Talk:United States Strategic Command

History section
The entire 'History' section was copied and pasted from http://www.stratcom.mil/About/History/ and as such has been removed. It would obviously benefit the article to re-create that section. If no one else does, I'll start working on it when I have some time. FYI - the WOLF  child  00:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * TheWolfChild, I’d love to help if I can. I was a “SAC Trained Killer” from 78 - 86, stationed at Offutt those years working the flightline. A long time ago, I had all the CinC SAC names memorized back to when SAC was established, but I’ve forgotten all that. This would be a fun exercise. TadgStirkland401 (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - Anything you add would need to be supported by reliable sources. But you also need to be wary of any conflict of interest. - the WOLF  child  14:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, neither of those would really be a problem since I was never in Strategic Command. But, since Strategic Command was the command that essentially replaced SAC's primary missions, I have a keen interest. But thanks for the advice. TadgStirkland401 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - If you think you can improve the article, go for it. Editors, and their edits, that make articles better are always welcome. - the WOLF  child  01:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - From the copy/edit you made to my updates, I think you approve of the changes I made in general. Thank you wholeheartedly for the midor tweeks. It was late when I made those changes, and obviously missed a thing or two. You made good catches... I appreciate it. TadgStirkland401 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Images
To address the "assumption" in your edit summary, no... both edits were reverted as a non-improvements. I'm not clear on how your applying MOS, but just the same, instead reverting again, I will instead ask that you please find a better alternative to just lumping those three images together like that. Thank you - wolf  05:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your inquiry! The MOS guideline at issue here, as I mentioned in, is MOS:LISTGAP. The intervening images cause the wikitext parser to create multiple  elements on the page where there should be only a single one, causing issues with screen readers. The two solutions (which are explained in more detail at ) are to either place the images before the list (and allow the rendering engine to manage the text and image flow automatically) or to place the images within individual list items to control where along they list they appear. The latter solution is especially preferable when the images pertain to specific list items. In the case we are discussing, the images did not appear to me to relate directly to the listed J-code groups, so I opted for the first solution. If this was an error in judgement, I can change to the other approach. Ibadibam (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't disputing the affect on list markup. As I said, I was suggesting finding better placement for those images. - wolf  19:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your screen resolution is, but on my browser the images as rendered appear in roughly the same position on the page as they did before; only the underlying wikitext and HTML has changed. But I agree that the placement, as much now as before, is a little haphazard. And the captions don't link the images to STRATCOM in a way that helps the average, casual reader understand why those images are in the article in the first place. There's room for improvement, to be sure. Ibadibam (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I'll leave that to you as part of your improvements to the page. - wolf  20:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Why isn’t ARSTRAT listed?
US Army Space and Missile Defense Command is the land component but I couldn’t find a non-primary source from a quick search. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)