Talk:List of United States servicemembers and civilians missing in action during the Vietnam War (1961–1965)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Mztourist in topic Split article
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of United States servicemembers and civilians missing in action during the Vietnam War (1961–1965) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Notability
editI don't think an article of thousands of names really counts as notable or relevant. ypnypn (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are entitled to your opinion, I don't think that List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, List of other fictional United States Presidents or Mesivta Zichron Baruch is notable or relevant, but if someone wants to put in the time and effort and it has passed initial review then I'm not going to complain about it, I just won't bother looking at it. I would of course argue that this list is relevant as it mirrors the chronological development of the Vietnam War, shows the extent of the losses of men and materiel from the US perspective and provides a factual background to the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Split article
editSplit - Article should be split into one article per sortable table due to article length.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that its too long and 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 are all big years and the (already long) article will become unmanageable. But I think splitting it just into each year diminishes the continuity so I am thinking it should be split into 1961-67 and 1968-75. Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The article is over 400 kB. Splitting it in less than 5 articles will likely not sufficiently address the issue of length.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- In that case I will split it into 1961-65, 1966-68, 1969-71 and 1972-5 Mztourist (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The article is over 400 kB. Splitting it in less than 5 articles will likely not sufficiently address the issue of length.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)