Talk:United States Army Futures Command

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Army Futures Command article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Outer space#Cislunar space|cislunar space]] The anchor (#Cislunar space) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

FortBlissBugle.com should be a dead link

@Thewolfchild: FortBlissBugle.com is no longer a US Army news site. After the FortBlissBugle news letter was discontinued by the army, the link was usurped. This good faith edit is allowing a gaming site to appear when the FortBlissBugle.com ref is clicked from the article page. Please put the dead link back in its former location in the ref's URL. That hack prevents the gaming site from appearing. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 08:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way in which the ref was previously set up caused an issue with the layout of the page. People looking at the original ref may have not been able to open it by clicking on it, but anyone could simply select it (eg: I just right-click & highlight and my browser asks me if I want go to that page).

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I added a link to an archive copy of the page. That is what people will use now. As for the original link, I can add a note that it is now a casino blog, and try to find a way to disable it, that doesn't cause problems with the page, and for people trying to read it. I'm sure a solution will be found in short order. - wolf 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link to the archive copy of that page? Sorry, I didn't see that link. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The initial cite that was being addressed is currently #748. The first link in the cite (piped with the ref's title) is the archived link from wayback. The second link, piped as "original" is just that. I've since made the same repair to another fortblissbugle (fbb) cite, currently #139.

A third ffb cite is packaged with other cites as a part of #330. There was an archive link available for it so I swapped that in and added a note. It's still suppressed and I may come back later and create a proper, visible cite for it, but I've left it as is for now because I think this article needs a major overhaul, especially wrt the refs. There's waaay too many refs, (and alot of notes as well) especially for the amount of content.

There was one other cite with a dead link (#403) that I added a archived link to. It had that rather odd method of plunking a "dead link" template right in the middle of the url. (Never seen that before) It caused the full url to appear in the reflist and it interfered with the cite next to it. That is what first brought my attention to the ffb cites. - wolf 21:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The warning about "intricate detail" and "excessive citations" should be removed.

I come to Wikipedia for intricate detail and citations. If someone wants to add an abstract or simple summary, they are welcome to do so. Something as big as the Army Futures command is going to have a lot of detail, and a lot of citations. Corrosion Chemist (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put the flag up didn't even bother to start a discussion here, and nobody else has done so since then.

I find that as more than adequate proof the warning is spurious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrosion Chemist (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]