Talk:United States Army Futures Command

FortBlissBugle.com should be a dead link
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  &#124; contribs) 08:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. -  w o lf  09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the link to the archive copy of that page? Sorry, I didn't see that link. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 10:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. - w o lf  21:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)