Template talk:Vietnam War

Interwiki

vi:Bản mẫu:Chiến tranh Việt Nam? Newone (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of South Vietnam

@SnowFire:, regarding this edit. Well, the Việt Cộng regarded themselves as citizens of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam until they created their own government, the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam in 1969. While the DRV and PRG were allies this doesn't mean that they were the same state, depicting the Việt Cộng as "northern agents in the South" isn't entirely accurate (although it isn't entirely inaccurate either) and while the Việt Minh / PAVN and the LASV did coordinate together they were still separate entities. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: Sorry about the slow response, was out traveling. I'm familiar with the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam, yes. Just, navigation templates aren't the place for prose & subtlety, and the ones that try become very unwieldly (you can tell because they have subgroups 3 deep and lots of explanatory headers - and this is more harm than good, IMO). Templates are just a list of articles. I think that adding the PRG might be valid, but I don't think representing it and the Viet Cong as independent players is accurate - can you imagine the Viet Cong defying the North Vietnamese government on anything? They were a puppet state only made to respect the letter of the Geneva Conference's borders while ignoring the spirit of the divide, as the unification post-war showed. As such, I think portraying them in parentheses after North Vietnam is the best choice, if still not 100% accurate as you noted. I tried adding a link, do you think that helps at all? SnowFire (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:, I can't believe that I forgot to reply, I think that those changes are fine. The distinction was always vague and that was very deliberate. Even after takeover the Communist South Vietnamese government was essentially a puppet state to the North and most of their policies were subordinate to Northern ones after 1978 though I am planning on adding more context to the political differences later, but these weren't military differences as the VC was wholly dependent on the North Vietnamese so I understand listing them together. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract symbol

I created this abstract symbol based on the Supreme Ultimate Symbol that is used to represent the division between North Vietnam (the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and South Vietnam (the Republic of Vietnam) with the Việt Cộng (Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam) in the "Southern field". This image is used to represent the political division of Vietnam following the Geneva Accords with the Việt Cộng shown in the South Vietnamese field as most of the war was fought between them and the RVN on South Vietnamese soil.

I think that this image could be used in a similar context to the existing Korean War and Chinese Civil War versions of this, but I am not sure if this is the best template for this symbol, please feel free to add it where it would be a good addition. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battles category

@Woodensuperman: First of all, usually I'm on the side of removing excess stuff from overlong templates, so I appreciate the zeal in keeping the template clean. But... that said... I'm not sold here. First of all, the template isn't any longer. There's plenty of room for 3 entries in the final row, it doesn't extend more than 1 entry. Second, sure, if a list existed in article spaced called "List of battles of the Vietnam War", I'd link that in a second. But such a list doesn't exist. So we're stuck linking the category. Some sort of link to a complete-ish list is an obvious thing to include since the battles are just a subset of major and important battles. I'm not saying link every random subcategory, but this is a very obvious and very relevant link to include of some sort, and helps fix the "hey where's this obscure battle" issue. So it should stay.

I'm less of an advocate about the Commons link but don't see including it as problematic either. Wikimedia partners aren't treated as vanilla external links elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's far more common for them to be linked. SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons links are definitely external links. And we do not have external links in navboxes. I care less about the categories. --wooden superman 19:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]