Armed 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.
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 articles
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 aorb 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]
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]
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.
