Template_talk:Campaignbox_Vietnam_War
Template talk:Campaignbox Vietnam War
 | Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can more knowledgeable members add some sections to the template? As it is now, battles and operations by by participants are unsorted.--Kevin586 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be something in the underlying code for this template that is causing a problem at the main article on the Vietnam War. Regardless of where the template is placed (I tried other locations, same result), its presence makes it impossible for text to appear alongside the box. I was hoping to be able to spot the source of the problem by opening the edit box for the template here, but I don't see anything in the contents that could be causing the problem -- so it must be something in the underlying code. Can somebody familiar with the coding for templates please take a look and make whatever change is needed to resolve the problem? Thanks. Cgingold 16:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to place text in the article next to the box or move the box next to specific text? Not sure I understand the problem. Publicus 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose to add Operation Ivory Coast to the campaignbox. Do you think it is relevant ? Rob1bureau 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we add Battle of Hoang Sa. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I surrounded the template code in HTML comments because the template was broken. I do not have the knowledge (or time) to attempt to fix it. I ask that someone find the error in the code. I also removed the two horizontal rules, and a nowiki area which were pointless (The contents said to 'Insert non-formatted text here'). If anyone believes that I should not have made this edit, please tell me on my talk page (and post the reason here as well). Rabbitfang (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Edit reverted back two. The edit immediately before mine was the one that (purposely) broke the template. Rabbitfang (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose to add this battle to the template, is not a big engagement (platoon level) but is the first U.S.-PAVN regulars.--Demostene119 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be little in the way of managing the enormous operations bloat that is occurring for this campaign box. Some operations are relatively minor and obscure, and many follow typically the same generic "pattern" of time, date with scant detail. I'd suggest condensing some "operation" battles into more managable articles, such as the article on Con Thien and the Hill Fights, or otherwise just remove it from the much more important timeframes/battles/offensives. Remember that the vast majority of this war did not occur in these operations either given it was an "engagement" style of warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A bicyclette (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The text notes that five F-4s were lost, not three noted in the template. 72.193.159.176 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--B dash (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If there is some logic to the template's handling of this, then it is not clear.
There should be a statement within the "noinclude" section which clarifies this matter when you come here to edit.
Operational names are italicized; that's normal.
But other things are as well, inexplicably.
And then the USS Mayaguez is not.
Varlaam (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above question was posted 8 years ago but has never received a response. I too was puzzled by what I saw in the navbox, in particular by the use of bolding with no apparent rhyme or reason. This should be explained to & for readers, not just for editors. I sure hope somebody will take a moment to respond to these questions. Please be good enough to ping me when you reply. Thanks! Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anomalous+0 I believe the bolding is intended to indicate major/decisive battles/operations, lesser battles/operations are not bolded. Operations should all be italicized. Mayaguez Incident is under naval operations, which is arguable whether it should be there or under 1975. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I was kind of guessing something along those lines, but how exactly is the distinction decided. I mean, many are fairly obvious, but others less so. In any event, the reason for bolding should be explained for readers. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anomalous+0 I believe the bolding is intended to indicate major/decisive battles/operations, lesser battles/operations are not bolded. Operations should all be italicized. Mayaguez Incident is under naval operations, which is arguable whether it should be there or under 1975. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Could someone kindly explain why the following articles, Buddhist Uprising & Phoenix Program, are considered "Military engagements". I really don't see how either can be properly described as a "Military engagement". (I suspect there may be one or two others somewhere in that very long list... ) If this were a timeline of events, etc. during the war, their inclusion would be obvious, as would any number of other articles. Why should they be included in this particular list? Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Further to the discussion above, I’ve added an edit note as guidance for additions. However, as the divide between major and not-so-major engagements is a bit subjective, I suggest limiting the bolding to the phases and section headings only. Thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)