I see there's no link to Vietnam. We do have a link to Indochina. How should we go about integrating them?
I could have been Vietnam-bound later this week if my damned boss had told us about the holiday a week earlier. Turtle Fan 12:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Vietnam is ok to stand apart from Indochina for our purposes. TR 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've been thinking we should start integrating articles dealing with different governments of the same country into one article. Throw the Parthians and Persians into Iran, the Mongol Empire into Mongolia. We've done it elsewhere: the China article has RC and PRC sections, Germany has Second Reich and Third Reich, Canada's got both the real thing and the Dominion (I've been watching DS9 so that calls up images of another government altogether . . . ) and the France article has more governments than military defeats. (Maybe Vichy should be added to it, by the way?) Soviet Union and Russia, maybe that's one to be kept separate, if only because of the sheer mass of information a combined article would contain.
Anyway, if and when we get around to a Vietnam article, I do think it and Indochina should share a page, under one name or the other. Turtle Fan 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Spooky[]
Isn't this spooky--Exactly one year later (near enough, though it's a little after midnight) I once again notice that this Vietnam War article does not contain a single link to Vietnam. That ought to change.
I never did make it to Vietnam while I lived in Asia. The long weekend in question I instead, among other things, took the DMZ tour and briefly entered North Korea. When I had my vacation and headed to SE Asia I thought long and hard about Hanoi but the guide books said that at that time of year the weather was more pleasant (or less unpleasant, it was really hot and sticky) in Singapore. From there I sailed to Indonesia then returned the same way. Hit Japan as I was leaving the continent for good. Some day I'll see Hanoi. It beckons.
Anyway, all this editing the Wars articles has me interested in making the templates more uniform and also cooler. Complete lists of countries on each side (as long as it wouldn't get insanely cumbersome, as it would for WWII) goes a long way toward that. US's fellow adventurers at this juncture were, correct me if I'm wrong, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the RoK? And France if we want to stress the continuity between the two conflicts, which isn't hard to want to do. Turtle Fan 05:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Links have been added. TR 05:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- As have combatants and a limited number of commanders. Since we don't have articles about Ho or Westmoreland, listing them seems pointless. TR 05:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- EXECUTE HIM Jelay14 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looks better now.
- If no one noticed, I finally deleted all the English and Spanish nobles who never once appeared in RB but played a role in the real Anglo-Spanish War. I left them listed as commanders in the RB template, but without links. Turtle Fan 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Canada?[]
I don't recall Canadian involvement in this conflict? Turtle Fan 19:54, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe Canada was involved in the conflict but sent troops as "Blue Helmets" to monitor the peace accord afterward. Fat lot of good that did. ML4E 21:08, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
- If not for a recent episode of "House", I would not have known this fact. TR 14:52, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Oh? Never watched it. But I do enjoy when tidbits like that prove to have come up in a timely manner. Turtle Fan 17:28, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Alas, Canadian blue helmets do not have the best track record. Can't fault them for trying, though. Turtle Fan 21:46, November 28, 2009 (UTC)