Template talk:ORDATA

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Template‑class

This template 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

Template

This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

ORDATA has moved[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

It's now at https://ordata.info

Worse: all the ID numbers have been reassigned, so all 61 pages that use the template must presumably be individually updated.

As an inexperienced editor and a non-military-historian, I'm wary of undertaking this task in case, through lack of knowledge, I make things worse.

Rural Spaceman (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you get me a list of the old/new ID numbers, I can make the required fixes. Might also be worth dropping a note at MILHIST itself. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made a start, but quickly found that some entries are missing or are referred to by different names here and on ORDATA. I'd rather leave the task to someone who knows the field. I've already notified the template author, who appears to be active in MILHIST, so perhaps I should give them time to respond before contacting the project. Rural Spaceman (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to contact the project. Crowdsourcing and all that. It's faster for 60 people to find one link each than one person to find 60. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done so. I relayed your offer to make the fix: hope that's ok. Rural Spaceman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]