that such closed vented launch facilities are common at VAFB, however such a setup is simply not ideal for manned spaceflight since the cost of failure costs more than just money in such a case.

If these facts check out, it would be an interesting information to be wikified and integrated into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 15:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Polar Orbit[edit]

As a quick response to using the space shuttle to achieve a polar orbit - The reason the US places its primary launch facilities in Florida was due to its proximity to the equator and it allows launches to the east without crossing land until you hit Africa. This is important because the launch vehicles carry very finite amounts of fuel (energy) and can barely attain orbit under ideal circumstances. Launching the east means that the earth's rotation is contributed to the energy budget since just sitting at the pad the vehicle is in essence already traveling with around 1000 mph of delta-V for orbit. If you wanted to launch to the west, you have to basically attain around 1000 mph (ie: in atmosphere) just to hit 0 velocity for orbit. Also being near the equator means that you do not need to expend as much fuel to sychronize your orbital plan with either the equator or to align with other solar targets (ie: moon, mars, etc.). This plane is what creates "launch windows" that allow the spacecraft to launch into an orbit essentially already aligned to solar targets (rember the earth has a 6 degree inclination in the orbital plane). This is why when you see the big map in mission control, most trajectories appears as a sinewave undulating back and forth over the equator.

Anyway, back to polar orbit. Polar orbit requires more energy than eastern launch orbit due to the first part I mentioned which is the contribution of the earths own motion and rotation to the launch. Without this contribution, I am sure the shuttle could make orbit (polar) since it has more excess energy than any orbital insertion vehicle ever built (Apollo does not count as its intent was to leave orbit) however there would certainly be a severe payload penalty and/or it would impact the ability to achieve higher orbits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 15:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Due to its geographic location, VAFB is only suitable for polar and retrograde orbits. The shuttle was designed to reach polar orbit from VAFB and land back at VAFB – that's why it has those huge wings... ComputerGeezer 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VAFBs location does not preclude prograde orbits for any reason other than safety. The reason you launch prograde from Florida and retrograde from California is simply a matter of the space vehicles not overflying populated areas during the boost phase of the flight that is the most likely flight regime to experience failures. This precaution lessons the possibility of a crash into populated terrain. Ideally you want your launch vehicle to acheive orbit before it will pass close to any populated area so that if the vehicle was to malfunction or be destroyed by flight safety due to loss of control that its debris would not pose a serios risk to the population below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the earth has a 6 degree inclination in the orbital plane" - does it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.114.91 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps referring to the Earth's orbit inclination to Sun's equator which is close to the weighted average of all planetary orbits in the solar system (invariable plane). Rairden (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article rating[edit]

Currently this article is rated by three wikiprojects. WikiProject Space rates it Start-Class, the Aviation WikiProject rates it B-Class and the Military history WikiProject rates it B-Class. I considered up-rating it to B-Class for WikiProject Space, but decided not to do so because of the relative lack of references and citiations. (Of course anyone else may make this change if they wish, but for convenience, here's a checklist of areas often considered for a B-Class rating: Referencing and citation, Coverage and accuracy, Structure, Grammar, Supporting materials.) (sdsds - talk) 03:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandenberg in popular culture[edit]

  • Vandenberg was the launch site of the American space shuttle in the James Bond film Moonraker.
  • In the movie, Terminator 3, Vandenberg was mentioned as one of the bases that were annexed by Skynet.
  • Vandenberg appears in first season JAG episode "Recovery." The episode, set in 1995, depicts Vandenberg's military space shuttle operations as active and ongoing. In the episode, Shuttle Atlantis (which appears on screen, but is exclusively referred to in dialogue simply as "the space shuttle") is launched on a mission to repair a US spy satellite, only to be jeopordized by a traitor American scientist paid by the Chinese government to sabotage the recovery mechanism. Sleuthing LCDR Harmon Rabb and LTJG Meg Austin foil the plot.
  • In the 1995 film Outbreak, The Vandenberg Airbase is the place where the bomber take off to the infected town to deploy the bomb.
  • In a second season episode of A&E's Mindfreak, Criss Angel visits Vandenberg in a tribute to the Armed Forces. Among other tricks, Angel makes a Hummer appear as though from thin air.
Project to move all Trivia to Talk. LanceBarber (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter names in Spaceport template[edit]

Regarding the template {{Spaceport}} used on this page, please join the discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names.
(sdsds - talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

What is the purpose of including this section? I nominate it for removal. LorenzoB (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO shoots down missile over Vandenberg Air Force Base[edit]

Why is there no information on the subject here about this incident where a UFO shot down a missile on video camera that we can now see on youtube? Is it due to lack of interest or censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.224.200.34 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it only happened in some crackpots imagination...? Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Hi, Ckruschke. Two problems with your careless and likely uninformed comment. First, Prof. Robert Jacobs ain't no crackpot. He was an Air Force lieutenant who went on to teach at Bradley Univ. He's a clear-headed, clear-speaking observer who in 1964 handled filming of missle launches. Second, it happened on a film shown by his commanding officer a day or two after the launch and not in Jacobs' imagination. The reason nothing is in here about this is that it contradicts the prevailing Wikipedia editors' belief about what the world is like, no more, no less.Moabalan (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture[edit]

Delta II and NPP at dusk

featured picture at the commons, though i can see we probablly dont need more images here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting spaceport until citations are added[edit]

Citations are a minimum to maintain such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.128.147.80 (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Canyon Fire[edit]

Add Honda Canyon Fire to history. The fire burned more than 10,000 acres (4,000 ha) and killed 4 people including the base commander, and two fire chiefs, see Vandenberg Air Force Base p 66-68

Page Cleanup[edit]

This page is VERY large and I think is in desperate need of some clean up and breaking into subpages. For example, the entire section on Ballistic missile testing I think should be turned into a 2-3 paragraph section on this page with a link to a main article perhaps called Ballistic missile testing at Vandenberg Air Force Base. This particular topic is a bit outside of the scope of what I normally work on but I would like to spearhead the cleanup. Are there any other editors who are watching this page that might be interested in helping or at least voicing an opinion? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckruschke, Beatgr, Nasa-verve, Carlossuarez46, and Mercurywoodrose: I see your names a bunch in the edit log... Any thoughts? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your previous request - I'm not on too often so thanks for the shout-out. Actually my opinion is it's not the missile testing section that is dragging the page down, it's the long list of Launch Facilities. IMO removing these would remove about 40% of the page's space. It would also be - very - easy to pull this out and create a daughter page of only this content with a sentence or two header added in. In fact, it would take me about 5 min. What do you think? Ckruschke (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I support the need for improvements. I agree the list of Launch Facilities is too long. It doesn't need to be one big table. All the sites in the inactive section don't need to be labeled as inactive. Active launch sites, Inactive launch sites, Active ICBM testing sites and Inactive ICBM testing sites should all be level 2 headings with each site a level 3 heading followed by paragraph. The section names should be changed too because the ICBM testing sites are ICBM test launch sites and the launch sites are orbital launch sites. This should be done whether or not the content is moved to a new page. Mattise135 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I could create the page and then we could edit from there. Ckruschke (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Created page List of Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facilities and pasted all the material from the "Facilities" section into it. I left the Heritage Center info on the parent page as the new daughter page already includes info on SLC-10. Feel free to edit/change/manipulate as you guys see fit. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
@Ckruschke: thanks for helping out on this! TEAMWORK!!! :-p One note, a few of the references broke when you copied and pasted the content. Would you mind cleaning that up? Also I think that some of those references are dead links now. Would be fantastic if you could check them. Also, there is a template that we should use on all these subpages. {{Vandenberg}} (which redirects to Template:Vandenberg Air Force Base) should include links to all the subpages. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "see also" for the page I created. I don't think you use a "redirect" - that's for similar named pages that have no content.
I think someone else can fix the dead refs since I did everything else. Ckruschke (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I think another good move would be to clean up the history section. IMHO, this page could do with a MUCH shorter history section and then a subpage that is History of Vandenberg Air Force Base. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckruschke: "Everything else"? You copied and pasted text to a new page... Bravo... And it was your edits that broke the regerences in the first place. They worked before you cut and pasted the text. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I see how it is. Enjoy... Ckruschke (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Vandenberg Air Force Base. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vandenberg Air Force Base. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Vandenberg Air Force Base. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Clear and overwhelming consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Garuda28 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Vandenberg Air Force Base → Vandenberg Space Force Base – On 2021-05-14, Vandenberg Air Force Base is scheduled to be renamed to Vandenberg Space Force Base. We should update the title of the article accordingly when that happens.

[KSBY source] osunpokeh (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to fix this malformed request (the current title was a redirect, and redirects cannot be current titles in move requests) this premature page move has been reverted. This page should not be renamed at least until this request is closed and the community consensus at WP:NAMECHANGES has been satisfied. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but not before then. AP News — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fettlemap (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Llacb47 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tysseract (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved osunpokeh (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, User:Paine Ellsworth, why did you revert my move? osunpokeh (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paine Ellsworth, please correct your mistake, as I have no way of doing so (error message). The subject has already been renamed on May 14. Your reverting of my move was in error. osunpokeh (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page move was reverted for reasons I noted above. Besides the policy I referenced, WP:OFFICIALNAME is also a good read. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And any source to state that Vandenberg Air Force Base is the current name, rather than Vandenberg Space Force Base? [1] [2] [3] [4] osunpokeh (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think the names of active bases of the United States Military qualify for that argument. It's said "Space Force Base" on the front gate for three days now. Metropod (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vandenburg Space Force Base is the official name now. It must be moved. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether an admin will move the page until this move discussion is officially closed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Liz, the article "Vandenberg Space Force Base" currently redirects to "Vandenberg Air Force Base" after Ellsworth reverted my move. I filed CSD for "Vandenberg Space Force Base" to make way for the page move. Fingers crossed that it goes through soon. osunpokeh (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too soon per the WP:NAMECHANGES Wikipedia policy and community consensus. The new name must be used routinely in recent, secondary, independent, reliable sources. The current name of the article, Vandenberg Air Force Base, is the WP:COMMONNAME of this article until recent reliable sources say otherwise. Note that "routine" mention does not include sources that merely announce the name change. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear P. I. Ellsworth,
    First, recent secondary sources reporting on ABL Space's dealings and launch sites have used "Vandenberg Space Force Base," including this and this — note that the former actually used "Space Force Base" prior to the official renaming. We should expect more and more secondary sources will mention Vandenberg Space Force Base as more launches occur from there.
    Second, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was moved to Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on the very same day that the spaceport was renamed (2020-12-09). We are currently three days past the renaming of the base and the page has not been moved.
    Third, this is not a controversial request. We currently stand at 6 !supports (5 excluding myself) to 1 !oppose. Your claim to "community consensus" is nonsense, as in fact community consensus exists against your current position.
    Fourth, check the first four words in the text of this article.
    Fifth, the move has already occurred on the Spanish, French, and Italian Wikipedias, among others.
    Thank you.
    osunpokeh (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) More sources are needed to satisfy Wikipedia policy. (2) Our concern here should be for this article, not other articles. (3) The small local consensus in this RM does not override the community consensus that supports Wikipedia policy. (4) We are not here to discuss the wording of the lead sentence, just the article title, although the former name should be given a mention so as not to astonish our readers. (5) This is the English Wikipedia, and while I'm a firm supporter of WP:IAR, there must be very good reason to ignore our policies and guidelines. Your welcome. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal to the first three points:
    1. How many? Are we going to wait until a specific, arbitrary numerical quantity is exceeded, or are we going to anticipate that it's going to happen sooner or later and move by precedent that this has happened to CCSFS? Again, we're three days late.
    2. OSE explicitly states that "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." I personally believe that precedent should take effect, and five six seven others agree with me.
    3. As per Metropod, U.S. military bases don't qualify for that argument. As per WP:SPNC, I see no reason why Vandenberg Space Force Base would not be the primary name used in publications now. I believe that this is more of a Pope Francis scenario than a Cat Stevens one. That said, I need to sleep. :::osunpokeh (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How many sources needed may vary. I've seen cases where I finally agreed that there were enough sources to support a name change, but other editors came in and disagreed with me. More than "other stuff exists" is needed to override policy. That argument can be valid, but it is still weak on its own. Editor Metropod's opinion is of course respected, and yet it is still just an opinion. The policy is clear, so rather than continuing to argue against policy and community consensus, editors might want to start looking for reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's policy, the more the better. Time well spent? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to imply that Metropod's opinion is an opinion but you and your interpretation of policy is the impartial arbiter of truth now? osunpokeh (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is clear and needs no interpretation, not by me nor by you. All the time you spend trying to get on my good side is wasting precious time better spent by finding additional recent, reliable sources to support the name change per the policy. I've included a source finding template near the top of this page that can help in this. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These polices, like it or not, are NOT gospel. For every rule is an asterisk, an exception. For example, if you are so deadset on using Common name as your sticking point, then article should is just be "Vandenberg" because that's what everyone ACTUALLY calls it. "A Falcon 9 is launching from Vandenberg next week with... blah blah blah" Active military units, facilities and other things have their names granted to them in a way that carries the weight of ACTUAL US federal law, not some vague rule on the internet thought up to try to stop arguments (and failing miserably at it). You are insisting that a base of one branch of the military continue to carry the name of a different branch. Patrick and Cape Canaveral were both renamed to show their Space Force status late last year as part of the Space Force's 1st anniversary and no one made a stink about it. Paine, you've been outvoted 9 to 1 so far. Consensus exists, that the title of this article should be "Vandenburg Space Force Base". there is no shame in admitting you lost and move on to something else. I mean honestly, are you really going to die on this hill? Metropod (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right of course, policies and guidelines are not written in stone to be sure. Jimbo in his infinite wisdom made sure that editors could fall back on WP:IAR when there exists a very good reason to ignore policies and guidelines. On the other hand, policies and guidelines are honed and shaped by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, which takes precedence over just about everything, to include a local consensus such as we have here in this move request. As for insisting that a base continue to carry a different name, no, you are missing the point. I'm only insisting that this article about the base continue to carry what remains the COMMONNAME and most well-known name of the air base until it can be shown that the new name has become the COMMONNAME and used routinely in recent, independent, secondary, reliable sources. Until you can show very good reason to ignore policy and community consensus, this article should continue to bear the air base's common name. Please stop trying to be so personal as if I have some kind of personal stake in this article's title not changing. All I'm doing is pointing out that a name change of a Wikipedia article is a serious proposition and never should be taken lightly. Compare the still very large number of our readers who are as yet unaware of Vandenburg's name change to the handful of editors in this discussion who should know better than to support such a page move too early, to soon after the change. Then compare that same handful of editors in this discussion to the hundreds of editors, thousands of editors who, over time, have shaped Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Seems to call for humility in the face of such large ratios, doesn't it? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have shown time and time again that your interpretation of policy is sketchy at best. See the fourth point here in WP:BRDD.
    On the other hand, repeatedly rehashing old arguments without new reasoning might strike some editors as being disruptive (see also rehashing). It is OK to disagree with a past consensus, but use reasonable discretion when you want to revisit such issues.
    And how does keeping it as "Vandenberg Air Force Base" exactly help those people again? It's pretty clear that the real confusion will be caused when somebody happens upon this page and sees two entire names at once because the page move was held up. osunpokeh (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and here's another great line from WP:BRDD:
    Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept "It's policy, live with it."
    osunpokeh (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read those passages out loud while looking in a mirror. I'm not "interpreting" policy, I'm merely citing it, and the policy, backed by community consensus, is crystal clear. So please cease the bludgeoning, because your time is better spent digging up proper reference citations to support the name change per Wikipedia's article title policy. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You happy now?
    osunpokeh (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say you're almost there, my friend. The first and third links, "You" and "now", routinely mention the new name; however, the middle link, "happy", still refers to the base as "Vandenburg Air Force Base" in the image caption, so it's a bust. A few more such links as "You" and "now" and I will gladly reverse my !vote and rationale. Of course, that's no guarantee that other "policy sticklers" won't show up and crash this party. See Talk:Entercom#Requested move 25 April 2021 where I recently changed my oppose to a support only to have more editors come and oppose the name change. So the more reliable sources the better! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another one, and a news source that affirms that VSFB is the current name, and please check back on the text of the previous one you mentioned. It explicitly mentions Vandenberg Space Force Base in the text. osunpokeh (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two very good reasons: you still haven't addressed how Patrick Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station were moved the day that the subjects were renamed. If you're citing policy, you're clearly missing the point that COMMONNAME doesn't apply here because the name of the base is the COMMONNAME. Precedence exists that for the renaming of military bases, we don't wait for it to trickle into the news, we move it. Simple as that. If you don't have a good rebuttal to this argument, the page must be moved, and it must be moved immediately. Thank you.
    osunpokeh (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot account for other editors not following policy in past discussions, only in this one. The Article titles policy does apply here. Just to say that it doesn't apply is not enough of a reason to ignore all rules. By now, it is likely that the two articles you mention are titled correctly according to reliable sources, but they shouldn't have been moved so soon after renaming without taking RS into account. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors "did not follow policy" (or at least your interpretation of it) in the interest of using the correct name. It is clear from instances such as Cape Canaveral Air Space Force Station that when a military base changes its name, the new name immediately takes effect. Nobody rational is going to continue using the previous name. osunpokeh (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that said sources will report that Vandenberg Air Force Base had been renamed to Vandenberg Space Force Base, and then continue using "Vandenberg Air Force Base." osunpokeh (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support osunpokeh makes exceptionally reasonable points and this article needs to be moved. Respectfully, P. I. Ellsworth, your position really does not make sense here. You're accusing someone else of ignoring consensus when every other editor (now close to 10 by my count) who has weighed in on this issue has voted in favor of moving. And the policy you're pointing to does not overcome that consensus as we now also have multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources adopting the new name.DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that editor Osunpokeh and others here make reasonable points; however, the policy I cited is clear. What doesn't make sense to me is a lot of handwaving and nobody actually showing reliable sources that use the new name routinely in accordance with the NAMECHANGES policy. And I'm not "accusing" anybody of anything. My opposition is just a gentle reminder that Wikipedia has policies that are against article name changes being made until recent, independent, secondary, reliable sources use the new name routinely. So do please try to understand. Article titles should not be changed until they are supported in reliable sources. If, as you say, "we now also have multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources adopting the new name", then let's see them. Please remember that sources who merely announce the name change do not count as "routine" usages of the new military base name. The new name must be used in other contexts routinely as a matter of course. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to imply anything, but have you read my two sources from earlier? osunpokeh (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the executivegov and defensedaily pages, they pretty much mirror each other, but yes, that is the type of source we need more of, as many as possible. As has been said, more sources should appear fairly rapidly. They just need to be found and used to support this name change. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It’s become the official name for the base. ABC’s another source that’s calling it Vandenberg Space Force Base. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That source is about the renaming. BilCat (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's already being used in publications that aren't about the renaming, as pointed out above. This article in Politico was published nearly a month ago, and uses "Vandenberg Space Force Base" without reference to its being renamed. (While its possible the name was updated after the renaming, that's still an indication the new name is being used in preference over the old one.) So while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's reasonable to assume this usage will only increase. Patrick Space Force Base and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station were renamed in December, and moved on the same day with no disputes since. Also, when stadium and arena names are changed for locations in North America, those articles are generally moved as soon as the name is officially announced as being in use. That's certainly the case here, as new signage is up and in use. Rules and guidelines exist for a reason, but they need to be used with some common sense a la WP:IAR. The US Space Force is likely to be renaming more bases in the future, and I sincerely hope we don't have to have this argument every time a base is renamed. BilCat (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:BLUDGEON, I don't intend to respond to any rebuttals from the lone editor in opposition to the move. I'll leave it the closer to determine if my comments are valid or not. BilCat (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are not alone. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes you are. Good luck getting any meaningful number of people on your side without meatpuppeting. osunpokeh (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You must mean "canvassing", which I don't do because it is against policy, much like renaming this article before the new name becomes common in RS. You are really strongly invested in the title change, aren't you. Makes me wonder why. I'm certainly not strongly interested in the name either way. The redirected new title will get the few folks that already know about the name change to the article. Instead of badgering me, why aren't you out looking for reliable sources that will support the title change? Seems you would rather try to rattle my cage than do the right thing. I said "seems like"; I could be wrong, so I'll continue to AGF, unlike some people in this conversation. Cheers! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Redirects exist, and they exist for this precise reason. Those looking for VAFB will find VSFB 100% of the time because we would have the VAFB article redirect to the VSFB one. Also, I would happily like to listen to your explanation why being the 1 in 10-1 is not a strong investment in itself. osunpokeh (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with you about redirects, and when the time comes, when reliable sources support the page move, then it will be right and proper to swap the redirect for the article title, and not until. And believe me, although it appears to be about 10:1, it is really more like 10:1000 or more when community consensus is taken into account. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMON. Preventing this change is not improving Wikipedia. Jwolfe (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new name is not the common name until recent reliable sources use it as the common name!>) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the point, it has ONE name and only ONE name, the name given to it by the government. Commonname doesn't apply because it doesn't have one. You say "most well known name of the air base"... When It's NOT an "air" base any more, it's a Space base. It belongs to the United States Space Force now and has been renamed to reflect it's new owner. That could confuse someone reading it for the first time, making them think it belongs to the Air Force... which it no longer does. Let me bring up another subject I recently dealt with: Stadium naming rights. A minor league baseball affiliate of my favorite MLB team, just yesterday, announced the naming rights of the their stadium had been purchased by a new sponsor. Every time I've seen that happen in professional sports, once the change has been confirmed, the article is renamed IMMEDATLY. and I think there are WAY more people interested in pro sports teams then on a space launch complex on the California coast. So what we have here is about a dozen people who want to make this article better and you, the rulemister, who is bludgeoning the rest of us with a policy that, again, doesn't apply in this circumstance. Metropod (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Couldn't have phrased it better myself. You seriously believe that everyone's going to continue calling this an Air Force Base? Again, use common sense. Any visitors with the authority to make this decision, please do so immediately, a consensus has developed. osunpokeh (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CRS-20 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Space Force Base is the official name and its operated by the Space Force, seems invoncievable that the common name would remain AFB. Thx811 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updating References from Air Force Base to Space Force Base[edit]

Just a quick note when editing this page that care should be taken to update current references to "Space Force Base" while maintaining historical references as "Air Force Base". The name was changed on Friday, May 14th, 2021. Any event that happened on the base prior to this date should not be renamed as having occurred at Vandenberg Space Force Base because Vandenberg Space Force Base did not exist at that time. For example, the main picture on the right depicting the launch of a Delta IV Heavy at Vandenberg Air Force Base on 28 August 2013 was incorrectly updated to say Vandenberg Space Force Base. This obviously would not match up with the references, and it would complicate historical searches for that event.  DGrundler  talk  15:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial issue here on Wikipedia. All part of what happens on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit! (They do!) Just do your best to correct it, and don't be too surprised when it gets changed again! BilCat (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand that. Just hoping to educate more folks with a gentle reminder.  DGrundler  talk  21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vandenberg_Space_Force_Base&oldid=1213218441"