Talk:Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Falcongrav in topic Person messing with pictures
Featured articleArmed Forces Special Weapons Project is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2021.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 26, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 31, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 30, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the men of the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project took two weeks to assemble their first atomic bomb in December 1946?
Current status: Featured article

Hansen 1995

edit

There are two parts of what seems to be a series of books by Chuck Hansen in the references which have the same publishing year but no marking as a or b and share the same ISBN and OCLC numbers. Is this a mistake and if not, i.e. they have the same numbers, why are there two entries for which would have to be but one? --Bomzibar (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, there are two separate entries. There are seven books in all. They were all published together. The series has an ISBN (978-0-9791915-0-3), and so do the individual volumes. They share the same OCLC. I set the references up so that they are 1995a and 1995b in the Notes but if you click on them they take you to the correct volume in the references. I've just edited the article to set the ISBNs to those of the individual volumes. Are you thinking of translating the articles in German? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the clarification and yes, I plan to translate it and came through this issue as I started to transcribe the references into the preferred de:Wiki style. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Another question: Is 2325-6990 the correct ISSN for Military Affairs? I found two versions in Worldcat and cant check it on JSTOR without an account. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
The correct ISSN is 0026-3931. I do have a JSTOR account, but it's not unlimited. I've added ISSNs to the two journals in the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you again. If you're interested in the progress, my working station for translation can be found over here. --Bomzibar (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the introduction it is said, that the project was a joint organization of all three armed services. I guess Army, Navy and Air Force are meant but what about Marine Corps and Coast Guard which are also services of the armed forces? If they werent included it should be said which services were staffed in the project. --Bomzibar (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is what is meant. I've made it explicit. The Coast Guard is not part of the Department of Defense, and the Marine Corps was represented by the Navy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armed Forces Special Weapons Project. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Person messing with pictures

edit

Why is there someone adding explicit photos to the article over and over again? Falcongrav (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply