Talk:United States Department of Defense/Archive 2

External links section
Does anyone else think that there way too many external links in this article? It just seems like there is a lot. I think that it should be condensed down to the most important of the ones listed, maybe four to five links at the most. I won't mess with it and let someone else mess with it, but I did remove the YouTube and Twitter links per WP:ELNO.  Corkythehornetfan  |  Chat?  10:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call. Not to mention that a few seem to be weird conspiratory type sites, at least not official sources. Very weird, especially U.S. Reporting Agency WTF??!? Cartographile (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the blatant offenders and 404's that were questionable anyway. I'm sure it could use more improvement but I'm not an expert in External Links guidelines. Cartographile (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with ya... that's why I asked! It looks a lot better now.  Corkythehornetfan  |  Chat?  18:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Links
- Are you using the edit summary as a medium for discussion? Because... that's what the talk page is for. (see WP:SUMMARYONLY) - the WOLF  child  05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SUMMARYONLY, first use listed "Sending messages regarding editing issues". I have no interest in this article & have no interest in coming back to waste time arguing about this article. If Wikipedia didn't keep notifying me of each edit (even though I don't have this article on my watchlist) then I wouldn't have wasted time even coming back to this article after my initial bold edit. I did my dummy edit & had no intention of coming back – until WP notified me that you pinged me. Btw: the article talk page is for discussion of article, not issues you have with editors. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I saw it... and I read past the first five words. It goes on to say; "dummy edits should not be used to hold extensive content discussions; that should be done through talk pages". Your lengthy edit summary was in fact a question. Questions solicit responses. Responses lead to discussions. In short, this is not what dummy edits are for. That said, I'm not sure why you feel the need to "argue" about this, I'm sure we can discuss this like adults. I disagree with the link removal. As stated in my edit summary, that article began as a section within this very article and was just moved to it's own page. It's entirely appropriate to have at least a "see also" link to the new page. As I also stated, there's no reason to suddenly and summarily remove it. However, if you think there is, then this is your opportunity to say why. Lastly, if this is all "a waste of time" for you and you have "no intention of coming back"... then why did you bother with any of this in the first place? Cheers to you as well. - the WOLF  child  08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on United States Department of Defense. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217132151/http://www.gpoaccess.gov///usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-7.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-7.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217132151/http://www.gpoaccess.gov///usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-7.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-7.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312222246/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C305.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C305.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312222228/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C505.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C505.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312221844/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C506.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C506.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312222221/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C805.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C805.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529014041/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C6.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C6.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312222255/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C5.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C5.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312222255/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C5.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C5.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205005029/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205005029/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726045834/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Preceding departments
Propose removing preceding departments (both department of war and department of the navy) since the DoD did not actually replace them. It only absorbed them in 1949 when the National Military Establishment was transformed into the DoD. Prior to that they coexisted with the DoD (department of war transformed directly into department of Army and Deparmtnet of the Air Force), but were never preceding agencies. Garuda28 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - oppose - it's not necessary. While we appreciate your effort to "clean up" the info-boxes of the various US military related articles, some of the changes you are making are either unnecessary or incorrect. (eg: changing "Commander-in-Chief" to "President". It's both redundant, since he's listed with "President" preceding his name and incorrect since in the military, his title is "Commander-in-Chief".) You are making changes to well established content. Fixing typos and spacong is one thing, but I would suggest proposong significant changes on the talk page first (like you've done here). It cuts down on work for others. Cheers - the WOLF  child  02:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * a) please provide a source that it's his title and not role (https://www.defense.gov/Leaders/Secretary-of-Defense/ I.e. DOD refers to him as president, not commander in chief) b) that's not addressing the topic at hand in this talk page. The topic is Department of War as a predecessor Garuda28 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * a) either you're addressing the title issue here, or b) you're not. Which is it? c) I've addressed the topic at hand. I opposed you're propsed change since the DoD did replace war and navy at the cabinet level. - the WOLF  child  02:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * a) I'll create a separate section for CIC. I thought you were addressing that here and not the issue I was addressing. B) if that's the case then we'll have to add Department of the Air Force since it also was replaced by DoD at the cabinet level and Replace Department of War with Army since it replaced the Department of the Army at the cabinet level and did nothing to the War Department. I apologize if I was unclear, my bad.Garuda28 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No apologiy needed, its not a big deal, just a discussion. I think the history of the DoD post WWII was pretty clearly laid out. I didn't see removing anything as helping. But if you think some re-wording is needed, then go for it. But if you make a significant enough of a change, dont be surprised if someone reverts it. That said, obvious improvements usually stand. As for the CiC issue... (addressing it here is fine) I don't see what the issue is. Why are you trying to distinguish between "title" and "role"...? The two aren't mutually exclusive. He is both President of the Nation and CiC of the military. He is addressed as both/either, depending on the circumstances. And as for "providing a source"... its right in the Constitution, what other source would I need? Listing him as CiC in the various branch infoboxes is both correct and proper. Thats why its been that way for years... with all the implied consensus that goes with it. Cheers - the WOLF  child  03:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)