Talk:Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010
 | A news item involving Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 October 2010. |  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for uploading this. Shouldn’t it follow the normal order of UK military precedence? The navy first, then the army, then the air force. Chwyatt (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pleasure, important topic. As for the order I just went alphabetical - B, RA, RN Mark83 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Criticism
[edit]Shoudln't there be a section of the criticism of the SDSR--there was and still is quite a bit.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Title
[edit]I see that someone has today changed the lede to refer to "Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010". Obviously we usually word the lede to agree with the article title, so is it planned to move the article to Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010? Presumably so, if the successor is going to be referred to as Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015? The government are certainly using the term "Strategic Defence and Security Review" for this year's review, such as at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/strategic-defence-and-security-review-public-engagement. I guess that when the new one happens, or is being regularly discussed in reliable sources, we'll have to consider whether one or other is a primary topic for "Strategic Defence and Security Review", or whether a dab page should point at both instances. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, go ahead and make the improvements STKS91 (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Would it not be better with the year at the front, i.e. 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101222022127/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf to http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)