Talk:1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing

Vietminh

If we are all interested in history, then we need to be precise. There is no such thing as the Vietcong they were called the Vietminh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstimson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Vietminh was pre 1954. Vietcong is the common name for the NLF. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GA on Hold

I am placing this article on Hold until the following issues are addressed adequately:

1. One of the few problems I can see in this article are the lack of references. For an article this size, more than 7 references are needed. See if at least 10 can be found, and inline-cited.

   Hi. I think I have gotten some more books for you. Unfortunately, the bombings were not planned in particular detail, so most books have the info, except that it is in excerpts of 2 pages, so each book is only reffed one distinct time. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Everthing else seems fairly good, but it is possible that the lead might need to be broken down a bit; it is a bit bulky. The previous is not a necessity however, it is just a suggestion based on my observations.

   I broke this into two, so that hte politcal implications were separate.

Feel free to leave me a message when concerns are addressed. Cheers, and best of luck making the needed improvements. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

As a result in an increase in references, and some improvements to the lead, I have passed this article. the possible improvements I stated in the above hold section still stand, however - more refs would be nice, and the lead, while better, may need some slight tweaks to its actual length and weight. Congratulations to all those involved in improving this article to Good Article standard. Any questions or comments should be directed to my talk page. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I made a few minor changes and corrections, and I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Make sure the article continues to maintain its high quality, ensuring that all new information is properly sourced. Happy editing! Nehrams2020 00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

References in popular media

I'm not sure if this fits in the article, but Pham Duy wrote a popular song which eulogized Quoc, called Huyền Sử Người Mang Tên Quốc (Epic of a Man Named Quoc) [1](English). One of the lines recalled "You soared up to smash the tyrants". DHN (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Norodom palace

The palace was not called Independence Palace at the time of the bombing. It was Norodom Palace. After it was bombed, it was ordered demolished and the new Independence Palace was built in its place (now called Reunification Palace). This appears to be a significant material error/issue with the article. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)