Talk:Joint Services Command and Staff College

Crest

This text refers to the Crest of Joint Service Defence College and not to the Crest of the Joint Services Command and Staff College. The crest currently used is the Ministry of Defence logo [1]. --Panzer71 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joint Services Command and Staff College. 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/20151117033054/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Ministry%20of%20Defence%20Senior%20Posts.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Ministry%20of%20Defence%20Senior%20Posts.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joint Services Command and Staff College. 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/20020615142912/http://www.rafweb.org/Estab1.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/Estab1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620071203/http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc to http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How sad

This isn't about the article or anything, but more an observation. The facilities that HM Armed Forces maintained for general staff training had such beautiful architecture, but the new facilities are so sad in their austere utilitarianism. What a pity it is that the tastes of our time eschew aesthetics in favor of utilitarianism. All one can really do about it is whine about it online, I suppose. Still, it rather speaks volumes about the fall in prominence of the British Armed Forces, I think. Does aesthetic discussion like that have any place on the article? I'd wager that it doesn't since it's mostly a matter of opinion. George Mucus (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)